Newman's energy machine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Joseph Newman (inventor)" redirects here. For other people called Joseph Newman, see Joseph Newman (disambiguation).
Controversial invention
Newman Motor Diagram.gif
Diagram of a Newman Motor
Name The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman
Disciplines physics
mechanical engineering
Core tenets

Electromagnetic energy can be rendered useful by means other than atomic or chemical chain reactions. Specifically, a rotating permanent magnet spinning inside an electromagnetic pulsating conducting coil utilizes the coil's mass-energy and turns it into torque.

Year proposed 1984
Inventor Joseph Newman
Controversy Output energy per unit time exceeding input energy per same time violates the Conservation of Energy and the Laws of Thermodynamics because electric motor windings are not a source of energy, contrary to Newman's claims.

Newman's Energy Machine is a DC motor which the inventor, Joseph Newman, claims produces mechanical power exceeding the electrical power being supplied to it (an over-unity or perpetual motion device). In 1979, Newman attempted to patent the device, but was rejected by the United States Patent Office. When the rejection was later appealed, the United States district court requested that Newman's machine be tested by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The NBS concluded in June 1986 that output power was not greater than the input, and it was not a perpetual motion machine.[1] Thus, the patent was again denied.[2][3] The scientific community has rejected Newman's ideas about electricity and magnetism as pseudoscientific and his claims as false.[4]

Claims by the inventor[edit]

Mainstream scientists reject Newman's claims, saying that they are rooted on a misinterpretation of Lenz's law.[4] By adding rolls to the armature of a motor, a larger and larger counter-electromotive force is generated on the motor.[4] The resulting pulses create huge spikes in the output current, causing the measuring instruments to give mistaken readings.[1][4]

Newman outlined his claims about there being a fundamental electromagnetic interaction in all matter ultimately derived from only one type of force particle propagating at the speed of light.[5] Newman claims that the motor derives its power by converting some of the mass of the copper in the coils into usable energy, in application of Einstein's Mass–energy equivalence.[4] According to proponents of the Energy Machine, the most crucial part of the design concerns what happens as a result of mechanical commutation.[6][7] Most scientists regard Newman's explanations as pseudoscience. His conclusions are in conflict with mainstream physics, and no articles in respected textbooks or peer reviewed journals make any direct references to them.[4]

NBS Test Results of the Joseph Newman Device.
Schematic diagram of NBS test protocol.[1]

U.S. patent application[edit]

In 1979, Newman submitted an application for his device to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.[8] The application was eventually rejected in 1983,[9] which set off a lengthy court battle. The National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), by request of the patent office, tested the device for several months and got negative results.[1] In every case presented in the NBS report, the output power was less than power input from the battery pack, and therefore the efficiency was less than 100%.[1] The court therefore upheld the rejection of the patent application.[2][3]

Newman argued that he had been mistreated by the patent office, and tried to have his motor legalized directly by the US Congress.[4] He obtained a hearing in 30 July 1986 in front of several senators, but he was unsuccessful.[4] During the hearing, Newman refused to have the machine tested by independent experts, and senator John Glenn pointed out that his supposedly-independent expert actually had a prior business relationship with him.[4]

The case is now cited in the USPTO's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure as an example of an "inoperative" invention that can't have any utility, concretely as a perpetual motion machine.[10]

Perpetual motion controversy[edit]

Newman claims that his device derives its power by converting a small fraction of the mass in the copper coils into energy, and that it is therefore not a perpetual motion machine.[7] Many scientists don't think this theory is correct, and still classify it as "just another impossible perpetual motion machine".[7] Skeptics argue that regardless of the exact mode of operation, if the output power is higher than the required input electrical power, the device should be capable of running "closed-loop", producing excess power without external batteries.[4] Such operation has never been demonstrated.[4]

Legal controversy[edit]

In August 2007 the state of Alabama Securities Commission issued a cease and desist order against the "Newman Energy Corp", because it was selling unregistered securities of its company.[11]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

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

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e US National Bureau of Standards (June 1986). "Report of Tests on Joseph Newman's Device". The National Capital Area Skeptics. Retrieved 2008-01-12. 
  2. ^ a b US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Case #88-1312, Newman v Quigg.
  3. ^ a b Peterson, Ivars, (5 July 1986). "NBS report short-circuits energy machine - National Bureau of Standards". Science News. Retrieved 2007-12-24. 
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Park, Robert L (2000), Voodoo Science: The road from foolishness to fraud, Oxford, U.K. & New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 8–9,102–106, ISBN 0-19-860443-2, retrieved 14 November 2010 
  5. ^ The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman (online copy)
  6. ^ "Perpetual Motion: Still Going Around". The Washington Post. 2000-01-12. Retrieved 2007-01-01.  (highlight)
  7. ^ a b c Peterson, Ivars, (1985-06-01). "A patent pursuit: Joe Newman's 'energy machine'.". Science News. Retrieved 2008-02-26. 
  8. ^ Peterson, Ivars (1985-06-01). "A Patent Pursuit". Retrieved 2012-01-12. 
  9. ^ Newman, Joseph (1983-03-17). "Patent Application: "ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEM HAVING HIGHER ENERGY OUTPUT THAN INPUT" (failed)". Retrieved 2008-01-12. 
  10. ^ 2107.01 General Principles Governing Utility Rejections (R-5) - 2100 Patentability. II. Wholly inoperative inventions; "incredible" utility, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office  Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
  11. ^ Alabama Securities Commission (26 September 2008). "Administrative order C0-2007-0024 Consent order". 

External links[edit]

Claims
Skeptical