Talk:Newman's energy machine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Source of Newman power is magnetic induction current NOT electric conduction current

Magnetic pressure	Magnetic field	Acceleration
The efficient use of a battery's electrical capacity depends on the largest pressure (c.f. energy density) that can be produced from the smallest battery drain. The pressure that works the best here is magnetic pressure $\mathbf {P} _{\mathbf {B} }$, which is proportional to the magnetic field squared $\mathbf {B} ^{2}$. As the electrical circuit of the Newman motor opens and closes, the magnetic pressure $\mathbf {P} _{\mathbf {B} }$ jumps and falls. With this, Newman's motor can rotate magnets remotely. youtube link	If the voltage $V$ is increased in proportion to the length $\mathbf {l}$ and electrical resistance $\Omega$ of the wire, the magnetic field $\mathbf {B}$ produced can increase proportionally without changing current $I$. That's the purported reason why muscle builder Joseph Newman chose to build a bigger machine, so that even with small current $I$ from low-capacity 9V batteries, he can still switch on/off enough magnetic field $\mathbf {B}$ to turn a 2000 lb magnet-weighted rotary. youtube link	For a given current, the total magnetic field $\mathbf {B}$ can grow in proportion to the length of wire $l$, the wire's resistance $\Omega$, and the input voltage $V$. Therefore magnetic pressure on each part of the magnet $\mathbf {P} _{\mathbf {B} }$, in addition to its kinetic energy, is proportional to the square of the battery's voltage $V^{2}$. The angular momentum extracted by the Newman machine can be used to power electrical generators, and in smaller versions, they can power fans. youtube link
Magnetic pressure $\mathbf {P} _{\mathbf {B} }$ can be increased without a change in velocity of charges $\mathbf {v}$. Therefore rpm of the magnet can be increased proportionally to magnetic field and the voltage. The gains in magnets torque must come from the transfer of angular momentum. Physical law is not violated by our ignorance about the possible source the angular momentum. Often, discoveries that supposedly defy physical law merely require the addition of a new physical law that defies our conceptions of what physical law ought to be.

Kmarinas86 (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How it fools you

Here's a message posted on a message board about how his machine doesn't work. I don't quite understand the explanation though.

“ After wading through that missive, it is rather obvious what Newman's machine is. It is a giant magnet which can freely rotate within a coil of wires. It is essentially a conventional generator.The rational person immediately realizes that the magnet weighs 700 pounds. Spinning it up (manually in this case) transforms it into a rather massive flywheel. A magnetic flywheel surrounded a lot of conductor. ”

“ And what happens when you have a conductor in a moving magnetic field? That's right, you get current. Enough current to power a load. And, given how massive and powerful the magnet was, way more current than the dinky batteries he had connected to it. ”

I just don't understand how it keeps turning after you spin it, I thought it would do a revolution or two and then stop. I know how a generator works, it uses something usually water to spin the conductor between the two poles of a magnet, generating electricity, but doesn't it require water to keep pushing it to keep it going. Take for example the alternator in your car, the gas needs to keep spinning it to power your car's battery.

• The first thing is that it has a commutator. The second thing is that the magnet in Newman's motor rotates parallel to the coil, thus producing minimal current inside the coil as a result of the spin. Newman believes the magnetic field produced inside the coil comes from the conductor material and not the current. If you look at his videos on video.google.com and the videos of people like me who have made similar machines, you'll see how the rod that carries the magnet has the ends going through the coil as opposed being perpendicular to the coil.

1. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=newman+motor&sitesearch=
2. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=newman+motor&search=Search
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs0jsF8X7ys (my psuedo-Newman motor)

“ Basically what he's created is an enormous DC motor. Apply enough current to the wire, and the magnet will spin up. Spin the magnet up, and current will flow out the wire. ”

I'm pretty sure I'm going to get an answer telling me why I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be good for generating electricity? All you have to do is spin the thing and it will put out current for a long time, even if the batteries don't start or maintain the spinning. Newman makes wild claims about this machine, saying "We'll be to go to planets and make any elements we need, blah blah blah" I've heard that his real motivation seems to be making money off of selling items to promote his machine. Either that, or he is deluded enough to actually believe his machine works. The snare (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Those claims about being able to travel though space have to do with his explanation of matter as being a gyroscopic particle. Also, while he may make money off of his machine, on the face of it, it doesn't appear to me that the money is being used to pay for a lavish lifestyle, or a family even. I built a Newman machine that does something, but I cannot prove that it works the way Newman claims his does.Kmarinas86 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmjaqTsTvT4 (a magnet spins inside glass of water when placed next to an operating Newman machine)
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPn7FJdE6zI (another example of a magnet spinning at a distance from a Newman Machine)
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u__1Zu9zGvc (a purported demonstration of a 100 volt light being powered by a Newman machine without altering the input current from 4 9V batteries)

I'm still a little confused about how you're answering my questions about how it rotates for so long and if this thing actually IS a good electric generator, since all you have to do is spin it manually once and it will produce current for quite a while. Those videos are just of his machine allegedly producing "free energy" but it still doesn't answer what I'm trying to find out. The snare (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• It is good for generating electricity. This is how it works.... It switches current on and off through a coil of high inductance. Because of the high inductance, the current can produce a rather large amount of magnetic flux. This magnetic flux switches on and off to turn a magnet. It operates much like how a person is pushed on swing. The magnet is spun on the horizontal axis so that it doesn't produce a voltage. As the inductance is increased for a given voltage (by increasing the length and turns of the coil), the current drops as the resistance of the coil rises. The power used drops while the magnetic flux, and therefore the energy transfered to the magnet, per current is increased. The efficiency here is only limited necessarily by the inductance of the coil. The higher the inductance, the higher the efficiency. The higher inductance is due greater utilization of charge momentum (current times distance), as current is carried through many miles of wire in Newman's motor. At any given moment, a given current will involve more charge provided that the extent of that current is over a large wire, hence the magnetic flux.Kmarinas86 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Patent Number?

The article claims that he was granted a patent, but I can't find any evidence of it. What is the patent number? (11 June 2007)

According to the show I saw of him on the Science (Discovery Science) channel he has been granted numerous foreign patents, but no US patent. The snare (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Conditioning

The conditioning seems to be a movable Bloch wall

Tests

The link makes it sound as if the National Capital Area Skeptics did the test. However, staff of the National Bureau of Standards did the testing and National Capital Area Skeptics just prepared the report.

I remember that. That was after I had bought Newman's book (if I can find it, it may be useful for a citation or two, but then I guess it qualifies as "original work"), and Newman was sending me newsletters. He claimed that the NBS refused to let him observe the tests, that they neglected to remove a bolt that had grounded a critical component for shipping, so the test wasn't valid (he claimed). I remember he also claimed that much of the energy from the device was emitted as radiofrequency emissions, so it wasn't practical to simply "connect the output to the input" as James Randi suggested. -Amatulic 05:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If that were true, then it would be extremely dangerous and a definite violation of FCC regs. There is extremely little energy in the radio waves your cell phone, AM/FM radio, etc. receive. RF emissions strong enough to be used practically as a source of energy for anything but the tiniest of devices will cause tissue damage to anybody nearby. Saying it any more politely wouldn’t do it justice: Newman is blowing smoke up your ass. — NRen2k5 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank User:ESoule for finally providing a definitive reference for my comment above.

And NRen2k5, I believe you are incorrect: Just as broadband light causes far less damage than narrowband (laser) light having the same energy flux, broadband RF with energy spread out across the spectrum would cause little or no damage compared to narrowband RF. -Amatulic 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And I believe your analogy is incorrect. Laser doesn't cause damage becaue the light is confined to a small part of the colour spectrum. It causes damage because of its energy being focused on a very small point. And back to the original point about Newman claiming his machine uses RF to work its magic: That's totally unsubstantiated. To put it bluntly, it's BS. — NRen2k5 11:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is possible to communicate with profanity. Such expressions as "B.S." are totally unnecessary. And if one understands precisely how Joseph Newman's motor/generator operates, is it not "magic". However, it is revolutionary.

Following extensive testing of Newman prototypes, physicist Dr. Roger Hastings concluded, "Significant rf power is generated by the motor (primarily in the ten to twenty megahertz range)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

POV

Significant non-NPOV content has been added here since the last POV cleanup. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm tagging it as {{POV-check}} again, as well - this article needs some serious work. Considering the current sensitivity about critical bio articles, I may put this article up for deletion if not improved soon. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced

Being a bio article, and especially because of the negative tone of the article, this article needs to be properly cited using reliable sources. A few links in the external links section just doesn't cut it. I'm giving it about a week and then I'm going to go through it with my scissors or nom. it for deletion. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

Is anyone else even with a basic engineering background angered by seeing this charlatan on the Discovery Channel the other day? He offers absolutely no supporting facts and makes wild claims. While making these claims he jumbles up even the simplest electrical terms. Should probably change the title of this article from "Joseph Newman (Inventor)" to "Joseph Newman (Charlatan)".

In response to the above: "If the Newman machine works, this is one that's workin'." WHAT!? Are you serious!? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. That is not how to prove anything. I'm appalled that this is being taken seriously. If you can show me PROOF that this....cobbled together box of bunk and hokum can actually create energy, then maybe I'll start taking it more seriously. Until then, good day, sir.

See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDPPWyVswMQ - Unsigned

1. Please separate your replies from the comments you’re replying to. (I’ve taken the liberty of doing this for you this time.)
2. Please sign and date your comments.
3. The system in that YouTube movie is powered by an outside source, whether the man shooting the video understands that or not. The “Newman machine” part of the circuit is nothing more than a cobbled-together electric motor.
   — NRen2k5 05:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also in response to the above: In the video shown at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2699190582411275088&hl=en Joseph Newman uses a bank of 9volt Energizer transistor batteries connected in series (not in parallel) to provide the voltage necessary to generate a powerful magnetic field in his 7,500-lb energy machine. During the hour-long test, the batteries never heat up. The Energizer Corporation states that such 9volt transistor batteries are intended for very low-load requirements such as smoke detectors; even small toys can quickly drain such transistor batteries that are not designed to handle loads of any significance. Yet, those same 9volt transistor batteries in series are capable of turning the Newman energy machine's 1,650-lb rotary [1,200-lb shaft and 450-lb flywheel] at 30+ rpm throughout the hour-long test. I have personally attempted to turn that 1,650-lb rotary from a dead stop and, with both hands grabbing one end of that rotary, it takes all of my strength to barely turn it one revolution. How can that same 1,650-lb rotary spin at 30+ rpm for an hour using only 9volt transistor batteries in series -- batteries that never heat up? Can a demonstration connecting 9volt transistor batteries to a conventional motor (whose rotary has the same torque requirement as the rotary of the Newman energy machine) be performed such that the rotary of that conventional motor will turn at 30+ rpm for an hour without heating up the 9volt transistor batteries. If not, why not? If so, then please provide the make and model of that conventional motor than can perform as the Newman energy machine performs in the above video. I believe that Joseph Newman has discovered a means to harness the voltage of the input source such that it maximizes the mechanical torque and electrical output of his motor/generator, recharges the batteries during its operation, and prevents the batteries from heating up. In my opinion, Joseph Newman is not a "charlatan" but a major inventor. It is my conclusion that the real source of the energy needed to turn the 1,650-lb rotary of the Newman energy machine comes from the atomic domains of the copper conductor within the machine and not from the small 9volt transistor batteries connected in series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Wibipedia. If you believe him on the basis of his demonstrations, then you probably believe in magic as well. — NRen2k5 00:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The numerous scientists and engineers such as Dr. Roger Hastings who have tested and endorsed Joseph Newman's technology do not "believe in magic". They utilized the scientific method to confirm that the technology operates as stated by its inventor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) 01:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There are an interesting series of televised broadcasts and interviews compiled at site: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1610087835473512086&hl=en which include the CBS Evening News interview with Dr. Roger Hastings, a physicist who conducted extensive testing on Newman energy machines and who vigorously endorsed Newman's work.

Dr. Roger Hastings has a Ph.D. in Physics, University of Minnesota, 1975; MS in Physics, University of Denver, 1971; BS in Physics, University of Denver, 1969.

Dr. Hastings was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Virginia, 1977-77 with research in organic superconductors and the physical properties of solutions of macroions and viruses. Dr. Hastings has been a Principal Physicist with the UNISYS Corporation. As a consultant, Dr. Hastings also designs electric motors for other corporations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the text of his “endorsement” and an overview of his “tests” for discussion. — NRen2k5 00:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The above video.google URL features the CBS Evening News interview with Dr. Roger Hastings in which he endorses Joseph Newman's technology. The following is one of several endorsements (some of which are lengthy) written by Dr. Hastings:

"DECLARATION BY DR. ROGER HASTINGS, PhD DECLARATION FOLLOWING TESTING OF 5,000 LB AND 900 LB UNITS CONSTRUCTED BY JOSEPH W. NEWMAN

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

"1) The electrical energy output is measured at more than four times the electrical energy input. [Note: This does not violate the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy if one considers the source of the additional output to be the conductor coil in accordance with E = mc^2.]

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

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

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

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

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

[Signed] Dr. Roger Hastings, PhD. Principal Physicist, Unisys Corporation Former Associate Professor of Physics North Dakota State University" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What is Dr. Hastings' own finding as to the source of the "free" energy in the system? Care to provide links to some more of his actual endorsements? — NRen2k5 12:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS OF JOSEPH NEWMAN'S ENERGY GENERATOR by Dr. Roger Hastings, Ph.D.

Abstract.

The author has made numerous measurements on the Energy Machines developed by Joseph Newman. The machines are large, air core, permanent magnet motors. [Note: Other designs have been constructed as well.] The most important design rule specified by the inventor is that the length of wire in the motor coil be very long; preferably long enough so that the switching time between current reversals is shorter than the time required for propagation of the current wavefront through the coil. Various models contain up to 55 miles of wire, with air core coil inductances of up to 20,000 Henries. The permanent magnet armatures have very large magnetic moments. Thus the motors exhibit high torque with low current inputs. The motors generate large back current spikes consisting of pulsed rf in the 10-20 MHz frequency range. These spikes provide large mechanical impulses to the rotor, energize fluorescent tubes placed across the motor, and tend to charge the dry cell battery pack. The total generated energy ---- consisting of mechanical work, mechanical friction, ohmic heating, and light ---- is many times larger than the battery input energy.

Newman's theories and machines will be described. Measurements indicating net energy gain from the devices will be presented. A phenomenological mathematical description of the motor will also be presented. Finally, the author will present his personal impressions of Newman's work.

Newman's Theory.

Joseph Newman became interested in electromagnetic energy some 35 years ago, and began a self-study program. After searching standard texts for a mechanical description of electromagnetic interactions, he concluded that no such description existed. Newman decided that he would have to generate his own mechanical theory of electromagnetism, and over the following several years he evolved his gyroscopic particle theory. This theory, or model, states that all matter and energy is composed of a single elementary spinning particle which always moves at the speed of light. [See diagrams at: <http://www.josephnewman.com/more-info.html>http://www.josephnewman.com/more-info.html ]

The gyroscopic particle has mass, and it can neither be created or destroyed. All energy conversions, in this theory, involve an exchange of gyroscopic particles. E = mc^2 is the expression of this concept, and simply represents an accounting of gyroscopic particles during an energy conversion.

Electric and magnetic fields consist of gyroscopic particles flowing at the speed of light along the field lines. When an electric or magnetic field is created, the particles initially come from the materials which energized the field. For example, when a battery is connected to a wire, gyroscopic particles flow at the speed of light down the wire, and they tend to align the gyroscopic particle flow fields of the electrons in the wire. The electric gyroscopic particle flow field extends outside the wire creating the circumferential magnetic field of the wire. The energy in the magnetic field is Nmc^2, where N is the number of particles in the field, and m is the mass of an individual particle. This energy, or these particles, came from the electrons of the copper.

Thus, Newman considers the current flowing in the wire to be a catalyst which energy to emanate from the atoms of the wire. He claims that he has developed a mechanism whereby field energy can be pumped out of the copper atoms in the wire, thereby reducing their mass without consuming the voltage source which has supplied the catalytic current flow. Since the mass is consumed totally, there is no pollution in this process. One gram mass, if totally consumed, could supply enough energy to power a home for one thousand years. Newman describes his theory and its applications in his book, THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN.

Description of Newman Motors.

Newman's motors may be described as two-pole, single phase, permanent magnet armature, DC motors. That is, the armature consists of a single permanent magnet which either rotates or reciprocates within a single coil of copper wire. The coil is energized with a bank of dry cell, carbon zinc batteries. In the rotating models, which will be emphasized in this paper, the battery voltage to the coil is reversed each half cycle of rotation by a mechanical commutator attached to the shaft of the rotating armature. Motor operation is sensitive to the angle at which the voltage is switched, and this is optimized experimentally. On some models, the commutator also interrupts the voltage several times per cycle, creating a pulsed input to the coil.

The coils are constructed with a very large number of turns of copper wire. In all models, the coil inductive reactance is much larger than the coil resistance at operating speed. However, the coil resistance is large enough so that even in the locked rotor condition, very little current flows through the coil. The motors typically draw less than ten milliampere so that small capacity batteries (e.g., 9 volt transistor batteries) can be used in series for the power supply. Self resonant frequencies (frequency at which the coil inductive reactance equals the coil distributed capacitive reactance) are typically on the order of the armature rotation frequency. The permanent magnet armature is very strong, and TIGHT COUPLING TO THE COIL is emphasized in Newman's later models [emphasis added]. His early models used up to 700 pounds of ceramic magnets, while later models used smaller armatures made with powerful neodymium-boron-iron magnets. The commutator is protected by fluorescent tubes placed across the motor. Enough tubes are placed in series so that the battery voltage will not break them down. When the coil is switched, the tubes are lit by the resulting high voltage, minimizing arcing across the commutator.

Newman's Motors exhibit the following extraordinary characteristics:

1) High torque is realized with very little input current and very little input power. The battery input power is typically several times smaller than the measured frictional power losses occurring when the armature rotates at its operating speed. His motors are at least ten times more efficient than commercial electric motors (perform the same work with one tenth the input power.)

2) The batteries last much longer than would be expected for the current input. It has been demonstrated that "dead" dry cell batteries will charge up while operating a Newman Motor, and subsequently be able to deliver significant power to normal loads (e.g., lights). The batteries fail by internal shorting rather than by depletion of their internal energy.

3) Significant rf power is generated by the motor (primarily in the ten to twenty megahertz range). The rf is a high voltage relative to ground, and will light fluorescent or neon tubes placed between the motor and ground in addition to lighting the tubes placed across the motor coil. The rf current flows through the entire system, and has been measured calorimetrically to have an rms value many times larger than the battery input current.

PHENOMENOLOGICAL THEORY

A phenomenological theory of operation is suggested here, which involves the following sequence of events:

1) The battery is switched across the coil and a current wavefront (gyroscopic particles) propagates into the coil at a speed determined by the coil's propagation time constant.

2) Before the wavefront completes its journey through the coil, the battery voltage is switched open. At this point the coil contains a charge equal to the current times the on-time.

3) When the switch is opened, all of this charge leaves the coil in a very short time, creating a very large current pulse in the coil.

4) The magnetic field generated by this current pulse (gyroscopic particle flow) propagates out to the permanent magnet armature, and gives it an impulsive torque.

5) The magnet accelerates, and the resulting magnetic field disturbance of the permanent magnet is propagated back to the coil, creating a back-emf. However, by the time this occurs, the switch is open so that the back emf does not impede the current flowing in the battery circuit.

These notions agree qualitatively with the measured waveforms. After one-half cycle of rotation, a charge on the order of 0.01 Coulombs will be contained within the coil. From the oscillograph this is seen to be dumped in a few milliseconds, creating a current of several amps. This current continues to flow for some ten milliseconds before decaying to zero.

Newman's Motor can be described by the following set of equations:

[Note: The following nomenclature is reproduced from ascii text; thus, any vertical displacements in the text are due to conversion from ascii to this format. Miscellaneous text characters have been inserted to assist in vertical alignment.]

CC ,

(1) JÒ + F(Ò) = K(sub t)I sin (Ò)

(2) LI = RI = V(Ò) - K(sub i)Ò sin (Ò)

where:

   J = Rotor Moment of Inertia
   F = Friction and Load Torque
   K(sub t) = Torque Constant
   I = Coil Current
   L = Coil Inductance
   V = Applied Voltage
   K(sub i) = Induction Constant
   Ò = Rotation Angle

The first equation is Newton's second law applied to the rotating magnet, the second is the coil current circuit equation. The voltage is the value applied to the coil within the commutator. If the first equation is multiplied by Ò and the 2nd equation is multiplied by I, and both equations are averaged over one cycle, the sum of the resulting equations gives:

(3) <IV> = <ÒF> + <I^2R> + (K(sub i) - K(sub t) <ÒIsin )

where the brackets indicate a time average over one cycle of rotation.

The term on the left is the power input. The first two terms on the right represent the mechanical power output (combined frictional losses & load power), and the ohmic heating in the coil windings. The last term is zero if the torque constant is equal to the induction constant, as would be the case in a conventional motor. However, as postulated above, if the induction constant is smaller than the torque constant, the last term supplies the negative power.

To view this another way, assume that the input voltage, through the commutator action varies as V = V(sub o)sin (Ò). If we also assume that the rotor angular speed, Ò, is nearly a constant, w, the following expression applies for the motor efficiency:

...............<wF> .......K(sub t)w<Isin Ò> m K(sub t)w (4) E = ______ = __________________ = ___________ ...............<IV> .. .....V(sub o)<Isin Ò> m.... V (sub o)

The following two equations can now be solved for the presumed constant motor speed:

(5) LI + RI = (V(sub o) - K(sub i)w)sin(wt)

(6) <F(w)> = K(sub t)

The solution depends upon the details of the mechanical load function, F(w). If, however, the torque constant and voltage are both very large (as they are in the Newman Motor), then the angular speed is approximately [2]:

.................V(sub o) w apr. = __________ ..................K(sub i)

and the expression for the efficiency becomes:

.................K(sub t) E apr. = __________ ..................K(sub i)

If the torque and induction constants are equal,the motor is nearly one hundred percent efficient. If the torque constant exceeds the induction constant, the efficiency* exceeds 100%.

[*Note: the PRODUCTION efficiency can exceed 100%; the CONVERSION efficiency cannot exceed 100%]

CONCLUSIONS:

Joseph Newman has demonstrated that his Theory is a useful tool by which predictions of circuit function can be made without mathematics. For example, his gyroscopic particles interact as spinning particles (through the cross product of their spins), and this qualitatively describes magnetic induction.

In complicated electromagnetic systems, exact solutions to Maxwell's equations may be difficult or impossible to obtain, while a phenomenological mechanical picture can be visualized to give qualitatively correct results. Mechanical models of electromagnetic interactions were considered essential by scientists of the 19th century. Maxwell originally derived his famous equations by using a mechanical model of the electromagnetic field, and stated the following [3]:

The theory I propose may therefore 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 ... In speaking of the energy of the field, I wish to be understood literally: ALL ENERGY IS THE SAME AS MECHANICAL ENERGY... [Emphasis added.]

Regarding Joseph Newman's Motor, I have no doubt about its performance or about the profound importance of its future applications.

AT THIS TIME IT APPEARS THAT THE FIRST APPLICATIONS WILL BE REPLACEMENTS FOR EXISTING ELECTRIC MOTORS. [Emphasis added.]

Regarding a rigorous mathematical description of the underlying phenomena, it is clear that much effort, both theoretical and experimental, will be required to achieve this end.

REFERENCES:

[1] THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN, Joseph W. Newman author; Joseph Newman Publishing Company, 1984.

[2] The precise condition for this approximation to be valid is that the locked rotor torque be much larger than the applied mechanical torque at speed multiplied by one plus the square of the ratio of inductive reactance and resistance. This condition applied to some of Newman's Motors, and in particular to the most recent small volume devices. In the larger motors the voltage is applied with a phase shift chosen to optimize efficiency, and it can be shown that Equation 8 still applies in the limit of large inductance.

[3] A DYNAMICAL THEORY OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD. James Clerk Maxwell, T. F. Torrance, ed., Scottish Academic Press Ltd., Edinburgh (1982). [From Maxwell's Presentation to the Royal Society, 1864).

The above was written by Dr. Roger Hastings, Ph.D., for a presentation before a National Conference of the International Tesla Society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement

As it seems to be the case, that AfD will fail, I'll outline my suggestions how to improve the article:

• (the most important one) Move back to Joseph Westley Newman and re-format as biography.
  • Rationale: we have good sources for biography but not for a technical device. We can report the media fuzz about it, but its operation is totally unclear, as only the inventors own description is available
• Accordingly, unnecessary detail in the machine description should be removed or rearranged and rewritten to fit the into a timeline of public appearance or the like
• I'm still unhappy with the photographs, see the rationale in the AfD: It least they should be relabelled as "small DC motor built according to the description ....". I don't think that more can be said about them and I suppose that Kmarinas86 doesn't want to claim overunity operation.

That was thoughtful of you. I have changed the captions in attempt to make them more suitable.Kmarinas86 (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Also -- at least to me -- the photographs aren't totally clear about the operation without some guesswork, it would be better to have one photograph and one drawing series, giving two or four snapshots of one revolution. To make it even clearer, a standard (commutator) 2-pole DC permanent magnet motor can be displayed in the some phases of revolution and a U-I-τ diagram for both machines be given -- always defensively stating, that it applies to a motor built to the description at ....,. not to a Newman machine. We don't have one to test (and shouldn't by NOR) and no engneer ever had one in its lab and published in reliable sources.

Not even NBS? ;)Kmarinas86 (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• The efficency remarks should be carefully rewritten -- I'm finding them rather confusing for now. Of course we have to sift through available references, but as a physicist I must remark that the "critics" position can't be described correctly (as far as the cited critics are aware of the laws of physics). The central claim is the conversion of mass to energy, right? Is there an additional claim, that this conversion works at higher than 100% efficency, i.e. the net energy output ΔE is greater than Δmc²? That doesn't make sense. And the critics being fine with mass energy conversion but doubting its efficency makes even less sense. In physics as we know it, short of using black holes and the likes, mass to energy conversion requires antimatter due to baryon number and lepton number conservation laws. I'd sassume that the over 100% number refers to electrical-to-mechanical conversion and the percentages above 100 are claimed to come from mass-to-energy conversion -- but of course as a serious crackpot, Newman is free to claim whatever he wants. Only we should concentrate on the critics, who've git their school physics right.

Since what is "electro-mechanical" efficiency isn't clear to some people, I have change the lead to something less "percentagy".Kmarinas86 (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Naudin chapter and reference must go, per extremist sources, see also my RfC at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

--12:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Is there an additional claim, that this conversion works at higher than 100% efficency, i.e. the net energy output ΔE is greater than Δmc²?" No. Newman would claim that Δmc² is negative, since it would convert mass into energy. As a result, Newman thinks the machine's output isn't limited by the electrical input power *from the batteries*, but only by it's ability to convert mass *from the wire*-into-energy, such that the "electrical-to-mechanical conversion" can exceed 100% but not "mass-to-energy" conversion.Kmarinas86 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So you agree, that the current formulation in the intro is misleading? I'd consider it highly confusing. Do you know which critic's opinion is referred to in the intro and what this critic actually said?

It obviously can be improved. Saying it can't is just an excuse for doing nothing. On it now.Kmarinas86 (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've accepted that the article doesn't go to /dev/nul -- I'll suggest a formulation very soon now. --Pjacobi (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And another important point: Do we have reliable sources for testimonies at http://www.josephnewman.com/AFFIDAVITS_and_EVALUATION.html? Without confirmation from reliable sources we can't use them?

--Pjacobi (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS - "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."Kmarinas86 (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I assumed the editor of that webpage was Newman itself, but that wasn't good enough. Anyways, I found a replacement source for that (Washington Post). ;)Kmarinas86 (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. Do we have independent assurance that the supporters listed on Newman's site really wrote this supporting statements and really have the education and job claimed? (Note that I'd guess that there are no outright lies on Newman's page, but independent sources would be a lot better). --Pjacobi (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Another point: What exactly is the purpose of the large table of the large motor? --Pjacobi (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's there to tell the reader what characteristics a large Newman machine would have such as a high inductance, high resistance, long copper wires, and batteries connected in series.Kmarinas86 (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider it very helpful. Especially as in this stage it is mere speculation whether this will be a Newman Machine (producing net energy) or simply a strange DC motor. ---Pjacobi (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Step 1

I'd propose moving to the old lemma (Joseph Newman (inventor)) and re-ordering according this scheme

1. Biography (general)
2. History/timeline of the Energy Machine struggle
3. Description of device
4. Description of theory

In addition to all points already mentioned, I'd like to emphasize the problem, that the article now starts and give focus on those aspects, which are least covered by reliable source. Markedly the details of the device description not only are on JosephNewman.com but also published there with the caveat Note: The views expressed herein may or may not represent the position of Joseph Newman and, as informational material, are provided here from submissions by other individuals interested in the technology.

--Pjacobi (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Mostly directed at User:Kmarinas86, but don't hold back anybody, if you can answer them.

1. What would you consider the bes (set of) descriptions of the Machine, both in terms of details and in being authorative in the sense of going either back to Newman or to published independent tests?

1. Obviously if we could contact Newman ourselves and get his machine public again, then authorities might provide exacting description as to how the device operates. If his machine was already patented, I would bet that Newman would be ok with publicly disclosing absoutely everything of the invention, just as anyone would had they made a living off of inventing things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmarinas86 (talk • contribs) Pjacobi (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kmarinas, my question was meant to be much more down-to-earth: Where should I start reading?

And just for the record, I (unsurprisingly) sincerely belief that not much new technology will come out of Newman's invention. Even leaving all the contradictions to physics aside, there is a much more pragmatic argument: Any electric motor design which "only" cut backs losses by 50% (going from 90% to 95% efficency) would be of outmost commercial importance. You would be able to go (with bodyguards and lawyers if you prefer) into the development centers of Siemens, EMD, or Bombardier, demonstrate your working prototype and leave as a very rich man.

--Pjacobi (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RI^2 = heat losses

RI*(meters/ohm) = current times distance = current momentum

Current momentum can be determined by integrating current along the length of wire (with dl as the derivative length). It can be found in the Biot-Savart law.

To maximize current momentum / heat losses, the following should be maximized:

RI*(meters/ohm) / RI^2 = (meters/ohm)/I = cross-sectional area of wire / (resistivity * current)

But current momentum produces the magnetic field, the square of which is proportional to its energy. So to maximize the energy of the magnetic field / heat loss.

R^2*I^2*(meters/ohm)^2 / RI^2 = R*(meters/ohm)^2 = distance^2/ohm

Just use a longer wire! I guess the mere acceleration of two opposite charges converts mass into energy, causing electromagnetic radiation. Even the simple movement of a charge can cause a magnetic field, causing acceleration, and therefore radiation! If the wire is so short, that is like shorting the battery (e.g. connecting them in series) and not using the charges to your advantage.Kmarinas86 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I'd like to prune back references which didn't really give authorative support to the sentence they are attached or could be replaced by better references. A strinking example is "Will Joseph Newman's energy machine revolutionize the world?, Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 14 July 1986. Retrieved 13 December 2007. (highlight)". This is so extraordinarily out of place:
   1. "Very simply put" is rather too simply.
   2. The article only reproduces Newmans description in shorter terms, it isn't an independent source
   3. This ref is attached to the "Whenever the circuit is closed, power sent to the coil by the voltage source creates a force against the permanent magnet(s), which causes the rotor to turn". It doesn't say that. But the sentence is just plain vanilla physics/EE which can be sourced from any textbook.

1) If it is "just plain vanilla physics/EE", I can show plenty of articles having this kind of stuff such as magnetic field and voltage which has basic scientific fact that is left uncited, cause it's not like we want to prove every obvious little thing ;).Kmarinas86 (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is fine with me too. What I want to say is, that the newspaper sources can give evidence for the controversy and the notability, but next to no evidence for the device description. Either they say something which is in vague accordance to textbook physics (which then really doesn't need a reference, and if pressed something better can easily be found) or something in vague contradiction to textbook physics -- which then isn't clear enough to quote, better go back to Newman himself. --Pjacobi (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1. @Kmarinas86: Which description did you use to build your motor in the your photographs? Did it use a commutator or only an on/off-switch?

Very good question. In fact, my device has no commutator, only on and off. So the description must change.Kmarinas86 (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Does Newman claim that the use of permanent magnets is essential?

http://www.josephnewman.com/Analysis_by_Dr.Hastings.html ("The author has made numerous measurements on the Energy Machines developed by Joseph Newman. The machines are large, air core, permanent magnet motors. [Note: Other designs have been constructed as well.]") http://www.josephnewman.com/Endorsement_by_Expert.html ("Applicant [Joseph Newman] used a permanent magnet D.C. motor as a generator.") It appears a vast majority of them are permanent magnets. It's probably not the case that a rotor coil is used in a significant number of Newman machines.Kmarinas86 (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Does Newman claim that the use of an electromechanical commutator (in contrast to e.g. a hall sensor, plus timing electronics, plus IGBTs = the usual setup in brushless DC motors) is essential? Maybe the sparks are important )in his opinion)?

--Pjacobi (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In all the designs I hear of, the commutator operates based on the rotation of the shaft. Whether other types have been used as an alternative - I don't know.Kmarinas86 (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some answers

I'm not Kmarinas86 but I'll give it a shot:

1. I'd consider Newman's description most authoritative, obviously, because he invented the thing. I would appreciate seeing a reliable 3rd-party source that describes it, however.
2. No comment, other than it's useful to show references that indicate the machine gained mainstream media attention.
3. I can't speak for Kmarinas86, but it seems he built a motor that matches Newman's functional description (not the physical description of Newman's versions), in that it has the same elements: a stationary coil, a rotating magnet, a power supply, and a commutator on the shaft. Kmarinas's YouTube videos indicate that his "commutator" is simply a bent shaft that makes intermittent contact with the power supply wire as the magnet rotates.
4. Good question. From what I recall of Newman's writings, the "energy" output derives from mass loss in the coil, and the magnet is there to produce a strong field. It's been years since I read his book, though (and I don't know where it is anymore). I always wondered if an electromagnet could be substituted instead. That is, I believe, essentially what an AC motor is (no magnets, just coils), only in this case being driven by a DC source.
5. Not sure if the sparks are important. I'd say the sparks, as well as the current spikes in the coil, releases RF energy that Newman has claimed should be counted as part of the machine's power output. -Amatulic (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering! But I have to get more of the fine print:

ad 1: And which of Newman's descriptions? Do I have to buy the book?

ad 3: Is "commutator" used in technical English also for an on-off switch? From usage in German I've extrapolated, that reversing the polarity would be required to make something a "commutator". (If I'm not mistaken, Newman uses a something that commutates and interrupts the current)

ad 5: Hell ya, the "current spikes" now you mention it. In plain vanilla textbook physics a coil produces voltage spikes (the capacitors do the spiky current thing) -- any specific link why Newman thinks otherwise?

--Pjacobi (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I am only aware of Newman's book description. The book might be found in a library.

3. A commutator is for changing the frequency or direction of current, according to Random House Dictionary. Changing frequency can be accomplished by an on-off switch.

5. I don't know Newman's mind, so I don't have an answer for that. -Amatulic (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Failed GAC

I have failed this articles' application for 'Good Article' status in the main for reasons of verifiability. Being a subject of a scientific nature - and being (as it most certainly is) firmly in the realms of pseudoscience - it is essential that the references come from a wide base of sources. The sources in support of this strange machine come almost entirely from the inventor and non-peer-reviewed sources. WP:V is very clear on the requirement not just to have plenty of references - but that they be reliable.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources explains that a red flag is claims contradicted by, or with no support within, the relevant academic community. - of which this is certainly one. WP:Fringe theories says In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independant of the theory. - the references provided here mostly fail the "individual that is independant of the theory" test.

I also have grave concerns (as were expressed at the AfD discussions) that the images presented here represent WP:OR. It is of concern to me that the individual editor who has contributed by far the most edits to the article has evidently gone to considerable effort to construct examples of the machines described here. This strongly suggests a non-neutral point of view on what can only be described as a very controversial topic.

The article tosses around pseudo-scientific terms such as 'gyroscopic particles' without any effort to define what these things are. We simply cannot allow such undefined terms to appear in the encyclopedia without further explanation. Once again, referencing the works of the sole proponent (in non-peer-reviewed journals) does not rise to the level of adequate referencing. But even beyond that - we need some further explanation as to what these particles are supposed to be - and perhaps explanation as to why they have entirely escaped the notice of mainstream science.

I'm not quite sure what it takes to make this article work. It is really quite non-notable as a device - perhaps it should be reduced to a paragraph or so and inserted into Perpetual motion or some similar article. At the very least we should drastically reduce our reliance on the statements of the inventor. If we were to remove 90% of those references in order to get some semblence of balance - then remove whatever "facts" become unreferenced as a result - then perhaps we might have something more of a balanced article.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources are split 50%/50%, although the controversial nature of the article makes it look like most of the references are his. Sigh.

Newman's sources (16 footnotes)

1. Hartwell, R. M. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR ROTATING MAGNET NEWMAN MOTORS, JosephNewman.com. 2003. Retrieved 11 December 2007.

3. ^ a b c d e Joseph Newman's Theory, JosephNewman.com. Retrieved 23 October 2007. 10. ^ SECRET OF PHOTO 51, JosephNewman.com. Retrieved 13 December 2007.

13. ^ The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, JosephNewman.com. Retrieved 23 October 2007.

14. ^ Letter from Col. Thomas Bearden, JosephNewman.com. Retrieved 23 October 2007.

16. ^ HARVESTING MACHINE, Google Patents. Filing date: May 31, 1966. Issue date: September 23, 1969. Retrieved 13 December 2007.

17. ^ FIG I VAC, Google Patents. Filing Date: May 27, 1969. Issue Date: 24 November 1970. Retrieved 13 December 2007.

18. ^ AQUATIC RECREATIONAL DEVICE, Google Patents. Filing date: June 30, 1970. Issue date: November 16, 1971. Retrieved 13 December 2007.

19. ^ CIPO - Patent - 922335, Google Patents. Canadian Intellectual Property Office. Issue date: March 6, 1973. Retrieved 13 December 2007.

20. ^ FIGB FIGZ, Google Patents. Filing date: June 25, 1971. Issue date: November 1973. Retrieved 13 December 2007.

21. ^ Simultaneous neck strengthener, neck protector, neck rehabilitator, Google Patents. Filing date: November 3, 1977. Issue date: August 26, 1980. Retrieved 13 December 2007.

22. ^ Vehicle windshield rain deflector system, Google Patents. Filing date: Jan 16, 1978. Issue date: Oct 21, 1980. Retrieved 13 December 2007.

23. ^ Report of the Special Master, issued September 28, 1984. This report was written by William E. Schuyler, Jr. per the August 15, 1984 order of Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia) pursuant to Civil Action No. 83-0001 comprising Joseph Newman's lawsuit against the U.S. Patent Office. Because that lawsuit necessitated on the part of the Court an analysis of complicated issues of fact of a scientific and technical nature, Judge Jackson did not feel technically qualified to make such an analysis. He called upon the U.S.Patent Office and Joseph Newman to each provide up to three nominees for a Court-appointed Special Master who could render a technical recommendation to the Court regarding Joseph Newman's energy machine technology. Subsequently, the Court did not accept Joseph Newman's nominees but did accept one of the U.S. Patent Office's nominees: a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office and electrical engineer (William E. Schuyler, Jr.) with "superb credentials" according to Judge Jackson. In his Report of the Special Master, William Schuyler, Jr. wrote: "Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office and this Court is overwhelming that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external input energy; there is no contradictory factual evidence."

25. ^ THE ORIGINS OF THE PATENT BATTLE, JosephNewman.com. Retrieved 11 December 2007.

30. ^ THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN, JOSEPH NEWMAN PUBLISHING COMPANY. Retrieved 11 December 2007.

32. ^ (WO/1983/000963) ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEM HAVING HIGHER ENERGY OUTPUT THAN INPUT, World Intellectual Property Organization. Published: 31 August 1983. Refused: 18 March 1988. Withdrawn: 9 August 1988. Retrieved 13 December 2007.

Other sources (16 footnotes)

2. ^ Gemperlein, Joyce, PUSHING FOR A PATENT, INVENTOR AWAITS TEST OF ENERGY MACHINE, Philadelphia Inquirer. 15 February 1986. Retrieved 11 December 2007.

4. ^ a b Perpetual Motion: Still Going Around, The Washington Post. 12 January 2000. Retrieved 1 January 2007. (highlight)

5. ^ Hirsch, Jerry, ALCHEMY OR SCIENCE? ENERGY CRISIS ADDS ALLURE TO INVENTORS' POWER SOLUTIONS, Contra Costa Times. 4 March 2001. Retrieved 11 December 2007.

6. ^ The full text of the NBS report (with high-resolution photographs of the device) is available on-line a the web site of National Capita Area.

7. ^ NBS report short-circuits energy machine. (National Bureau of Standards), Science News. 5 July 1986. Retrieved 24 December 2007. (highlight)

8. ^ a b Will Joseph Newman's energy machine revolutionize the world?, Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 14 July 1986. Retrieved 13 December 2007. (highlight)

9. ^ a b c Peterson, Ivan, Science News, Science News. 5 July 1986. Retrieved 24 December 2007. 11. ^ Inventor speaks to LSU audience on controversial "energy machine', The Advocate. 26 February 1986. Retrieved 24 December 2007. (highlight)

12. ^ Man's energy device mired in patent battle, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 9 July 1985. Retrieved 24 December 2007. (highlight)

15. ^ Energy machine test fizzles, but inventor vows, `It works', Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 4 January 1987. Retrieved 13 December 2007.

24. ^ The full text of the NBS report (with high-resolution photographs of the device) is available on-line a the web site of National Capita Area.

26. ^ 99th Congress, 099 Hearings: Senate Committee Meetings by Date (1986), 24 February 1986. Retrieved 11 December 2007.

27. ^ US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Case #88-1312, Newman v Quigg.

28. ^ Viewers assert machine should receive patent, The Advocate. 14 April 1986. Retrieved 11 December 2007.

29. ^ Lemonick, Michael D. Will Someone Build A Perpetual Motion Machine?, Time Magazine. 10 April 2000. Retrieved 11 December 2007.

31. ^ "Beyond Invention" (2004), Internet Movie Database. 12 February 2004. Retrieved 11 December 2004.

Kmarinas86 (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You miss my point. How many of the references IN SUPPORT OF THE DEVICE FUNCTIONING AS CLAIMED IN THE ARTICLE are (a) not by the inventor and (b) from peer reviewed journals (as required by WP:V and WP:Fringe Theories for articles of a scientific nature). Let's take a look at some of these non-Newman references. What about (31)? I honestly don't think that an IMDb report that a television show exists can be used in defense of a statement that Newman appeared on five TV shows and a magazine. All it proves is that "Beyond Invention" is a TV show...something which is unlikely to be denied. What needed referencing was that Newman showed his device on that show...and for that, your only reference is something Newman himself published.\

The reason why I heard of this at all was because Newman was on one of those shows where three versions of his machines was showed. That's a fact. How do you "prove" to someone who hasn't actually got up to watch the show that Newman was on there? Educate them.Kmarinas86 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What?!? You provide a reference that says "Newman was on the show Beyond Invention" - not a reference that says "There really is a show called Beyond Invention"...the latter is of precisely zero relevence to this article. It merely bulks up the aparrent number of references without providing any more insight into the subject of the article. This is true of several of these so-called references. SteveBaker (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's take another one (28) - the first sentence of which says "Few among the crowd at the Louisiana Superdome knew what they were watching, but most felt the federal government should give Joseph Newman a patent on his Revolutionary Energy Machine"...few among the crowd knew what they were watching!!! What does that prove? Number (24) you've put on the "Not by Newman" list - but it contains Newman's patent application. Many of your references are about other devices that Newman invented - we don't even need that stuff in this article - this is an article about an energy machine - it's not a biography of Newman...all of that stuff about his harvesting machine and aquatic recreation device don't belong in the article at all.

When you remove all of the 'junk' references (random newspaper articles and pop.sci TV shows are NOT appropriate references for an article on a scientific topic - see WP:V) - what you wind up with is a bunch of respectable journals saying that the machine doesn't work - stacked up against a pile of articles by the inventor in largely self-published works. The result is a heavily biassed and actually very under-referenced article (despite the large number of entries in the 'References' section) that most certainly doesn't come close to the standard required for a "Good Article". Hence, I cannot in all fairness accept it as such.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The section was deemed non-repairable. Removed.Kmarinas86 (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to concur with SteveBaker. There are problems with OR in the images. The 'Battery pack/acts like an inductor/acts like a capacitor' table is troublesome, as this gives weight to what was really just a passing comment in the NBS report on the electrical characteristics of the coil. (A change in electrical parameters with frequency is quite normal for any coil: at higher frequencies, the coil's reactance reduces the current entering it, and capacitive and skin effect effects start to dominate.) Some of the citations descriptive of the device's operation appear to be to fairly tongue-in-cheek newspaper reports on the goings-on surrounding this story. While that's okay for the underlying story, it's not really for a description of the device which originates from its inventor. The box on the right describes the device as violating the 'Ampere-turns law' (and links to the WP article on Magnetomotive force); I'm not aware of a law by that name, though googling found a few (<10) hits in which the phrase is invoked in a discussion of primary and secondary magnetomotive forces on transformer windings, which doesn't seem relevant here. — BillC ^talk 23:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good to know I'm not alone! I'm going to get rid of the images - I'll take your word for the other problems. I see you have not actually failed the GAC - do you plan on doing so? (My recommendation would be "Yes" - but I'm not actually going to take that step because now I'm editing the article actively, I don't qualify as a reviewer.) SteveBaker (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

62 Kilobytes Too Long

At the time of this posting this discussion article is 62 kilobytes long. I posted the original "Question" sub-heading and I enjoy coming back to visit this discussion forum to see how strongly some people choose to defend this guy and his "free energy machine". But let's all just take a step back for a second, take a deep breath, and remember that we have established long ago the importance of deductive reasoning.

I continue: If the Newman Free Energy Machine has been around since the 80's has had the ability to produce over unity energy, why would Mr. Newman not have won a Nobel prize? Why is it that he can NEVER get it to work properly when credible sources are looking? The answer is because ridiculous, uneducated people don't know any better and those are the people who support him and he makes money off of it. Watch the video on YouTube where he goes on a 5 minute long rant about how he invented the positive displacement pump and instead of showing his machine work as he then proceeds to go over pump flow characteristic charts. He is nothing more than a traveling sideshow (that video takes place at a carnival by the way) which has gotten his 15 minutes of fame (thanks for being all too right, Andy Warhol) and then some. If it works all he would have to do is run the damn thing and let its actions speak for itself, not go on a rant about how the government has impeded his work.

If the above rant didn't help please just look at his other inventions. The brainpower to understand and apply electromagnetic field theory is beyond anyone who is only able to get a patent on a folding utility knife or a glorified wheat thresher by the patent office.

Please, let's all just forget this charlatan and leave him back in the 80's where he belongs like we did with Pepsi Clear. -Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.17.221 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In reading the attacks and insulting comments upon Joseph Newman above, one is tempted to conclude that the above commentator (who has likely never tested a Newman energy machine for himself) is educated beyond his level of intelligence.

In the first place, Joseph Newman has never called his invention a free energy machine. He acknowledges that it costs money to construct the invention and that the atomic domains of the conductor are the source of the additional output energy. Thus, he recognizes that the energy produced by his invention is neither economically or scientifically free. Anyone who labels the machine a free energy device does not understand it. I believe Joseph Newman will win a Nobel prize for his work, assuming he would wish to accept such a prize. The question above about why he can NEVER get it to work properly when credible sources are looking is a question that demonstrates IGNORANCE of the history of the technology. Newman has obtained the signed Affidavits of more than 30 scientists and engineers who did observe, test, and agree that the technology operates as claimed. Physicist Dr. Roger Hastings conducted hundreds of hours of testing on Newman energy machine prototypes and signed sworn Affidavits stating that the invention does produces greater external energy output than external energy input. Those scientists who have endorsed Newman's work are indeed educated and that fact contradicts the statement above that only uneducated people support his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

So why does he call it an "Energy Machine" and not an "electric motor"? If the latter - then we have no argument (except that this article is about a non-notable machine and ought to be deleted).

Newman calls his revolutionary machine an "Energy Machine" because it can function principally as: 1) an electric motor or 2) an electric generator.

As for Hastings et'al - since when did science proceed by "signed affidavits"? If there was something 'real' going on here that was that revolutionary and backed by solid mathematics proceeding from Maxwell's Theory then ANY reputable scientist would write a paper and submit it to a respectable peer-reviewed journal. This is why Wikipedia demands references from peer reviewed journals - those signed affadavits are simply not valid references.

Apparently your argument is that a new technology can ONLY be acknowledged if solid mathematics has embraced it. Fortunately such an argument was not in force in the early 1800s since it would have precluded acknowledgment of Michael Faraday's work. Faraday was not a mathematician, yet his MECHANICAL work was revolutionary. Unlike most sceptics who dismiss Newman's work and who have consistently failed to ever test it for themselves, Dr. Roger Hastings conducted extensive on-site testing of Newman's prototypes. His conclusion are consistent: the technology works. Similarly, Professor of Mathematics Dr. Al Swimmer at Arizona State University has also endorsed Joseph Newman's work and he is focused on developing the mathematics to explain Newman's mechanical discoveries. The point is that new mechanical understandings of how the universe works sometimes precede a mathematical understanding, but that does not diminish the importance off the mechanical understandings and explanations.

Perhaps we should look into this Hastings guy. I'm going to do some digging around.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(followup) Hmmm - that's interesting. It appears that this Hastings person is not entirely what he claims. It's claimed that he works for UniSys and North Dakota State University. Hmmm - well, 30 seconds of Googling reveals: http://www.randi.org/jr/071604an.html#6 - which reports that Hastings does not - nor has ever worked for UniSys - a fact backed up by two separate individuals who checked the Unisys employee registry. I have a friend who works for Unisys - I emailed him to see if he can back this up. It'll be interesting to see what he finds. Meanwhile, I'm removing the claims for whom Hastings works for until we have some actual evidence of that. SteveBaker (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to ask your friend if the job "principal physicist" exists at all, because as far as I can tell, Hastings is the only one with that job title :) Prebys (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do some digging beyond Randi --- whose reliability is subject to question. Years ago, Randi was sent by OMNI Magazine to interview Newman. Prior to the interview, Newman was told by OMNI that they were sending a qualified engineer to test his invention. Newman welcomed the opportunity. When Randi showed up, Newman offered him access to his invention and asked him to monitor voltmeters and ammeters during the testing. Randi said he didn't know how to read such equipment. Newman was very upset to discover that Randi was misrepresented as an engineer instead of an ex-magician. Newman immediately escorted him off his property. Randi's behavior was in contrast to the sincere and open investigations by over 30 scientists and engineers who tested the technology and subsequently endorsed it.

Dr. Roger Hastings was a principal physicist with Sperry-Univac during the time he tested Newman's technology. Sperry-Univac subsequently became UniSys.

A CBS Evening News interview with Dr. Roger Hastings may be viewed at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1610087835473512086&hl=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

OK, I did a little bit of digging beyond Randi, and found this out. In this reference, Hastings gives his educational background and claims to be a "principal physicist" with Unisys (NOT Sperry-Univac). A search for "Principal physicist" and unisys gives ONLY matches about Hastings. In other words, there is no such job title at Unisys. Also, that bio makes no mention of North Dakota State, while others do. Also, since when is "former associate professor" a job title? Finally, searches of "roger hastings unisys" or "roger hastings north dakota state" only yield stuff associated with Joseph Newman. In other words, that seems to be all Hastings does. If he had any legitimate industrial or academic science credentials, there would be lots of stuff about him. This, coupled with he rather egregious physics errors make it clear this guy is misrepresenting himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prebys (talk • contribs) 23:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a single one of the people I've searched for from the list of supporters of Newman have yet shown up to be what they claim. UniSys have explicitly denied that Hastings ever worked for them - and that only left the possibility that he worked for the predecessor of UniSys: Sperry-Univac. If he's now denying that...then there is something very fishy going on.

However, as far as my insider friend can discover, he's not listed anyplace where the UniSys human resources people can find him in their records. That means that not only has he never worked for UniSys - but also that IF he ever worked for Sperry/Univac, he somehow managed to avoid being on their retirement fund lists. That might mean that he was paid as a self-employed consultant or something like that - which would make the statement that he worked for this company a bit of a stretch. But everyone who Newman claims as a supporter that I've looked into has the same kinds of problems. The oft-quoted magnetics expert Sam Taliaferro from the impressive sounding (but non-existant) "Magnetic Engineering Co., in Atlanta, Georgia" (who testified on behalf of Newman at the patent appeal trial) - turns out to be a guy who sells "theraputic magnets" (more pseudo-scientific hogwash) by mail order from his basement. He's no more an expert on magnetic phenomena than my dog. I've tried to track down many of the others on the list of 30 scientists that supposedly signed up to back Newman - so far, not a single one has come up as an acknowledged expert with published works in any kind of mainstream science field...not a single one. One whom I tracked down was particularly impressive - he makes "Quantum Biofeedback" detectors...these are machines that claim to be able to diagnose any medical treatment just by clipping on an electrode and flashing some lights into the persons eyes! Quite an amazing bunch of con artists.

Our own Mr Soule...User:ESoule (who we know now works for Newman) has failed to put us in touch with any of these people. I think it's all a load of bunkum. Truly - I don't think they have a single mainstream, published, reputable scientist who thinks this machine is anything but a con trick for the weak minded.

If you are any kind of scientist these days, it's almost impossible to stay "off the web". I wanted to track down someone whom I knew in college 30+ years ago - all I knew was a name and that she was a Biochemist...within 10 minutes I had a list of a couple of dozen papers she'd written, an email address, a list of people who cited her work, a list of the places she worked, a list of conferences she'd presented at and a list of collaborators - it was EASY. How is it possible for THIRTY supposedly mainstream scientists to stay off the radar like that? The answer (of course) is that they aren't mainstream scientists they're people who sell magnets to put in your shoes to cure rhumatism.

But our very own Mr Soule (who is "Director of Information for Newman Energy Products") should be in a good position to come up with that quite easily. So how about it? Let's see a list of (say) five papers in mainstream scientific journals written by the people on that list. How about it?

SteveBaker (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, supporters consistently maintain that Hastings worked for Sperry-Univac, in spite of the fact he consistently identifies himself as a "Principal Physicist" (whatever that is) at Unisys. I did find a reference to him in an old personnel record at North Dakota State University, from 1977 to 1981, but according to his bio, this was the period following his postdoctoral appointment, so he was at most an assistant professor, not (as he claims) an associate professor. Whatever the case, he appears to have never published anything or done any work not related to the Newman Motor. It's kind of fun to go "down the rabbit" hole on this stuff. Ever stumble across Ruggero Santilli or the Institute for Basic Research? They also shill for the free energy community, but tend to favor water powered cars, rather than things with magnets. Oh well, back to the real world.Prebys (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ralph M. Hartwell is another person who's name shows up as a supporter of Newman - in this web page [1] he claims that Newman's machine works because of Tachyons - which is odd because tachyons don't actually exist as real particles - they are essentially a mathematical convenience. It seems Hartwell ran a bulletin-board system called "The Energy Machine Information System" - so he's a lot more than just someone with an opinion on the machine - he's evidently been pushing this agenda for a lot of years. Then we have Dr. E. L. Moragne - who (it is claimed) worked on the development of the atom bomb - but again, nobody of that name seems to have ever written a published scientific article, he doesn't appear in any of the lists of scientists who did that kind of thing, his work (whatever it was) is not quoted in other works...which is REALLY surprising when you consider the careers of other people who came out of the Manhatten project and similar ventures. If you want some really crazy stuff - read Newman's explanation about how the sun moves "at an angle to the center of our galaxy": [2] (How can anything be at an angle to a point?) - but amongst all the disconnected babble about sunspots and solar induction and who-knows-what else...he's completely lost it in terms of any scientific connection to reality. A classic nut-job. It's really not good for your brain to read too much of this stuff at one sitting! SteveBaker (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He says, "It is a known fact that quantity of stars is tremendously greater at the center of our galaxy!" This means he was not speaking of some imaginary "point" but of the rough aggregate of stars in the center of our galaxy.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The reason why I oppose the move to Joseph Newman and the Energy Machine (a somewhat idiosyncratic name by Wikipedia standards, to begin with), is because the current name is the more well known one for the device: entries on Amazon.com, mention at The Search for a New Energy Source ^(html) , and elsewhere. I don't really understand the need for a title change, so I welcome an explanation. Many thanks. El_C 03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The inventor should discussed to a similar degree in the article. Unfortunately, I have had to put up with people who think the title doesn't fit the article, or that the article should not even be here since they think the machine in of itself is non-notable. This is one of those rare cases where notability is split evenly between the machine and the person being discussed, and as such the title should reflect the true contents regardless of not being used.Kmarinas86 (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way. Thank you so much for the source!Kmarinas86 (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Renomination for GAC.

It is FAR too soon to renominate this article for GAC - only two days after I failed it and without any of the concerns I had about it being properly addressed. Since I am now trying to fix up this sorry mess - I've recused myself from the GAC pass/fail process and asked for someone else to remove it instead. SteveBaker (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Newman = Nut Job

Wow, check this out: http://phact.org/e/z/8yr.gif -- the more I look into this, the uglier it gets. I don't know whether this is relevent to the article - but it certainly bears reading if anyone here thinks Newman has a shred of sanity left. Jeez! SteveBaker (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC) ...and... http://phact.org/e/z/custody.gif SteveBaker (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Newman = Major Innovator

The above site and its associated sites is managed by an individual whom some consider to be a nut job. The site owner is an individual who has been challenged by Newman to refrain from hiding behind his anonymity and stand behind his "accusations" by publicly releasing his contact information, i.e., personal address and telephone number. Newman has previously released his contact information but the site owner is unwilling to do that. The site owner claims that if he released his personal contact information that the "Mafia would find and possibly kill him." As if the Mafia couldn't locate that information on their own if they really wanted to .... give me a break! Over 20 years ago Newman explained in detail in a Press Release sent to over 300 news agencies why he was symbolically (before God) "marrying" an 8-year-old girl, with the permission of both her mother and the girl. In that Press Release he stated in detail that he was doing so to symbolically demonstrate to Americans his solidarity with peaceful Muslims who followed customs of their faith dating back over 1,000 years. Over 20 years ago Newman believed it was important for Americans to demonstrate a sensitivity and respect for the faith and customs of peaceful Muslims because he believed that in the coming decades a growing gulf of misunderstandings between Americans and Muslims may occur which could lead to violence. At one point in 1987 he rented the Coliseum in Mobile, Alabama to convey that message to hundreds of people attending the event. His predictions certainly proved prophetic.

In 1987 those who knew Joseph Newman best told him that his Press Releases regarding his symbolic "marriage" would likely be misinterpreted by some individuals and he would become subjected to ridicule and attack as a result. Newman said he was fully aware that such may occur, but he honestly believed that God wanted him to announce such a symbolic "marriage" regardless of the personal costs.

Bottom line: Newman is entitled to his religious beliefs. That's what America is about. And his religiously-inspired, symbolic "marriage" violated no law --- either God's law or man's law. Throughout history scientists have developed their own religious beliefs --- some traditional and some bizarre by contemporary standards. There was even a "nut job" some years ago who ran naked through the streets of Syracuse yelling "Eureka! Eureka!" Bizarre behavior (thought by some) notwithstanding, that individual's ideas were revolutionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

The two links I left are to images of newspaper articles - I'm not interested (or referring to) the views of the guy who runs the site they happen to be hosted on. (And please sign your posts with FOUR tildes - not three!) SteveBaker (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Actually I did sign the post above with FOUR tildes. And when I previewed it there were FOUR tildes present. Since the links you provided are also linked to sites containing the "views of the guy who runs the site", I believe it is important to comment upon the credibility of that individual as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh! You're right - there are four tildes. I wonder why the system isn't adding your signature? SineBot also doesn't think you signed either. Does this happen everywhere you edit? Maybe you have something in your signature setup that MediaWiki doesn't like?

Anyway...you're at liberty to think whatever you want of the guy who runs the site - but I was most definitely talking about the actual content of the two newspaper articles (which seem to be from perfectly reasonable newspapers) and nothing else - that's why I gave a 'deep link' to the actual images - not to the page that contained them, whose reliability I cannot vouch for. SteveBaker (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He’s just using the “small tilde” (˜, Unicode U+02DC) rather than the one on the keyboard (~, Unicode U+007E). — NRen2k5 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mexican patent.

I added this line:

"The version described in the Mexican Patent entails use of a vacuum pump - but is otherwise substantially the same as the device he attempted to patent in the USA."

...and tagged it with a {{fact}} tag. This is a true statement that comes from an English translation (thanks to BabelFish) of the abstract of the Mexican patent (which I can't find a reference to online - except via non-free patent searches). There is no need to delete this - it's undoubtedly true...but I can't find an EASY reference for it. If anyone knows of a free Mexican patent search engine, we should easily be able to source this properly. SteveBaker (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Backwards reasoning

There is no evidence that the Newman machine violates the laws of thermodynamics. If there was, it would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time. Also, there is no credible support that the theory proposed by Newman actually violates the conservation of energy or the laws of thermodynamics. The Newman machine clearly does not operate on the basis of thermal and expansion and contraction. It runs magnetic pressure, instead of the thermal pressure that most of us are used to. Also, the machine does not rely on continuous chemical reactions to produce the magnetic field, so in no sense could this be understood as relating to any sort of chemical engine which does produce heat. If the engine produces heat via friction with another object, then the heat from that friction cannot exceed the energy released that gives the motor its power. Putting out energy means over a finite period of time. It's a differential transfer of energy as opposed to absolute creation of energy. It's quite possible to take out more during one hour than you put in during that same hour. I can get 2000 calories in a one hour meal, but it will take about 24 hours to output 2000 calories. Obviously, when I am sleeping, more "power" comes out than what is put in. Conversion of mass into energy actually means conversion of mass into heat. Therefore mass constitutes internal energy as defined for the first law of thermodynamics.Kmarinas86 (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Either:

1. The machine violates the laws of thermodynamics - which would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time....OR...
2. The machine works because all of particle physics, electricity and magnetism is overturned in favor of gyroscopic thingies - which would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time....OR...
3. Newman is a nut-job....OR...
4. Newman is a fraud.

You choose. Newman says it's (2)...except on some occasions when he implies it's (1). I think it started out as (4) and now it's (3).

I'd like to take the time to explain this to you - because clearly you've been taken in by this charlatan - and that's just sad. According to your user page, you are a college student - so you should have no trouble understanding what follows:

Firstly - I think, perhaps, you misunderstand the laws of thermodynamics - they relate to energy transfer of all kinds - not just mechanical and thermal (as the unfortunate historical name implies). Basically, the idea is that you put a black box around a system - you measure the total energy inside the box at the start of the measurement period and again at the end - you measure all of the energy going into the box and all of the energy coming out. The laws of thermodynamics say that the difference between the energy inside the box at the beginning plus all of the energy that goes in during the measurement period has to equal the total energy inside the box at the end plus all of the energy that comes out of the box during the measurement period. Your example of people eating and sleeping in no way violates that law. Systems that convert mass to energy or vice-versa require a slightly extended definition in which we include mass as well as energy using E=Mc² - but 'mundane' technologies like magnets and wires never need that - it's only when you get into the realms of nuclear fission and fusion that we need to start worrying about that.

What you've written above is in keeping with Joseph Newman's technology. And, BTW, I do not believe he is a "charlatan". He is a major innovator who has devoted over 40 years to understanding the mechanical essence of electromagnetism as well as other phenomena. Take Newman's system: energy (voltage pressure) is inputted into the system. WITHIN his system, mass/energy is transferred out of that internal system as measurable energy, electrical and/or mechanical. At the end of the day, the energy going into the Newman system PLUS the energy transferred out of the internal system is EQUAL to the energy going out of the system PLUS the mass/energy inside that INTERNAL system. All Newman has said from Day One is that the EXTERNAL energy (mechanical and/or electrical) coming OUT of that internal system is GREATER than the small amount of external (voltage) energy going INTO that system. That is totally in keeping with the laws of thermodynamics. So, what is Newman saying that is really new? In essence it is this: that the energy being produced by his system occurs through the ELECTROMAGNETIC transference of mass to energy. That is revolutionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

Just because an explanation is in fact unnecessary does not make the explanation invalid or untestable.Kmarinas86 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The study on Newmans machine by the NBS said that it didn't violate the laws of thermodynamics because it consumed more energy that it produced (a LOT more energy in fact). That makes it merely a rather inefficient electric motor and Newman is wrong. Newman subsequently fired off a lot of complaints about the way the machine was tested - but he was told how it was going to be done in advance and he agreed to those methods beforehand. (Including all of the "Oh no! They grounded it!" kinds of complaint).

The statement above is totally incorrect. Newman was NOT told how the NBS was planning to test his device. The U.S. Court of Appeals gave the NBS 30 days to test Newman's device, provide a testing protocol, and allow Newman to be present. Instead, the NBS totally ignored the order of the U.S. Court of Appeals and refused to test the device during the court-ordered 30 day test period. At the end of those 30 days, Newman's attorney went to obtain his property, and the attorney was informed that the device had been confiscated by the lower court and would be turned over to the NBS "indefinitely". Subsequently, no testing protocol was provided by the NBS as ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals and the testing was performed without Newman being present during the 30-day period as ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Thus, Newman considered all actions by the NBS taken after the 30 day test period authorized by the U.S. Court of Appeals to be unconstitutional and in violation of the U.S. Court of Appeals' order. Moreover, even when the NBS did test the device (in violation of the terms established by the U.S. Court of Appeals), the NBS bureaucrats failed to follow their OWN testing protocol which they had originally prepared for themselves. In that protocol, they provided to the lower court a schematic in which the Newman device was NOT grounded. Yet, those same NBS bureaucrats grounded the device for EVERY SINGLE TEST THEY CONDUCTED. If they were true scientists, one would have expected them to at least have the curiosity to conduct at least ONE test without grounding the device. Yet, they failed to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

If you believe what Newman says, then NBS measured his machine incorrectly and it does produce more energy than it takes in - but he's saying that it doesn't violate thermodynamics because some of the mass of the machine itself is being converted into energy...in much the way that a nuclear reactor or a star works. Sadly, this doesn't work with any known laws of science and his explanations don't make any sense at all. Every time someone tries to pin him (or you, for that matter) down to a solid explanation, new jargon is invented (like "gyroscopic particles") that means nothing in terms of normal science.

"Normal science". Interesting words. Yet, if one examines the history of science, one finds -- repeatedly -- that what is "abnormal" non-science in one century becomes "normal" accepted science in the next century. And, what's wrong with new jargon? To my knowledge, jargon like "strings," "neutrinos", "strange particles," etc. didn't exist in 1830. However, fortunately for humanity, Michael Faraday -- who had a 7th grade formal education -- did exist. And it was his mechanical explanations, sans mathematical explanations, of electromagnetic phenomena that paved the way for revolutionary scientific developments. If one studies Faraday -- and James Clerk Maxwell -- one becomes convinced that these two gentlemen really believed that magnetic fields consisted of "matter-in-motion". The question is, however, what is the MECHANICAL nature of that "matter-in-motion"? Joseph Newman says that the important characteristic motion of the "matter-in-motion" is that it is GYROSCOPIC. The kinetic energy resident in the "matters-in-motion" comprising magnetic fields can be harnessed, according to Newman. His book describes in detail how than can be accomplished. Thus, one is not really "converting" mass to energy but, rather, one is mechanically TRANSFERRING gyroscopic matters-in-motion within electromagnetic fields from one physical domain to another physical domain and, in the process, work is performed. Such gyroscopic matters-in-motion (aka "gyroscopic massergies") are never created nor destroyed. They are simply mechanically deflected out of the field generated by Newman's device and subsequently transferred out of that system to be utilized as output electrical and/or mechanical energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

The phrase "gyroscopic particle" is jargon. The phrase "spinning particles exhibiting the same properties as gyroscopes" is not jargon, yet it means exactly the same thing.Kmarinas86 (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the other 'explanations' for how the machine works merely reveal a horrible misunderstanding of the way electricity and magnetism work. The whole thing seems to rest on Newmans' original concept:

Take a long coil of wire and send a pulse of electricity through it - then because electricity flows at the speed of light - quickly reverse the flow before the electricity has had a chance to travel the entire length of the wire.

Newman's idea is that when you do this, electricity would somehow 'build up' in the wire and this would somehow cause something amazing to happen that would result in mass being converted into energy...much as in a nuclear reactor. That would make his machine work somewhat like 'cold fusion' (another debunked pseudo-science). His total lack of scientific knowledge means that he has no way to know or even to express what he THINKS is going on - so we have all of these invented terms like 'gyroscopic particles' that tell us zero about what might or might not be happening in the wire.

Sadly he has completely missed what electricity really is. Electricity is (in this case) electrons moving slowly from one atom to another much like water flowing through a pipe the electrons are moving much slower than the speed of light - but the speed with which their direction of motion can propagate down the wire is indeed capable of travelling at the speed of light. The changes in the electric field brought about by Newman's rapid switching can be considered as a wave travelling along the wire - much like sound is a wave that can travel through water in a pipe.

Sadly, you have completely missed what Newman has innovated. As suggested by Faraday, Maxwell, and even Einstein, electricity consists of matter-in-motion. Once the fundamental mechanical nature of that "matter-in-motion" is understood, one has the basis for innovating a technology that can properly harness the mechanical characteristics of that "matter-in-motion". Joseph Newman has accomplished that innovation precisely because he understands the fundamental mechanical nature of (electro)magnetic fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

If you did the same thought experiment with a pipe full of water, you'd apply pressure to one end of the pipe - and then (because the speed of sound in water is finite) remove that pressure and apply it to the other end of the pipe before the first pressure wave reached the end. What would happen if you did this repeatedly? Would water 'build up' in the pipe? Would something amazing happen? Sadly, no. What you have is two pressure waves (or electric field variations) travelling in opposite directions along the pipe/wire and meeting somewhere in the middle. What happens when two waves meet is called 'Interference' - and it's very well understood. The standard laws of physics apply and you'd get some "constructive adding" of pressures and some "destructive cancelling" of pressures. Somewhere along your hose you'd have a pressure 'spike' and in other places, the pressure would decrease - eventually these changes propagate back to the two ends of the hose - and nothing magical happens. No water is created out of thin air - and no water vanishes into thin air - the total energy of the pressure waves going in equals the total energy of the spikes and troughs coming out again. It's the same deal with electricity.

I would have loved to have watched you hold the end of the wire coming out of Newman's prototype in which 200v and 100milliamps were applied and pulses in excess of 100,000 watts were produced while the Newman machine operated .... and then see if you still believed that the Newman energy machine was not producing external output energy in excess of the externally-applied input energy. Dr. Hastings, who devoted hundreds of hours testing Newman prototypes verified that the device produced over 100k watts output .... not to mention mechanical output and rf ..... with the batteries being continuously RE-CHARGED while the system operated. Such performance indicates a new understanding of electricity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

Analogy is not evidence of similarity. It's evidence of comparability.Kmarinas86 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

However, in the case of Newman's machine there are some important consequences - that explain how Newman fooled himself and others. One consequence of this is that Newmans' machine generates all sorts of ungodly abrupt spikes of electricity that make it very hard to measure the total energy both on input and output because things like ammeters and voltmeters can't react to those spikes fast enough. When an ammeter (or an oscilloscope) gets a tall, thin spike of electricity - it'll move more slowly up and fall more slowly down. That makes the measurement of the exact height and duration of the spike very difficult - and therefore it's tough to measure the total energy coming out of the machine. What's worse is that those spikes are coming out of both ends of the wire - and a machine such as a voltmeter which measures the potential difference across the two ends will be getting both positive and negative spikes appearing all the time.

There is nothing "ungodly" about those spikes. Of course, someone who has no understanding of what is happening as the system operates will, not surprisingly, call the back-emf spikes "ungodly". That attitude is analogous to a primitive caveman gawking at a TV set and calling it "ungodly" .... assuming he could speak English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

This is what has tricked a few naive and rather pathetic scientists into believing in the machine based on the readings of inadequate measurement equipment - and this is probably the reason Newman himself believes in it (or perhaps why he ORIGINALLY believed it - what he believes now is that he's supposed to marry an 8 year old girl...so something has clearly snapped inside his head).

I take issue with your description of degreed electrical engineers, physicists, and nuclear engineers as "naive and rather pathetic scientists". They had the curiosity and intellectual honesty to see and test the technology for themselves. What I find "naive and pathetic" is someone who shouts from the peanut gallery that the technology is simply "impossible" and anyone who believes in it is "naive & pathetic" ---- meanwhile, that naive, pathetic, and intellectually-dishonest individual has never tested the technology for himself. That is pathetic. Having read the 50+page Press Release over 20 years ago in which Newman clearly and in detail stated his religious reasons for symbolically "marrying" an 8-year-girl, I don't find his religious beliefs any more or less irrational than many traditional religious beliefs. There are many people who believe in virgin births, walking on water, resurrections, Creationism, etc. Has something "snapped" in the heads of people who believe such things? Who am I to say that such people are crazy? I say instead that they are entitled to their beliefs however seeming bizarre to others as long as such people do not coerce others and do not engage in illegal activity. In Newman's case he coerced no one and he violated no laws. And what interests me most about his work is his innovations and scientific discoveries. Now, if he were to run stark naked through the streets of Mobile, Alabama yelling "Eureka! Eureka!" I would say he'd have a problem because that would be illegal behavior, not to mention bizarre. Yet one of the greatest scientists in history is reported to have behaved in just such a manner. Assuming that is true, I discount such seemingly bizarre behavior and instead focus on his scientific work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

That's also why the NBS had such a hard time measuring what the machine was doing - it took them six months of careful work to figure out a system to measure this horribly spikey, fluctuating mess. But they got there in the end, needing an enormous amount of fancy test gear to explain what all reasonable scientists already knew must be the case.

That is simply not the case. The NBS bureaucrats demonstrated: 1) they were incapable of following their own test protocol schematic, and 2) that they did not have the scientific curiosity to conduct at least ONE test without grounding the device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

Newman incorrectly calculates what 100% efficiency would be-on the basis of voltage*current of the batteries. Even if it's really 10% efficient by using the back spike as the limiting factor for efficiency, wouldn't it still be possible to produce tremendous amounts of (wasted) output, stimulated by tiny 9V batteries so as long as the back spikes are allowed to be very large?Kmarinas86 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Newman has also claimed on his website (where he makes a lot of other claims) that he has captured the back spike and fed it back into the machine.Kmarinas86 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, the other ikky part of this is then when electricity flows around a coil, you get a magnetic field at right angles to the flow of current. This too is going to undergo some fairly wicked spikes and violent fluctuations - but again, no magic is implied.

Question: what is the fundamental mechanical explanation for why a magnetic field occurs at right angles to the flow of current? Just saying such terms as "Fleming's Rule" is insufficient. What is REALLY happening on a fundamental, mechanical level. Joseph Newman has a precise, logical explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

So where in all this is energy created? Nowhere. Newman just built a machine that (either by design - or more likely, bad luck) makes it bloody difficult to measure what the heck it's doing. But that's no reason to start inventing new science - we have a PERFECTLY good explanation for what the machine is doing.

Yes we do have a precise, logical, and PERFECTLY good explanation: Joseph Newman Theory of the Gyroscopic Massergy. BTW, the energy is NOT "created" anywhere. It is simply being TRANSFERRED from one domain to another. In the process, work is performed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

Sadly, Newman is now convinced that he's a genius - so he starts doing what all crazy free energy nuts do - which is to put it into a car (Why do they ALWAYS do that?) and start driving it around in front of crowds of people who have no scientific background. He claims that his car is making energy to run itself - when in fact it's got a bloody great custom-made battery pack in the trunk. If his machine really did generate energy out of thin air - why cannot he use some of the output to drive the input and disconnect the battery once the car is running? Nearly everyone with any scientific background who has talked to Newman asks this question - and they have never (as far as I can tell) gotten a straight answer out of the guy.

If you want a detailed and straight answer to the question about why one cannot "simply feed the energy back into the system" to power itself then READ HIS BOOK. Essentially it is a question of "timing". The timing (via the commutator) has to be very precise -- it not, the process will work against itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

Why people don't feed it back into a PM machine to create exponentially growing output from thin air:

1) If it worked, the whole thing would blow up, creating a dangerous situation.

2) The person is too lazy to do it.

3) The person is trying to be deceitful.

4) The machine gets it's energy from mass, but not from thin air.

5) The laws of physics prevent from the output from climbing exponentially forever, despite there being a supply of energy that cannot be depleted for centuries, millennia, or more.

6) The machine is a PoS.

Yours truly, Kmarinas86 (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have five rules by which you can identify nut-jobs like this - and Newman elegantly passes all of them:

1. The machine always solves the worlds energy problems - but is supressed by the government/big-oil/the mafia/the arabs - since the inventor patents the invention, he has in so doing revealed how it works - it's hard to see how supression is possible.
2. The machine always uses magnetism and/or gyroscopes. These easily accessible things behave completely contrary to most laypersons' understanding - and even though science has been able to explain them for a hundred years now, they are sufficiently mysterious that people are prepared to believe that they are a source of potential new ideas.
3. The machine ALWAYS ends up being put into a car. Why? Who knows?
4. The so-called scientists who have seen the thing working are always retired - and they NEVER do what all real scientists would do in the face of a revolutionary discovery - which is to write a paper and have it peer reviewed in Nature.
5. The machine is always close to a commercial breakthrough - it always needs just a little more improvement. We never EVER see one of these crazies actually make a commercial version.

This makes it impossible to take the guy seriously. The only solid information is the NBS study - which says that it's an inefficient electric motor.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you consider the NBS study to be "solid information" then you're standing on quicksand. The characters who performed the NBS test were bureaucrats who successfully demonstrated their incompetence (see comments above). Your other comments above demonstrate ignorance about the history of Newman's work. At the time they tested and endorsed his work the scientists and engineers were not retired. And if they have since retired, you make it sound like it was a "crime" for them to retire. Those scientists and engineers were WORKING (not solely teaching/professing) individuals and, as such, they believed that their sworn Affidavits that Newman's technology worked as stated would be sufficient and would presumably encourage the academic-types to have the intellectual honesty to test the technology for themselves and hopefully submit it to scientific journals. I've unfortunately found that many academic types lack real intellectual honesty and are often afraid to take a risk by testing and perhaps endorsing (as a written article for journalistic review) a technology that is not their own. As for the "peer review" argument --- that's a joke. In his book, Newman explained in detail how he endeavored to go the "peer review" route and those in charge of presumably scientific journals only "passed the buck": they sent him in a circle from one journal to another. Since Newman doesn't have as many degrees as a thermometer, there is no place for individuals like him in the "peer review" process. Actually that is a pity and a loss for our civilization. History has demonstrated that it is often the mavericks, even outcasts, in scientific endeavors, who end up contributing much to scientific progress, usually obtaining universal recognition after they are dead. What a disincentive to human progress! Also, in addition to automobiles, he has powered water pumps, table saws, drills, home appliance fans, TVs, lights and other small appliances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

I should also add that Dr. Al Swimmer, Professor of Mathematics at Arizona State University --- who is NOT retired, yet! --- endorses Joseph Newman's work. I understand that he hopes someday to "translate" Newman's mechanics into a mathematical explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

"... one finds -- repeatedly -- that what is "abnormal" non-science in one century becomes "normal" accepted science in the next century". That can be true, but it is rather more common to find that what is abnormal non-science in one century remains abnormal non-science in the next, and subsequent centuries. (BTW, you're typing the wrong character for a signature; it should be four tildes, character %7E. Your keyboard seems to be producing something different.) — BillC ^talk 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Revolutionary discoveries are uncommon. The scientists and engineers who have tested the technology for themselves and signed Affidavits that the technology operates as stated have attested to the nature of Newman's revolutionary discovery. (BTW, I did type four tildes above: sometimes it results in a signature element and sometimes it does not.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) %7E —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) 00:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? They’ve signed off on the machine/discovery itself? Not just their observations of certain aspects of it? Is that verifiable?
And no, you didn’t sign with four tildes. You signed with four “small tildes”. On most keyboards, the tilde you should be using is located just to the left of the “1”. — NRen2k5 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The scientists and engineers who tested the energy machine signed Affidavits which included the statement that their test results demonstrated that the invention produced greater external energy output than external energy input. Those Affidavits were submitted to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. ESoule (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Spinning at the speed of light??!!

What the heck does spinning at the speed of light mean? SteveBaker (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

$c$ = speed of light = 299792458 m/s

$\lambda$ = wavelength

$f$ = frequency

$c=f\lambda$

"Spinning and traveling at the speed of light" means:

The particle rotates at $f$ cycles per second. Every $\lambda$ meters traveled, the particle makes a 360 degree rotation.Kmarinas86 (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

But I can pick any number I like for either f or lambda - the two are related, so this statement tells me nothing about the speed that these things are spinning. 1Hz or 1GHz or...whatever.SteveBaker (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. But if the wavelength corresponded to the circumference, you take the frequency * circumference, to get rotational velocity. Sorry, felt like making something up =P... excuse moi.Kmarinas86 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

These particles have a definite circumpherence? This gets weirder and weirder. Normal fundamental particles have an indefinite or infinite or zero circumpherence - depending on how you'd like to think about it. Schrodinger's wave equation: $\left|\psi \left(\mathbf {r} ,t\right)\right|^{2}\mathrm {d} ^{3}\mathbf {r}$...right? Therefore no actual circumpherence. But the whole idea of fundamental particles 'spinning' is a non-starter - the property of Spin (physics) for particles actually has nothing to do with rotation.

This is just another aspect of why this 'gyroscopic particle' theory has got to be nonsense. It literally would require rewriting all of particle physics, all of quantum theory - and most of relativity, magnetism and electric field theories would all need to be rewritten...and all to explain a phenomenon which is quite easily explained with nothing but high school physics as a simple measurement error due to these tricky spikey waveforms. SteveBaker (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In a recent video, Joseph Newman powers a 1250-lb rotary and continuously pumps water on less than 20 watts input. To attribute that achievement to "spikey waveforms" is nonsense. Common sense says that the device produces greater external energy output than external energy input -- with the difference provided by the internal transference of mass to energy.

Really? How do you figure that the commonsense answer is that mass is being converted to energy? What about the hypothesis that energy is being stored and released? Or that it’s a trick? I think you’d better stop trying to act as the voice of common sense. — NRen2k5 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The above is precisely why the nomenclature "gyroscopic particle" was updated about 12 years ago to "gyroscopic massergy" --- 1) such terminology is more mechanically precise than "gyroscopic particle" and 2) such terminology indicates that what is spinning is not a just a particle ... rather, it SIMULTANEOUSLY behaves as "mass" and "energy" with the mechanical characteristics of a gyroscope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.88.80 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Precise?! How the heck can a made-up word make anything more precise? Making another vague term just because someone pinned you down on the term you were using is a standard trick of the pseudoscientist (how 'bout those magnecules?!). The word "massergy" appears nowehere in Wikipedia or any of the three dictionaries on my desk - and just about the only Google hits for it relate to Newman and his supporters/detractors. So we've gone from "gyroscopic particles" which at least were two actual words to "gyroscopic <technobabble>" which carries even less meaning than the previous words. All objects in the universe behave simultaneously as mass and energy - that's what E=Mc² means. So if all a "gyroscopic massergy" is a spinning object - then a YoYo is a massergy. I somehow don't think that's what's being talked about here. The idea that things that are simultaneously mass and energy are somehow a new and wonderful idea is bogus - ALL things are simultaneously mass and energy. So all we can say is that if these are "things" (could be anything from an Elephant to an Erbium atom) are capable of acting like gyroscopes then they must be able to rotate - which rules out fundamental particles, which can't. So these things are what Atoms? Molecules? Or do we perhaps need to invent another meaningless word?

All words began as meaningless to those who do not understand their usage. Made-up words such as "mass", "length", and "time" can assist us in more precisely understanding how the universe works. To have a science one always needs precision. Accuracy is desirable, but not necessary. The word "gyroscopic massergy" precisely describes the nature of the "matter-in-motion" operable in Newman's system. A pseudoscientist is one who demonstrates intellectual honesty. And actually a YoYo -- to use your example above -- DOES consist of gyroscopic massergies, as does the organic matter comprising your brain. In Newman's paradigm, everything in the universe consists of gyroscopic massergies which are the basic, mechanical building blocks of all mass/energy. When one has a pane of glass sprinkled with magnetic filings and a magnet is held underneath that pane of glass, the resultant physical configuration assumed by those iron filings is well known. When one has a sheet of lead and radioactive material on one side of that sheet, it is well known that the lead with shield radioactive materials from passing through that lead sheet. Yet, if one places a powerful magnet on one side of that same lead sheet, iron filings on the other side react to the presence of that powerful magnet. That simple demonstration suggests that the "x's" which comprise a magnetic field are smaller than the "z's" comprising a radioactive field since the former are capable of penetrating that lead shield while the latter cannot. The mechanical nature of those "x's" is that they each have a gyroscopic motion. When those "x's" or "matter-in-motions" (a concept suggested by Faraday, Maxwell, and Einstein) have opposite spins and simultaneously travel in opposite directions, we call the resultant effect a "magnetic field". When those same "matter-in-motions" have opposite spins and travel in the same direction along a conductor wire, we call the resultant effect an "electric current". Newman has demonstrated in great detail how such phenomena as light, heat, electricity, magnetism, gravitation, and inertia are the resultant effects of gyroscopic massergy interactions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

Yet another bullshit answer from an anonymous shill.… — NRen2k5 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - this simple thought experiment of lead blocking radiation but not magnetism that "proves" that the "x's" of magnetism are smaller...that's horribly misleading. Let me give you a nearly identical thought experiment. Let's fire some gamma radiation at an inch-thick slab of soft iron. Iron doesn't block gamma rays as well as lead - so they shoot right through. But a magnetic field has an exceedingly tough time making it through soft iron. My conclusion (if I play by your rules) is the complete opposite of yours. So we can't deduce the result you claim from your thought experiment without asserting a lot more about the nature of these "x's"? Nothing...your thought experiment told me nothing because an equivelent experiment with a different material produces the opposite result. Everything I've read so far by Newman is similarly dismissable - it's all the result of some very non-critical thinking.

Of course iron would give a magnetic field an "exceedingly tough time making it through" -- precisely because iron is magnetic. If one studies the drawings of magnetic fields in attraction & repulsion, it is not difficult to understand how an inch-thick slab of soft, magnetic-capable iron would interfere with the transit of the gyroscopic massergies --- not because they are too "large" to pass through it, but rather because the lines of force would be channeled in a different physical directions due to iron's composition. Your thought experiment has reinforced my thought experiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

BUT - none of this matters right now.

This article has so far failed "Good Article" status at least three times and has come awfully close to deletion twice. It's an article that's in VERY deep trouble. If it's ever going to be any use to anyone - we've got to beat it into shape. If we are going to use "unusual" terms like "massergy" in this encyclopedia - we REALLY need impeccably solid definitions of them. Your descriptions don't matter a damn in the face of WP:NEO - we aren't allowed to use neologisms - which the word "massergy" undoubtedly is. (It's not widely used - it gets almost no Google hits outside of Newmans' writings and it doesn't appear in either Wikipedia or any of the dictionaries I'm able to find.) We could MAYBE get away with it (maybe) if there were a nice definition for the word that we could look up someplace that would be acceptable to Wikipedia's WP:V policy - but your description (and, for that matter, Newman's) are useless to us in getting this article sorted out - your description is OR and Newmans doesn't pass muster for WP:V in a scientific article.

Right now, we're given "gyroscopic particles" with no clear/acceptable description. I try to enquire into what this term means - only to be told that the term was changed 12 years ago!! OK - so no more "gyroscopic particles" - now we have "gyroscopic massergies". But 'massergy' is a neologism. WP:NEO says: "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible, it is original research as well—we don't do that here at Wikipedia. Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: no original research and verifiability. (See Reliable sources for neologisms below for more on supporting the use of neologisms.)" Reading on, it says that we need a reliable source - and in an article on a scientific subject, WP:V says that we need an established physics textbook or we need peer-reviewed journals. Now - asking again - can we explain these "gyroscopic massergies" using a reliable source? If not - we cannot discuss them here.

I believe you are chasing your own tail. Your above argument is similar to telling Wilbur Wright in 1903 that the term "aeroplane" is a neologism and unfit for Wikipedia --- and unless he can provide "a reliable source and in an article on a scientific subject" for the term "aeroplane" other than himself or his bicycle-manufacturing brother Orville (neither of whom hold degrees in physics or engineering or have published in peer review journals or have had their work reviewed by reputable scientists in peer review journals) -- then he should refrain from using such terms. Of course, the fact that Wilbur and Orville Wright had no "peers" when it came to a discussion of "aeroplanes" is besides the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

Yet another bullshit argument from yet another anonymous poster. That Wright Brothers argument can be used for any non-mainstream scientific “discovery”. It’s a fallacy. — NRen2k5 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether you think you know what it means - or that Newman has a clear meaning in mind. What matters is whether the general public (like me, for example), reading the article, will have a term that they can look up someplace and get a clear description. If we can't find such a reference for "gyroscopic massergy" then we must use an alternative description that CAN be clearly defined from reliable sources.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The patent office (is supposed to) operate under the premise that newly-submitted patents are to be judged/interpreted IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PATENT APPLICANT --- not via any language based upon preconceived notions of patent processors. The term "gyroscopic massergy" is a invented term just as all terminology used in science began as invented terminology --- usually invented by the one who made the discovery and/or invention to which the new terminology is applicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

Yet another bullshit argument from yet another anonymous poster. One important difference between Newman’s invented terms and terms invented by the scientific community is that new scientific terms have actual meanings based on extant terminology. Newman’s terms are bullshit. He might as well be talking about potrzebies or kwyjiboes. — NRen2k5 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You see I can chase this crap down blind alleyways all day - but all that's going to happen is that as soon as anything that might remotely be referenced to actual science comes along - then poof another new word is invented. If we're going to write this article such as to treat this device as anything more than an easily understood machine with no amazing properties whatever - then we have to be able to pin down ALL of the language associated with it. Wikipedia doesn't allow neologisms - and 'massergy' is certainly that. So if we're even remotely considering using the term, we have to define it precisely. Every single non-standard techobabble term has to be carefully defined - and referenced back to solid sources that can be looked up in acceptable peer-reviewed material. Telling our readership that the machine works because of gyroscopic massergies provides ZERO information unless these terms are properly defined and can be looked up someplace. We might as well tell them that it works by magic.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave "magic" to the Randi's of the world. They are at least adept at demonstrating they have no knowledge of voltmeters or ammeters. Based upon Newman's work, a conceptualized drawing of "Magnetic Fields in Attraction" and "Magnetic Fields in Repulsion" may be viewed at: http://www.josephnewman.com/more-info.html Extrapolations can be made from the hypothetical motions of gyroscopic massergies indicated in those drawings and then those extrapolations can be verified through observation for purposes of corroboration. That process is the scientific method --- not "magic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

No, that’s not the scientific method. That’s just another fallacy – that just because one thing agrees or coincides with another, that it verifies it or has a causal relationship with it. — NRen2k5 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh - http://www.josephnewman.com/more-info.html is a broken link. SteveBaker (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I just clicked on http://www.josephnewman.com/more-info.html and also cut/pasted it into my browser, and the webpage came up each time without difficulty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs)

Sure enough, the link works. And, it shows that one Evan Soule has a working relationship with Joseph Newman – the picture identifies him as its creator. As if we couldn’t already tell user Esoule is biased. :D — NRen2k5 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here.Kmarinas86 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - it worked this time...weird...maybe the site was down when I looked yesterday.

Anyway - he does indeed state that things are "rotating at the speed of light" - but how are we supposed to comprehend what that means? Speed of rotation is measured in degrees per second or radians per second or revolutions per minute. The speed of light is in meters per second. There is simply no way to divine meaning from statements that a measurement in linear units of meters per second is applied to something that's rotating.

He goes on to talk about the kinetic energy of these things "moving at the speed of light" - but for particles with non-zero rest mass, the kinetic energy at the speed of light is necessarily infinite. According to this rather strange statement, magnetic fields of all kinds would have to be infinitely strong - but I can pull the fridge magnet off of my fridge - so clearly that's not true. What he's saying might kinda-sorta have meaning in a 'classical' physics universe - but we live in a universe ruled by relativity - and in a relativistic setting, none of these statements can be true.

"Infinite" is an interesting word. No doubt, our species has only just begun to comprehend the implications of the word. In Newman's paradigm, the gyroscopic massergies cannot be created nor destroyed and their motion(s) cannot be stopped; he predicts that each such gyroscopic massergy spins/moves infinitely. Magnetic attraction and repulsion is the result of the periphery spin interactions of each gyroscopic massergy with respect to another gyroscopic massergy. In a mechanical sense, I have no problem visualizing gyroscopic massergies mechanically interacting with one another to generate periphery attraction/repulsion with respect to a large, but finite number of such gyroscopic massergies that create a field which originates from the integration of separate gyroscopic massergies' fields within the individually-aligned atomic domains -- be they in an iron bar or a copper conductor. Based upon Newman's paradigm, predictions can be made from such a mechanical model which can subsequently be corroborated by observation. ESoule (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to claim that relativity is wrong (along with all of the other branches of science that have to be entirely wrong for this to be true) - but that's a very surprising thing.

Newton's theory was flawless for hundreds of years, until we observed things such as the bending of light around the sun (twice what was expected) and the precession of the orbit of Mercury. Newton's theory was proven wrong on these cases, nevertheless, it explains a plethora of phenomenon such as gravity, merry-go-rounds, gyroscopes, you name it! The special theory of relativity in the future may as well be as credible as Newton's theory was during the eclipse of 1913. It will still be used, just like how the Hydraulic_analogy#Limits_to_the_analogy is used despite having the possibility of being misapplied in other contexts. So what if it's wrong? The special theory of relativity can and should be appended to by a better theory that explains greater phenomena, and not necessarily with the intent of unifying physics.Kmarinas86 (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Relativity has successfully predicted a huge range of phenomena - which "Newman theory" can't come close to explaining. It's utterly beyond me why you seemingly intelligent people can't see that overturning everything we've learned about the universe in the past century in order to explain why this one, simple machine does what it's claimed to do - when a much more mundane explanation that fits with everything we know about the universe is just sitting there. You guys really, truly believe that everything that modern science has done for us was just an amazing coincidence? In Newmans' universe, quite mundane day-to-day things like the flash memory chips in the computer you are sitting in front of (which rely on quantum theory in order to function) are completely incomprehensible! That galaxy they discovered last week which has double Einstein rings around because of gravitational lensing (a consequence of relativity working exactly the way it does) - would be impossible. The discrepancy in the times reported by atomic clocks flown in fast aircraft compared to those that were sitting on the ground...are impossible things in your world-view - yet the experiment has been repeated many times.

You like to say what you own little view is about our opinion. However, in fact, you are blind as to what we really believe. You spout this nonsense claiming this you claim is what must follow from what we believe. But this time, you are wrong. Utility of mainstream theories, which is obvious to the thinking person, is not threatened by other theories, much less other "mechanical" theories, which attempt to apply a different lexicon to describe a electrical machine having peculiar behavior when operating. Theories are not mean to be generalizing. They are meant to be discriminating, in a classificatory and logical way, to explain what we observe. This means valid theories will overlap but not necessarily agree on situations where they make predictions. A good example two theories which do this is Newton's laws of motion and General Relativity, especially in the regime of black holes.Kmarinas86 (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you explain that the at rest-lifetime of the muon is a microscopic fraction of a second - yet muons rain down on us from the cosmos after journeys of billions of miles. (They are travelling at close to the speed of light and get time-dilated). We have evidence of a super-massive black hole sitting at the center of our universe - it's emitting exactly the amount of gamma radiation you'd expect from relativity - yet black holes are impossible without relativity. You'd throw away all of the beautiful and elegant interlocking experiments performed by a century of the best minds in the world in order to explain the claims of one guy who has zero science training and whose machine failed to achieve it's claims on the only occasion it was independently tested? Why? Why would you believe that?

There's simply no reason to throw it away. Sure, we may be overweightedly obsessed with Newman ideas. But this does not mean we disrespect the past scientific discoveries about the atom, universe, and chemistry. Quite the contrary.Kmarinas86 (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Quantum theory doesn't just "explain" flash memory chips - no, the inventors of the flash memory looked at quantum theory, said "Hmm - if that's true, we should be able to make quantum tunnelling work - and if we did that, we should be able to make rewritable memory chips." - if Quantum theory was wrong (which it would have to be for massergies to do what is claimed) then wouldn't it be the most amazing coincidence if designing a subtle and clever thing like a flash memory cell based on that theory would result in something that would actually work?

But "rotating at the speed of light" isn't a problem of science - it's a problem of fundamental mathematics. The requirements of dimensional analysis are as fundamental as 1+1=2 - they are not something that any amount of experimental results can overturn. The statement "these particles rotate at the speed of light" is equivalent to writing the equation:

  number of degrees rotated by the particle / number of seconds elapsed = 299,792,458 metres per second

That's impossible. That cannot be equivalent. That doesn't quote anyone. You could have said "speed of light/turning radius = angular velocity = radians / second". Instead, you chose a strawman.Kmarinas86 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, what you displayed here is your ignorance of science. Using the same reasoning you just gave, I could say "But 'rotating at the speed of sound' isn't a problem of science - it's a problem of fundamental mathematics. The requirements of dimensional analysis are as fundamental as 1+1=2 - they are not something that any amount of experimental results can overturn. The statement "these particles rotate at the speed of sound" is equivalent to writing the equation:

  number of degrees rotated by the particle / number of seconds elapsed = 340.29 meters per second

"

You should be ashamed of yourself.Kmarinas86 (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

XD — NRen2k5 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That means that the rotation...isn't happening. This isn't a problem for conventional physics because only massless, dimensionless particles (photons) can go at the speed of light. But these massergies have to rotate while moving - which means that SteveBaker (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the units of the lefthand side is degrees/second and those on the right are meters/second. This equation MUST be false - just as 1+1=3 MUST be false. So this statement of Newman's (repeated here) MUST be false. Since his theory seems to hinge on this statement - it's busted...UNLESS there is some other meaning being applied to some or all of the words he's using - and then we're back to asking where these terms are defined?

SteveBaker (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that Dr. Al Swimmer doesn't seem to have the same problem you do with respect to the motion(s) of the gyroscopic massergies. But then one might argue that he is "merely" a professor of mathematics (for 30 years) and not a physicist. He may some additional insight about their mathematical nature that could explain his intent to describe Newman's mechanical model in mathematical terms. ESoule (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to believe that this guy IS a mathematician as claimed - he's certainly not written papers in any of the leading mathematics journals...not a single one. SteveBaker (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah - yes, Swimmer. According to Newman here[3]:

"So that you may recognize the magnitude of my life's work for humanity, I will provide a quotation to you from Dr. Al Swimmer, a distinguished Professor of Mathematics at Arizona State University since the 1960s. After studying my life's work, Dr. Swimmer came to my home about one year ago and knocked on my front door. Since we had not scheduled a meeting, I was surprised to see him and so I asked him why he was there. He said to me: "Joe, I AM HERE TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE HUMAN RACE. WHEN YOU GAVE A UNIFIED MECHANICAL FIELD THEORY -- THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT YOUR DOORSTEP. WHEN YOU THEN BUILT AN ENERGY DEVICE WITH MORE ENERGY OUT THAN (EXTERNALLY) PUT INTO IT -- THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT YOUR DOORSTEP. WHEN YOU THEN BUILT A SPACE DEVICE AND MADE IT LIFT ELECTROMAGNETICALLY -- THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT YOUR DOORSTEP. I AM HERE TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE HUMAN RACE."

Yep - that's what professors of mathematics do all the time...I mean - isn't that sooo much better than writing a paper for a respected journal. How does Newman come up with this unending stream of nut-jobs? SteveBaker (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

One could of course say that you are an intellectually-dishonest nut job, but then that would be insulting and inappropriate. Everything stated by Dr. Swimmer above is correct --- but at least he's had the intellectual honesty to check out the technology for himself, in person, and extensively discuss the technology with Newman. That behavior as well as being a professor of mathematics for 30 years seems a bit more productive and honest than sitting in the peanut gallery and pointing little fingers at people while yelling "nut-job! nut-job!" ESoule (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh, uh huh. Try saying something that is both correct and relevant sometime. I know you have it in you, somewhere deep down in there. — NRen2k5

Well, Swimmer claims to have been working as a professor of mathematics for 30 years - but why has he not published a single paper in any of the leading mathematics journals in all that time? I've searched a half dozen scientific/mathematics bibliography databases - and he hasn't authored a single paper in any of the leading or even second-tier mathematics or physics journals. There are no references to him on the web (that I can find) other than those linked to Newman. This seems to be true for just about every so-called expert associated with Newman. I'd just love to find some papers written by these guys on other subjects that they must have worked on over these long careers...but nothing emerges. I'm sorry you dislike my skepticism - but I'm making a full and honest effort to find just one creditable scientist or mathematician - with a proven track record. The fact that I havn't found a single one has to be deeply suspicious...right? SteveBaker (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Some scientists, engineers, and teachers choose to publish and work in their respective professions and some choose to work in their respective professions and not publish. Some disdain those who work but do not publish; others disdain those who receive repeated grants enabling them to publish their research but never have to survive in the world by themselves without subsidies and grants. I have respect for both types of individuals assuming they are capable of intellectual honesty and dedication to the scientific method. ESoule (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Replying to Kmarinas86's response)

Well, I asked this before - and the "radius" of the particle doesn't seem to be stated anywhere. Without that statement, "rotating at the speed of light" is utterly meaningless. If Newman had said "the outer edge of a particle is travelling at the speed of light" - then we could understand it. "Rotating at the speed of sound" is equally meaningless - for exactly the same reason. This is not a small matter that can be lightly skipped over because we're told that the particle is moving along at the speed of light AND rotating at the speed of light. The problem is that the time dilation factor for a particle moving at 'c' is sqrt(1-v²/c²) - which is zero. So the 'massergy' is frozen in time...so how can it be seen to be rotating? From the point of view of a normal observer - it's frozen in time. So if we're talking about a true 'rotation' of a non-zero sized particle - there are some very serious problems. The rotation can't affect anything in any part of the universe that's not moving at the speed of light - so this rotation can't produce the effects that Newman claims. It just doesn't hang together. Worse still - objects moving at relativistic speeds undergo length contraction - so a circular particle would be squished into a line at right angles to the direction of motion. The 'radius' of the particle along the direction of travel is now zero...so again, the outer edge can't move any faster than the center because it's velocity vector has been squished to nothing.

When you appeal that Einstein overturned Newton's ideas - that's not quite fair. When Einstein did was to add a small tweak to Newtons laws to make them work at very high speeds (speeds vastly faster than Newton had been able to consider). At more 'normal' speeds, Newtons laws still work just fine. Einstein didn't invalidate any of the results of any existing laws within the range of properties over which they had been so carefully tested. Similarly, any new theory that might replace Einstein's would have to produce pretty much identical results over the range that we have exercised Einsteins's laws - which means that Newman really can't hand-wave away the results of relativity because his new theory has to produce the same results over those ranges. The way that galactic Muons are so clearly time-dilated can't not be true - it's the result of a lot of careful experiments (reported in peer-reviewed journals). So a new theory of 'massergies' can't simply ignore the truth of time-dilation at the speed of light.

This is why this issue of rotation of massergies is so problematic. It flat out doesn't fit with the results of experiment. SteveBaker (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Based upon an understanding of Newman's mechanical (gyroscopic massergy) model for magnetic attraction & repulsion, predictions can be made than can be verified by observation. That's the nature of the scientific method. His model mechanically explains Fleming's Rule; it also explains the weak 'sideways' attraction that occurs when the SAME poles of magnets are joined and why such 'sideways' repulsion occurs when OPPOSITE poles of magnets are joined together. Observation for data gathering (observing magnets in attraction/repulsion) + hypothesis (the explicit motions of gyroscopic massergies in a magnetic field) + extrapolation (that 'sideways' attraction and repulsion should occur under certain conditions) = observation for corroboration (testing the extrapolation) which confirms Newman's hypothesis. That process is the essence of the scientific method. ESoule (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

“Based upon an understanding of Newman's mechanical (gyroscopic massergy) model for magnetic attraction & repulsion, predictions can be made than can be verified by observation. That's the nature of the scientific method.”
No, it isn’t. It’s part of it. And it isn’t even the case here. The case here is that Newman has a dingbat model that happens to agree (or he merely claims they agree) with some already understood phenomena. What’s being predicted?
You don’t comprehend the scientific method. But hey, at this point, that’s no surprise. — NRen2k5 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Dingbat" -- more juvenile terminology to complement juvenile profanity. I comprehend the scientific method quite well. I am hopeful that someday you will also. Please provide a fundamental mechanical explanation for the following three phenomena: 1) Fleming's Rule, 2) the weak sideways attraction from offsetting the adjacent ends (N to N or S to S) of two bar magnets, 3) the weak sideways repulsion from offsetting the adjacent ends (N to S or S to N) of two bar magnets. Newman has provided his explanation. What is your fundamental mechanical explanation for such phenomena? ESoule (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   A few WP:MOS problems: the table, for example abuts the adjoining text, rather than leave an intervening margin. These should be fixed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Where the article fails is on factual accuracy, reliability of sources and NOR. Until recently, the article described the device as a reluctance motor, which it is not; it is currently saying that the machine supposedly violates the Ampere-Turns Law, which doesn't exist, at least not in this context; and it says that the commutated coil develops a magnetomotive force against the rotor, when I think it means just a force. (An mmf is any effect which causes magnetic flux to flow, not a force in the conventional sense.) Why are 6 self-published copies of the same book used as the bibliography? Would one do? The 'Specifications of a Newman Motor' table is troubling: as noted above, these are not important data.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The prose is reasonably well written, and sufficiently neutral (though 'spectacular' should be excised).

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Although it's not being edit-warred over, the article is not stable at present, having being edited substantially over the last few days. It needs to settle down more. There is some dialogue going on this page which I hope will come to fruition.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Per my comments above. Sorry for the above, but I feel it needs saying. — BillC ^talk 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bill! you were more generous than I would be for the state of the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly pretty terrible - but the problem is that it's failed two AfD's - so it's probably here to stay - therefore it needs to be brought to some kind of a reasonable state. SteveBaker (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is "Magnetic Engineering Co." in Atlanta, Georgia?

I thought I'd look up "Magnetic Engineering Co., in Atlanta, Georgia", who (it is claimed) sent an engineer in support of Newman at the patent dispute hearings.

I can find no trace of such a company on the Internet - and the Atlanta board of Trade claims that no such company exists, nor ever has existed since they started keeping records (which was in the 1950's).

Has anyone seen the name of this mysterious engineer whom they allegedly sent?

SteveBaker (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(OK - he was Sam Taliaferro - but still no sign of this company). SteveBaker (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Found him. He has a couple of respectable looking patents on magnet-related stuff (I'm no expert - but they sound kinda reasonable) - but (sigh) he now sells theraputic magnets (yep - more pseudo-science) with Bio-Magnetics of Manitou Springs[4]. Still no reference to Atlanta, Georgia. I just wish we could find ONE - JUST ONE person associated with this thing who doesn't come out sounding like a charlatan. SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Matherne of New Orleans was a physicist involved in the construction of Entergy's nuclear power plant at Taft, Louisiana. He has since retired from Entergy. He is one of the physicists and engineers who have endorsed Joseph Newman's work. Ditto for Milton Everett who was an engineer with the Mississippi Department of Energy. Ditto for Richard Vialton, electrical engineer (MIT graduate). Ditto for Ralph Hartwell who was the chief electrical engineer with WWL-TV in New Orleans. Ditto for Ted Saari, Jr. who was also an electrical engineer with WWL-TV in New Orleans. Ditto for Dr. Richard Trinko who was a nuclear engineer. Ditto for Dr. Mansur Nathoo, Solid State Physicist in England. Ditto for Dr. Roger Hastings, a physicist employed by Sperry-Univac at the time he devoted hundreds of hours of testing of Newman prototypes. And ditto for Dr. Al Swimmer, Professor of Mathematics at Arizona State University. Fortunately for you he is not retired from ASU, so it would seem in your paradigm that gives him added credibility. It would be a curious observation to see someone who believes that physicists and engineers somehow lose credibility when they retire -- even when their work & endorsements occurred BEFORE they retired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESoule (talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's OK - I wasn't looking for those guys - I was trying to track down the guy mentioned in the article as the mysterious engineer from the (seemingly) non-existant company. SteveBaker (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've met Sam Taliaferro and he certainly does exist (assuming he is still alive). He had his own magnetics company in Georgia during the late 1980s. He endorsed Joseph Newman work on numerous occasions. Where he is now -- whether he's now retired, I have no idea. ESoule (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My buddy at Unisys says that their human resources department have been asked to check out this "Dr. Roger Hastings" several times before. There is no record of him EVER working as a physicist (or anything else for that matter) with any part of Unisys - including the former Sperry-Univac divisions. SteveBaker (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Did he say anything about the earliest records of employment? We're talking about someone who claims to have been employed during the year of 1986. That's 21 years ago. It amazing if they really have records that go that far back. I'm not sure about the integrity of the records, whether they include people who haven't worked there for a number of years, etc. More questions still unanswered.Kmarinas86 (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Roger Hastings was indeed employed by the Sperry Corporation. There is an interview with Dr. Hastings endorsing Joseph Newman's work that was broadcast on CBS Evening News. Additionally, in support of Newman's technology, Dr. Hastings testified on July 30, 1986 before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Government Processes. During that testimony, he stated that he worked as a physicist for the Sperry Corporation in St. Paul, Minnesota. He described his title as "Senior Staff Scientist" and his position as "the manager of Sperry's Superconductive Electronics Technology Center". ESoule (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

He may well claim that - but Unisys (like most large companies) keep employee records for retirement fund reasons. It seems that companies don't throw out those kinds of records so long as the ex-employee might still be alive and making requests about that kind of thing - so going back to 1981 ought to be easy. But I have to say that it's proving extremely difficult to track down evidence of the existance of any of Newman's "30 experts". We know that 10 of those people have since 'retracted' their support...but I can't find out which people those were. So far, I've failed to find any journal articles written by any of the 'scientists' who signed support affidavits. That's a VERY surprising thing for working scientists - to be an established working scientist and not leave an internet papertrail a mile wide is tough! Sam Talieferro did finally show up as being the owner and sole employee of the company he claimed to work for...which means that far from being a respected engineer in a company that specialises in magnetics - he's some guy who sells 'theraputic magnets' from his basement (that's why the Atlanta board of trade had never heard of the company)...hardly someone who's opinion we should trust when it comes to overturning mainstream science! This explains why he was rejected as an expert witness during the legal proceedings surrounding the appeal of the patent rejection. Several other of Newmans expert witnesses were also tossed out at the trial - I'm currently trying to figure out why. SteveBaker (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit challenging to remain polite with someone who appears to enjoy hurling insults at and/or about people. It is also challenging to "assume good faith" when someone bandies about claims of people working in "basements" in Atlanta. I suppose that's the expected childish technique of an insult (non)artist. As to your statements above: please list the names of the 10 scientists/engineers who have "retracted their support". Whether or not someone wrote a "journal article" about something is immaterial. Over the years I spoke with some of the individuals who endorsed Newman's work and two responses were typical: 1) "Based on my analyses and test results, I believe the technology works as stated. I hope my endorsement of the technology will encourage others to approach it with an open mind and test it for themselves"; and 2) "I have been repeatedly contacted by hostile, narrow-minded academics who claim the technology is 'impossible' without ever having tested it for themselves and they have abused my time on the telephone with their insults and negativity." Newman had at least three expert witnesses testify on his behalf during legal proceedings: Dr. Roger Hastings (physicist), Milton Everett (mechanical engineer), and Ralph Hartwell (electrical engineer). Then there was also William E. Schuyler, Jr., who was nominated by the Patent Office to be the Special Master (for the Federal District Court) and who was assigned the Special Master's task of evaluating Newman's technology. William Schuyler -- according to the Federal District Court Judge -- was an electrical engineer with 'impeccable credentials' and who was a former Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office. In his Report of the Special Master, William Schuyler wrote, "Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office and this Court is OVERWHELMING that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external input energy; there is NO contradictory factual evidence." ESoule (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You have an amazing knack for self-defeating arguments.
To reuse the term of one of the anonymous shills above, Schuyler’s testimony comes straight from the peanut gallery. At least in the quote you provide, he makes absolutely no mention of the validity of Newman’s “invention”; only that his claims are self-consistent and that he has not been presented with factual evidence debunking them. Sorta like me saying the moon is made of cheese and you corroborating it, having never tasted a moonrock. — NRen2k5 03:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Self-defeating arguments" -- hardly. William E. Schuyler, Jr. put his "impeccable" (to quote the Federal Judge who appointed him Special Master) credentials on the line when he was assigned the task of evaluating the validity of Newman's technology. And his findings speak for themselves: he confirmed that there was overwhelming evidence that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his invention in which the output energy exceed the external input energy and he confirmed that there is no contradictory factual evidence. Newman had dozens of Affidavits from scientists and engineers who had tested the Newman prototypes and agreed that it operates as claimed; and the Patent Office had "no contradictory factual evidence" disputing Newman's findings about his technology. Re your comments: more of the same from the peanut gallery. ESoule (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest concerns.

Oh crap.

User:NRen2k5 points out that "one Evan Soule has a working relationship with Joseph Newman – the picture identifies him as its creator". If User:Esoule is indeed Evan Soule - then he should immediately recuse himself from editing this article. There are clear guidelines under: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest that makes it quite unacceptable for Evan Soule to contribute to this article. If this is indeed the case then I'm personally horrified that Esoule didn't happen to mention this during any of the preceding discussions.

Does anyone else here wish to announce a personal interest in this matter? It would be more embarrassing if such editors were to force me to go dig this information out the hard way!

SteveBaker (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Further: On this page: http://www.phact.org/e/dennis19.html Evan Soule identifies himself as: "Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS". This is unacceptable. A matter for WP:COIN, I think. SteveBaker (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you've provided more of your juvenile profanity.

Yes, I am indeed the "Director of Information for Newman Energy Products." That's a position I've held for over 24 years -- and I'm proud of it. That "position" BTW, is a voluntary one and I have voluntarily (without monetary compensation or payment) assisted Joseph Newman in any manner that I can because I understand the importance of his technology for humanity. I also have nearly 2.5 decades of original records, documentation, and eye-witnessed events regarding the history of Joseph Newman's struggle to bring forth his technology. So you are very right: I have a very "personal interest" in this technology because it makes me "personally happy" to see this technology go forward to benefit the world and see others (sans those who engage in juvenile profanity) have the opportunity to observe and test the technology for themselves. And yes, for 24 years I have voluntarily distributed information to those interested in learning more about the technology. I have no more -- or no less -- a "conflict of interest" than anyone else who writes in support of Newman's work because it also makes them "personally happy" to provide others with an opportunity to understand it. ESoule (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha. — NRen2k5 22:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha. Ha. —  ESoule (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you’re really making this easy for us. Kinda tough for you to argue that you should be allowed to touch the article anymore when you readily admit to working for Newman. — NRen2k5 14:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And please, if you absolutely have to use HTML code instead of wiki code, don’t write broken code. I just had to edit your sig for you because you forgot to close an em tag, which made my whole reply show up in italics. — NRen2k5 14:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Roger Hastings in the media Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 05:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Evan Soule in the media Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 05:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point being……… ? — NRen2k5 14:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't you get it? Evan Soule has been reported in the media, evidence he has been with Newman for a long time.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 17:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you’re just quickly verifying how Hastings is a credible source and how Soule is in COI, I take it? I just didn’t quite understand researching Hastings at the same time. — NRen2k5 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you seriously believe that Soule is credible. Incredible. — NRen2k5 03:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. I said nothing like that. My point was clear: "Evan Soule has been reported in the media, evidence he has been with Newman for a long time." HOW do you read that as "[I] seriously believe that Soule is credible"????Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - but the point is that someone who has been closely involved with the inventor and who claims to be "Director of Information" is CLEARLY someone who has a conflict of interest here. We cannot trust someone with such a high degree of personal involvement to maintain a neutral point of view. the WP:COI guidelines are pretty clear that people who have such close relations with the subject of an article SHOULD NOT EDIT IT. SteveBaker (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No Conflict of Interest concerns.

NRen: I don't "work for" Newman. I have volunteered my time for him (25 years this November 2008) because I believe in the importance of his innovation for humanity. As such, I know firsthand details of the history of the technology, having personally met Roger Hastings, Milton Everett, Mansur Nathoo, Robert Matherne (physicists & engineers who have endorsed his work) and many others. I have already corrected historical errors on the Wikipedia site. One assumes that Wikipedia does not wish to have historically inaccurate postings on its site. By analogy, I believe there are those who would value having access to the information provided by someone who had, for example, voluntarily assisted Robert Goddard for 25 years in the pursuit of his scientific work. ESoule (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you’re in league with Newman. The nature of your business relationship is not terribly important. The fact that you have one is. Kindly stop editing the article, or I’ll request your editing priviledges be blocked. Consider this a warning. — NRen2k5 03:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NRen: I am not "in league" with Newman since such terminology may typically imply some "dark or sinister purpose". And what you write above is incorrect: I have no "business relationship" with Newman. Your arrogant and condescending tone, your veiled threat (as a "warning") and your repeated profanities are inappropriate. If I observe factual and historical inaccuracies posted on Wikipedia, I will do my best to correct them. ESoule (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

On this page: http://www.phact.org/e/dennis19.html Evan Soule identifies himself as: "Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS". Are you denying that you are now or have ever been "Director of Information" for that organisation? Please explain yourself. SteveBaker (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have registered a complaint about this unacceptable situation on WP:COIN: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#The_Energy_Machine_of_Joseph_Newman. SteveBaker (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No business relationship with Newman? Well, that has since proved to be false. Nobody had a gun to your head when you admitted multiple times to be the Newman’s Director Of Information, did they?

I have uttered no threats against you. Yes I did give you a warning. Meaning, telling you what your actions are against the rules and you will suffer the consequences if you continue. It should be above any rational adult to take such a warning as a “veiled threat”.

Your corrections to your observed inaccuracies should be both verifiable and relevant. My observation so far is that they haven’t even been as verifiable or relevant as the material they sought to correct.

As for my language, thank you, I’ll try to keep a civil tone. — NRen2k5 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a Director of Information for Newman Energy Products. I literally "direct information" about the energy machine technology. Who hired me? No one. Am I paid to direct information about the Energy Machine of Joseph Newman? No. Have I ever been paid to direct information about Newman's technology? No. Am I in business with Joseph Newman? No. Having voluntarily helped Joseph Newman disseminate information about the technology for nearly 25 years, I have direct, first-hand knowledge about the technology and its history as well as supporting documentation. That is precisely why I have corrected errors in statements made by others on the Wikipedia page, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. Example: Someone had previously posted on Wikipedia that Newman "rented" the Superdome in New Orleans. That is a false statement. I know for a fact that Newman was invited by two gentlemen in New Orleans to present his technology at the Louisiana Superdome for a week. Those two gentlemen had previously heard his free presentation to more than 2,000 people at the New Orleans Hilton Hotel, liked what they heard, and they wanted to provide Joseph Newman with a larger and longer venue at the Louisiana Superdome. Thus, of their own initiative, they personally contracted with the Louisiana Superdome and invited Joseph Newman to come and present his technology to a larger audience. Before that presentation, Joseph Newman requested that the event at the Superdome be free and open to the public. However, Superdome officials required a minimum $1.00 entrance fee to the event. Joseph Newman subsequently agreed to the presentation on the stipulation that all entrance fee monies be paid directly to the Superdome and retained by the Superdome. Joseph Newman publicly announced at the Superdome event that he "would not accept any entrance fee monies" since he had originally requested the event to be free and open to everyone. 206.255.88.80 (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you are paid or not - your personal involvement in the project means that you have a clear conflict of interest as an editor. Wikipedia has clear policies about that kind of thing - and they make no mention of whether the personal involvement is paid or volunteer (WP:COI is a good place to start reading about those policies). While you are welcome to edit here at Wikipedia - you are NOT welcome to edit articles about which you have this degree of personal involvement. Your personal knowledge about the subject of this article is PRECISELY the kind of thing Wikipedia seeks to avoid - we call it "Original Research" and it is also disallowed (WP:NOR). Here is the kind of problem that could hypothetically arise: Much of this article is based on references that come from Newman's various web sites - if you are his "Director of Information" then it is almost certain that you have a hand in the creation of those sites. That's just one possibility. You may deny that - but it's simply not credible that a director of information wouldn't be involved in writing information on web sites like that. This means that you can make any statement you like in those places - then reference YOURSELF in this article! That would mean that you could treat Wikipedia (whose INDEPENDANCE is a cornerstone) as a mere extension of your own promotional machine. If you can't see the problem with that then I'm (again) at a loss to understand your thinking. Please stop contributing to this article immediately. SteveBaker (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ESoule : Per the discussion at the COI noticeboard, I would encourage you to continue contributing to the article, but to do so by stating any recommended changes here (on the talk page) rather than on the actual article in order to avoid any COI issues. Ayla (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And NRen2k5, don't you already have enough of a history of harassment and incivility, such as here and here? How about having had your user page speedy deleted due to its containing harassing information? Considering your past misbehaviour, your warning to ESoule is utterly void. Ayla (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don’t need to be reminded. I do suggest you watch yourself, though. You’re now attacking me (unless you call dredging up old libel against me and declaring my argument void because of my history anything but an ad hominem attack). — NRen2k5 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have brought up your history if there wasn't the need to remind you that some aspects of your attitude towards ESoule are not tolerated on Wikipedia. You have repeatedly called his statements a "bullshit answer" or "bullshit argument" – less than 10 days ago. The WP:COI guideline explicitly recommends against the use of judgemental terms, let alone derogatory. Call my "attack" ad hominen if you will, but failing to observe basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines yourself undermines your credibility in accusing others of doing so. Ayla (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So you think there was a need to do so? I don’t. You seem awfully preoccupied with my history, which isn’t even at issue here. — NRen2k5 19:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There was the need to do so in order to demonstrate to ESoule that your incivility is not tolerated by other editors either – especially towards newcomers – and especially when the newcomer himself civilly expresses his annoyance at your "arrogant and condescending tone [and] your repeated profanities". But you are right, the issue of your behaviour is diverting the main discussion, so if it is still unsettled, we should move it to a Wikiquette alert. Ayla (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no unsettled issue. You can put the gun down now. — NRen2k5 09:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We aren't talking about NRen2k5 - we're talking about ESoule. I'm saying the exact same thing as NRen2k5 - and my record on wikipedia is utterly immaculate: 10,000 edits - never blocked, never sanctioned, two featured articles, more honestly earned barnstars than you can shake a stick at, tons of experience with dealing with disruptive editors and support of community efforts such as adopt-a-user. So mud-slinging isn't going to work. ESoule is clearly in the wrong here. SteveBaker (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your claim on the COI issue, and I agree that ESoule should refrain from editing the article directly. However, given that this editor appears to be reasonably willing to engage in discussion, I believe you should have presented him with the talk page compliance suggestion – even if just out of good faith – rather than push for him to be blocked. Ayla (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While the COI noticeboard discussion is ongoing, I’ll refrain from blindly reverting ESoule’s edits for COI. Actually, I’ll try to refrain from touching his work at all. Instead, if I think there is any problem, I’ll bring it up for discussion on the talk page here. — NRen2k5 01:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Thanks for cooperating. Ayla (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

SBaker: Your comments are well taken. Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised at the civility of your recommendations --- since I had (mistakenly) anticipated arguments laced with profanity and insults. That civility reflects positively on the quality of some who provide editing services for Wikipedia. Ayla's suggestion that additional recommended changes can be posted on the talk page rather than the actual article is reasonable. ESoule (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

List of historical supporters of Newman

Name	Occupation	Current standing	Links
Dan Benevuti	Real Estate Developer	REJECTS	Google News
Roger Hastings	Developer of magnetically enhanced surgical devices	SUPPORTS	Google News Google Patents
Dr. E. L. Morgane	Unknown	Unknown	Google News Google Patents
Dr. Robert E. Smith, Jr.	Technical Monitor. ACD-Computer Applications Branch. NASA.	Unknown (no verified quotes)	Google News NASA.gov
Evan Soule	"Director of Information" for Newman Energy Products	SUPPORTS	Google News
Sam Taliaferro	Sells 'theraputic magnets'.	SUPPORTS (as of 1986)	Google News

I'm not sure what the point of this list is. The opinion of a real estate developer is of no consequence one way or another. As has already been discussed, Hasting's credentials are highly suspect, and Moragne has totally misrepresented himself (no scientist named "Moragne" had any significant role in the Manhattan Project). As for Smith, in addition to contradictions regarding his job title, all his quotes appear to extremely old and taken out of context. Finally, Sam Taliferro is listed as an engineer at the "Magnetic Engineering Co." in Atlanta - a company which does not exist. A whole lot of bad evidence does not add up to good evidence. Oh, maybe that was your point in the first place. If so, I apologize.Prebys (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a rather useful list (although it doesn't belong in the article). Knowing who exactly supports this device and their actual technical qualifications and abilities is rather revealing. We can add more information as follows:

I agree it becomes useful as long as some real details about the people are included.Prebys (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr Smith shows up a "Technical Monitor" for the ACD-Computer Applications Branch at NASA, Langley. I have been unable to find any technical papers written by him - it seems that he probably "Monitored" the financial goings on of projects at Langley rather than participating in them technically. I wonder whether he's actually a scientist at all?

Other people that ESoule has claimed are supporting scientists are:

• Robert Matherne: Robert Matherne of New Orleans was a physicist involved in the construction of Entergy's nuclear power plant at Taft, Louisiana. He has since retired from Entergy. He is one of the physicists and engineers who have endorsed Joseph Newman's work.
• Milton Everett: Ditto for Milton Everett who was an engineer with the Mississippi Department of Energy.
• Richard Vialton: Ditto for Richard Vialton, electrical engineer (MIT graduate).
• Ralph Hartwell: Ditto for Ralph Hartwell who was the chief electrical engineer with WWL-TV in New Orleans.
• Ted Saari: Ditto for Ted Saari, Jr. who was also an electrical engineer with WWL-TV in New Orleans.
• Dr. Richard Trinko: Ditto for Dr. Richard Trinko who was a nuclear engineer.
• Dr Mansur Nathoo: Ditto for Dr. Mansur Nathoo, Solid State Physicist in England.
• Dr Al Swimmer: And ditto for Dr. Al Swimmer, Professor of Mathematics at Arizona State University. Fortunately for you he is not retired from ASU,

SteveBaker (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Weider and weirder = in this interesting document [[5]] Newman (via User:ESoule) claims that Hastings is "another thief of my work and who also violated Confidential Disclosure Documents". SteveBaker (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In an idle moment, I thought I'd try to track down Dr. E. L. Morgane. As usual with people connected to this business, almost all of the Google hits are from Newman's web sites. However, I did track down a patent filed by Dr Morgane on behalf of Morgane Research & Development Co. You'd think that someone with a doctorate and who worked on the development of the Atom bomb might have invented something rather profound. However, I'm pleased to report that his is one of the simplest patents I've ever had to read. According to [6] he's patented the idea of putting a magnetically operated switch under the filler cap of a car's gas tank that cuts out the engine to prevent you from filling the car with the engine running. The phrase "it's not rocket science" certainly applies. I guess we have another supposedly competent scientist who has never done anything of significant value. SteveBaker (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr Mansur Nathoo - whom ESoule tells us is a Solid State Physicist in England turns up not one single Google hit - the only Dr Mansur Nathoo who appears at all is a medical doctor living in Texas. SteveBaker (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, Al Swimmer, who ESoule is proud is not retired, in fact is retired. Note that after more than 30 years at ASU, he retired as an associate professor (I didn't even think that was possible), so the description as "renowned mathematics professor" is a bit of hyperbole. Add to that, the only evidence that he supported Newman's work is Newman's word, and I think we've got another dud. This is too easy.Prebys (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment, I must express a counterpoint: It is possible to retire as an associate professor, and it is also possible to achieve "renown" at any point in your career without being promoted to full professor. Who knows, the renown could have been the cause of the retirement. The real argument here is that no verifiable sources outside of Newman and associates can confirm this mathematician's support of Newman's work. Another argument could be made that a mathematician isn't necessarily an expert in physics - it's about as useful as a theologian expressing opinions about coal mining or something. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, so as evidence of lack of "renown", I'll point to the fact that googling his name finds almost nothing - except for Newman's claims of course. As you say, though, it's all a moot point, since there's exactly zero evidence he ever supported Newman in the first place.Prebys (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, that's the heart of it. I cannot believe that anyone of "renown" doesn't show up in a Google search (or any of the other search engines - trust me - I've tried all of them!). There are freely searchable mathematical, physical, biological and chemical journal databases out there that have at least the title and author(s) of every paper published in a reputable journal going back to the early 1800's with cross-references to every article that's been referenced in those journals that extend out into less reputable journals. How is it remotely possible to have gone through your entire career as a "reputable" scientist or mathematician without publishing a single paper? It's utterly incredible. As a check on that, I did a search on a Biochemist friend of mine who hasn't had a stellar career - but is still listed as co-author on a dozen papers that I was able to find with the simplest of searches using nothing more than her name. If we found just one so-called scientist on the list who fell into that strange category of being "respected" but completely unpublished, that would be an exceedingly surprising thing. But here we are with essentially NONE of the people on the list being credible in that regard. There can be no doubt that Soule and Newman have either dreamed up these names from thin air - or (as in the case of the "respected magnetics engineer" who actually dupes people into buying "theraputic magnets" at county fairgrounds) their qualifications are so wildly inflated as to be just about meaningless. A few of these guys have patents - but getting a patent is just a matter of paying the fee - it proves NOTHING. So if Mr Soule is still listening - I'd like him (as the Information Director for Newman) to give us the names, qualifications and few of the notable publications of the scientists that are claimed to have supported this device - because, quite frankly, I don't think they exist. SteveBaker (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Going back to Swimmer, I'm pretty sure the whole endorsement was fabricated anyway. All the accounts are second (or third or fourth) hand, and are pretty bizarre. This one claims he wrote a "signed declaration" (Newman really digs those) that Newman was "correct by the mathematical odds of a trillion to one". I don't know what the heck that means, and there's no way any mathematician (renowned or otherwise) would ever have said something that weird. Strangely (or not so strangely), the "declaration" itself seems to have vanished. There's only one reference to Swimmer at the Newman website, and it contains no direct quotes. Maybe ESoule can help clear this up, but I'm not holding my breath.Prebys (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I especially liked this quote from one of Newman's MANY web sites where he talks about Swimmer's support:

"So that you may recognize the magnitude of my life's work for humanity, I will provide a quotation to you from Dr. Al Swimmer, a distinguished Professor of Mathematics at Arizona State University since the 1960s. After studying my life's work, Dr. Swimmer came to my home about one year ago and knocked on my front door. Since we had not scheduled a meeting, I was surprised to see him and so I asked him why he was there. He said to me: "Joe, I AM HERE TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE HUMAN RACE. WHEN YOU GAVE A UNIFIED MECHANICAL FIELD THEORY -- THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT YOUR DOORSTEP. WHEN YOU THEN BUILT AN ENERGY DEVICE WITH MORE ENERGY OUT THAN (EXTERNALLY) PUT INTO IT -- THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT YOUR DOORSTEP. WHEN YOU THEN BUILT A SPACE DEVICE AND MADE IT LIFT ELECTROMAGNETICALLY -- THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT YOUR DOORSTEP. I AM HERE TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE HUMAN RACE."

(He's a humble chap, this Newman guy, isn't he!)

I find it extremely hard to believe that ANY human being (let alone a renowned mathematician) would travel all the way from Arizona to appear on someone's doorstep completely unannounced and speak those words. It's completely unlike anything anyone would say. Since when do people speak with brackets around what they say "(EXTERNALLY)" ? If we are to believe that Swimmer felt that way - why did he never write a single word about this epoch-turning theory? (And what's this "Space device" that "lifts electromagnetically"? That's got to be good for a laugh!)

The page I got this from is here: [7] - in which Newman claims to have proved the existance of God using one or other of his theories.

Oh - yeah - and as for the 'probability' thing. Newman is fond of long odds calculated by strange means. In his "proof of God" he finds the number 14 in the religious tomes of seven different major religions (yeah - numerology...let's not go there). His proof is as follows (in Newman's own words):

"Therefore, GOD alone MARKED ALL SEVEN MAJOR RELIGIONS BY "GOD'S HANDPRINT": THE NUMBER "14"! Accordingly, the mathematical odds against that number being simply an accidental occurrence, is MORE THAN 105 MILLION TO ONE! (14 x 14 x 14 x 14 x 14 x 14 x 14 = 105 MILLION)".

So the probability of finding the number 14 in one of these great books is one in fourteen?!? How the heck did he get THAT? I mean - where do you even start with explaining why that's a complete crock? I guess Swimmer didn't bother to teach him any math while he was there!

SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seed the God quote. This all supports my belief that Newman isn't really a con man, but actually insane. A real con man would not admit he was running a car powered by only 68 250V batteries!!Prebys (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I made the mistake of watching Newman on YouTube. Man, numbers are just not that guy's bag. At one point, he somehow uses Amps and pounds to get Watts, and then folds in distance and velocity to get efficiency. I can't even figure out what he was trying to do.Prebys (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

During the Atlanta demonstration of Newman's automobile, the vehicle utilized a current equivalent to that of a single 1.5v transistor battery. He did not use 250v batteries. The batteries he did use were 9v batteries provided to him by Ray-O-Vac Corporation. Within each 9 volt battery were six 1.5v transistor 'wafer-sized' batteries connected in series. Thus, the current provided by the system was equivalent to that of any single 1.5v transistor battery. That tiny current was insufficient to power the vehicle which operated continuously on the voltage. ESoule (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being pedantic, power is voltage times current. Going on about either one alone is meaningless.Prebys (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless? Hardly, Prebs. Once again, that comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of the technology. Conventional motors are designed to operate on CURRENT. Joseph Newman's motor/generator operates on VOLTAGE. That is why his energy machine always runs "cool". That by itself is a considerable advantage over conventional motors. And why does he place such an emphasis on voltage? Simple. The higher the input voltage or "hydraulic pressure" (in a mechanical sense) and, conversely, the lower the current --- the more atomic domains align in the copper conductor. The more atomic domains that become aligned, the greater the resultant magnetic field. And that is true up to the maximum alignment of those atomic domains. Beyond that point, any applied voltage will be counterproductive. Each atomic domains contains a field of gyroscopic massergies that mechanically/physically duplicates the physical design of a magnetic field that one sees when one sprinkles iron filings on a pane of glass above a typical bar magnet. When two atomic domains become aligned, then the previous field of gyroscopic massergies within each atomic domain merge to create a field of atomic domains that physically extends beyond their original field boundaries. As more and more atomic domains in the copper conductor become aligned, then the resultant (magnetic) field of gyroscopic massergies becomes larger and larger. Of course when voltage (hydraulic pressure) is applied to a copper conductor, the atomic domains align themselves very quickly to create the large (electro)magnetic field comprised of gyroscopic massergies which surrounds the copper conductor. See the fifth diagram from the top at: http://www.josephnewman.com/more-info.html ESoule (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous. Have you even taken a basic physics class? Power is voltage time current. Most motors are designed to run on high current, low voltage for the simple reason that high voltages are impractical (and can be dangerous). I can easily design a motor to run on high voltage. In the end, it depends on the magnetic field. For example, the field in a solenoid is given by \mu times the current, times the number of windings per unit length. By going to more windings, I can go to arbitrarily low currents, but there's no practical reason to do so. Also, this leads to enormous inductances, which case other problems. Really, this is a freshman physics exercise, maybe high school.Prebys (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

unindent

Let's crunch Newmans' numbers from the YouTube video

So when you watch all three parts of the Ford F150 demo on YouTube,[8], [9], and write down everything Newman says - you arrive at the following reasoning that he is trying to get across:

• A typical golf cart weighs 600 lbs and runs for 25 minutes before the 36volt battery pack is essentially dead.

• He claims that his F150 weighs 8000lbs and runs for 50 minutes - at the end of which the same 36volt battery pack still has some (unknown) amount of charge left in it because the voltage has not yet dropped by 10%.

• Hence, the truck is pulling 13 times the weight for twice as long - so it's 26 times more efficient than the golf cart. (At one point, he says 50 times...I don't know where that came from).

• He admits he's estimating the amount of time the golf cart will run and he's never actually measured the voltage at the end of their run...but he can "assure us" that it's got to be down 10%. Mmmmm'K.

Well, first of all, let us examine his "facts". He definitely needs to check his facts because hardly any of them are correct:

1. A typical golf cart weighs 900 to 1000lbs (according to our Golf cart article) - not 600lbs as he claims. Add a couple of golfers and a few bags of clubs and you're certainly well over 1000lbs - probably nearer 1300lbs.
2. He claims the F150 pickup truck weighs 8,000lbs including 1,000lbs for his motor. But the F150 has a 6,600 gross weight limit. That means that the truck plus the heaviest load it can safely carry adds up to 6,600lbs. He said his energy machine weighs 1,000lbs - so that would mean that truck minus energy machine would have to be 7,000lbs...which is impossible - how can an unladen truck weigh more than it's maximum all-up weight?!?! What's more - he's ripped out the insanely large engine that was in the vehicle and replaced it with a handful of golf cart batteries. Look at the thing - do the springs look pushed down to their limits? I don't think so. So (best guess) the truck weighs no more than 4,000 lbs, 5,000 including the energy machine - but let's be generous and go with maximum gross weight of 6,600lbs. So the truck is only about 5 to 6 times heavier than the golf cart - possibly MUCH less because he may have stripped out lots of other heavy things like the stock transmission.
3. He arrives at the 25 minutes battery life for a golf cart by flat out guessing that it takes about a minute to get between holes on an 18 hole course...plus some time getting to the clubhouse - or some such bullshit like that. Why didn't he ask someone? He has no clue what the battery life is or he'd have said so instead of waffling on about how he arrived at the 25 minute number. The truth is that (from several golf cart manufacturer web sites) golf carts typically run for 2 hours on one battery pack on a golf course (rough ground - not nice smooth concrete as the Newman truck was running over) - and they'll go for more like 3 to 4 hours on smooth, flat roads.

So: Newman drove his truck for three to four times LESS duration than a golf cart will go - and his truck is only 5 to 6 times heavier - so AT BEST, his motor is 6/3=2 (only twice as efficient than a golf cart motor) and it could easily be 5/4=1.25 (25% more efficient). But that's USING HIS OWN WAY OF CALCULATING IT. However, his way of calculating efficiency is quite utterly bogus! DURATION isn't the only variable here. At what speed was he driving compared to the speed of a golf cart? Did he do as many starts and stops as a golf cart typically would? How much accelleration did he apply? (Golf carts certainly accellerate much faster than his pickup did!) Remember: F=MA - Force equals Mass TIMES ACCELELRATION. The accelleration is as important as the mass in determining how much force is required to drive the vehicle - and therefore how much Energy is consumed. How much air resistance is there in a nice smooth truck cab versus the parachute-like cloth roof of a golf cart? There are plenty of unknowns here that could EASILY erase that factor of 2 (or 1.25 as I rather suspect it is!). I'd bet good money that his motor is significantly LESS efficient than a typical golf cart motor...and it weighs a thousand pounds!

So - there you have it. Research the facts and even if there was nothing rigged in the demo at all, Newman is utterly deluding himself about the performance he's getting.

I'd also like to STRONGLY dispute his claim that "all engineers know that you can scale machines up and down and get proportionate gains". This is quite untrue. Because the lengths of levers scale linearly with machine size, areas of contact points for friction grow as the square of the size of the machine and masses and volumes increase as the cube of the size - there is hardly ANYTHING out there that scales proportionately. Almost all machines have strong limits on the range of dimensions over which they'll work.

The fact is that this is a truly unimpressive demo. The truck does pretty much what I'd expect a truck to do when powered by a bunch of golf cart batteries. His wonder-machine is just another electric motor. If Newman had been an honest man and had spent three minutes searching the web (as I just did) before shooting his mouth off on this big demo, he'd have had nothing remarkable to say at all.

You have a thousand pounds of Newman motor and it's probably only about as good as a typical golf cart with it's two 5lb motors.

But I did notice that he's now claiming that over 40 scientists support him.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Among the most important indicators of "junk science" are ridiculously elaborate experiments to prove points that, if true, could be established much more simply and convincingly in a straightforward way. If the motor really operated with "efficiencies" of thousands of percent, then a simple test of input electrical power (calculated directly from an oscilloscope, not a DVM!) and output mechanical power would establish this beyond any doubt, but the only people to have done this are the NBS. Newman and his supporters always do these weird experiments involving driving cars, pumping water, and draining batteries, that are hard to interpret. On the other hand, this supports my belief that he is not a con man, simply deluded and confused. A con man would have hidden an extra couple of batteries or rigged the test in some other way. Newman is more like those ESP researchers back in the 70's who cheerfully and honestly reported all the biases that gave them positive results.Prebys (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This demo wasn't hard to interpret. It was a rare example where he stated enough of the parameters of the experiment for us to judge it carefully. His numbers are 'off' by more or less credible amounts. We could forgive him that he thought golf carts weigh half of what they realistically do - after all, his machine is supposed to be 26 times more efficient - so what if it's only 13 times more?)...But every single error he makes is in his favor - not one mistake is the other way. The errors multiply together to make a big impressive efficiency number. It's only when you correct ALL of his numbers and actually do the math that this super-impressive demo turns into what it truly is - the world's slowest electric truck powered by a half ton electric motor of fairly ordinary performance! I don't think he faked this demo - if he had, I wouldn't have been able to destroy it so easily. I have no opinion about whether his other demos were faked or simply badly specified and poorly stated. I'd like to think he's merely deluding himself about this machine that is his life's work - but then we see things like the list of 30 (or is it 40?) reputable scientists - not one of whom turns out to be a reputable scientist...now I think "good old-fashioned fraud". However, we know that others are involved - perhaps Newman is honest-but-deluded and some of his followers are exploiting him? Some of his other statements are just ravings: Proof of the existance of God! Marrying both his second wife and her very young daughter! Travelling through space faster than the speed of light using all-pervasive electromagnetic energy!...These things suggest a man who has gone beyond being deluded into thinking his motor is breaking the laws of physics. I just don't know. SteveBaker (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

According to people who knew Pons and Fleischman, they started out completely sincere, and then when the data started turning against them, started fudging it more and more until they were outright lying. I'm guessing Newman is something like this. After "40 years", the best he's managed is a truck that goes like 3 mph for a few minutes, so it this is a con, it's a looooong con. If you want a true free energy con, go on YouTube and look for "stan meyer". That dude had a dune buggy that ran on water (until "big oil" had him killed of course). You might also want to google around for "Genesis World Energy" as an example of just how stupid people can be. If you want some modern cons, check out "Aguygen" or "Black Light Power". I think in the end, Newman is just kind of pathetic.Prebys (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to ammeter and voltmeter testing, extensive oscilloscope testing has been performed on Newman motor/generator prototypes, and such testing has confirmed that the machine operates as stated by Joseph Newman. There has been previous discussion about the so-called "NBS test" that calls into question both the accuracy of the test protocol as well as the nature of the tests conducted by the three individuals at the NBS (now N.I.S.T.). I find it interesting that the three individuals were incapable of following their own testing protocol schematic in which the device was NOT to be grounded during testing. Yet, for EVERY test they finally conducted, they ALWAYS grounded the device. One would have hoped that they would at least have had the curiosity to conduct ONE test without grounding the device. ESoule (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So...what's your response to my careful and unswervingly polite analysis of Newman's YouTube demo? No comment? Which of my numbers would you care to dispute? SteveBaker (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

this is getting way way off topic for a wikipedia talkpage - we do not 1) speculate on the mental states of living figures (BLP, WP:NOT), we don't not have involved discussions where we crunch our own numbers and speculate on experiments and what they mean (WP:NOT, OR etc). We simply decide what sources are accurate and useful for an article and we include them. I suggest that you guys go to a talkforum if you want to continue this debate - because this is not the place for it. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

References