Jump to content

Newman's energy machine: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 186011507 by ESoule (talk)Please discuss your reasons for this change at Talk before making controversial changes.
ESoule (talk | contribs)
95 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Perpetual motion machine
{{Mass to energy transference machine
|name=''The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman''
|name=''The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman''
|topics=[[physics]]<br>[[mechanical engineering]]
|topics=[[physics]]<br>[[mechanical engineering]]

Revision as of 01:14, 22 January 2008

Template:Mass to energy transference machine The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman is a singly-fed electric motor consisting of a permanent magnet field rotor that spins end-over-end inside an electromagnet that is both an stator and an armature.[1]

Joseph "Westley" Newman (the inventor of the machine[2]) explains that the machine's mechanical power (via a permanent magnet rotor) rests on his idea that magnetic fields consist of particles with a gyroscopic nature.[3] The inventor says he cannot get more mechanical energy out of the machine than the machine's mass-energy.[4] With this, he claims the mechanical output can exceed the electrical energy used by the coil.[5]

Newman's attempt to patent the device was rejected by the United States Patent Office. The United States district court later requested that Newman's machine be tested by the National Bureau of Standards, or NBS.[1] The NBS test program was conducted and its results were published in June 1986. The report concluded that the machine consumed more energy than it created. Newman eventually withdrew the patent.[6]

Despite the principle of mass-energy equivalence, critics skeptical of "free energy" maintain that his machine cannot give a power output exceeding the power from external or deliberately hidden electrical sources.[7] Supporters of mainstream science, consider claims of net energy output (i.e. output energy exceeding input energy) to be psuedoscientific misinformation that contradicts the well established body of scientific knowledge.

Early claims

Newman admitted that he did not develop his concepts while going to physics class.[8] During the early development stage, he imagined that the carriers for the magnetic field force were clouds of particles moving and spinning at the speed of light. He also believed these particles should behave as gyroscopes and have inertial mass.[9] These beliefs, however, contradict the Special theory of relativity, which states that massive particles cannot travel at the speed of light.[10] His 'gyroscopic particles' are not listed within the Standard Model of particle physics.[11]

Throughout his investigations, he came to the conclusion that mass can be converted into energy without appealing to chemistry or nuclear physics. In the 1980's, Newman attempted to patent an "energy generation system having higher energy output than input".[12] Newman insisted that his device was not powered by nothing, but by the internal energy stored as mass within the machine's conducting coil. Despite of this connection, skeptics believe the Newman's claims do not differ from claims of perpetual motion machines.[4] Because of resistance by the United States Patent Office against the patenting of devices which are claimed to have net power output, his attempt to patent his machine in the United States had been a failure.[12]

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

Description and operation

One end the voltage source is connected to one end of an electromagnetic coil and the other is connected to a commutator. At the other end of the coil is a brush that contacts a metal axle. The axle carries one or more aligned permanent magnets. As the axle spins inside the commutator, the commutator controls the opening and closing of the electrical pathway.[1] Whenever the circuit is closed, electric current sent to the coil creates a force against the permanent magnet(s), which causes the rotor to turn.[13] For this to occur, the magnetic axes of the electromagnet and the permanent magnet(s) are set perpendicular to the bar.

In a more developed version of the Newman machine, the commutator flips the current direction twice every magnet rotation and it also connects and disconnects the circuit 24 times for each rotation. According to a senior staff scientist from Sperry Corporation, the commutation allows the magnetic field to collapse, producing a surge of current that turns the rotor with the abruptness of a "karate chop".[1]

Following U.S. patent battle

A United States Patent and Trademark Office patent application[12] for Newman's electric motor was rejected, which set off a lengthy court battle involving conflicting expert opinions. For example, in the spring of 1986, a magnet design engineer from the Magnetic Engineering Co., in Atlanta, Georgia had built his own version of the Newman machine and observed what he though was evidence for a high-efficiency mechanical output.[1] On the other side, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), by request of the patent office, tested the device and got negative results. By using various methods to gauge the electrical wattage coming into and from Newman's machine, they were able to conclude that "In all conditions tested, the input power exceeded the output power. That is, the device did not deliver more energy than it used." The NBS report was later submitted to the U.S. District Court.[6]

In response to the NBS report, the engineer from Magnetic Engineering Co. stated that the motor is more suited for its mechanical output than for its electrical output, and that consequently, the NBS test report may have overlooked the rotational energy of the rotor. Newman's lawyer, John P. Flannery II of Leesburg, Va., stated that Newman and his representative could not afford continuous presence for much of the testing period.[1] Nevertheless, the court gave the following statement in its final decision:

"We conclude that Mr. Newman had a duty to raise objection, before or during testing, to any defects in the test protocol that he knew or believed would impair the results. He had a clear chance to obtain a definitive test, and to the extent that he did not take it, he can not now impeach the results that were conducted by procedures of which he had advance knowledge. If there were flaws in the NBS protocol, we do not now give controlling weight to objections that could have been raised at a time when any errors could have readily been corrected. We conclude that Mr. Newman waived or acquiesced in any purported defect in the test procedure by remaining silent throughout the test period."[14]

Subsequent events

Following the failure of his attempt to patent the machine in the USA, Newman went on to successfully patent a variation of the device in Mexico (Patent number MX158113, "MEJORAS A UN SISTEMA Y METODO PARA GENERAR ENERGIA" granted in January 1989).[15] Newman has since claimed that God had chosen him make the discovery and to be "the good steward for the gift".[16] He also claimed that machines using his techniques are already being sold by other manufacturers and that they are getting more than 100% efficiency - a fact which he believes they are covering up in order to avoid paying royalties.[16] Newman now claims that the device will produce ten times the amount of electricity required to power it and explains that you can "Put one in your home and never pay another electricity bill."[16]

In a spectacular feat of showmanship, Newman rented the Louisiana Superdome for four days and charged more than 8,500 people one dollar each to view a demonstration of the technology. The main part of the demonstration entailed driving a car equipped with his motor at about four miles per hour for a total of two hours. Whilst he claimed to have achieved this feat using a single 9 volt battery, the Rayovac corporation reported providing him with a pack comprising 68 250 volt batteries connected in series to deliver 0.025 Amps at 17,000 Volts for a total 340 watts. Discover magazine subsequently calculated:

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

See also

Bibliography

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

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f Peterson, Ivars, (5 July 1986). "NBS report short-circuits energy machine - National Bureau of Standards". Science News. Retrieved 2007-12-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Gemperlein, Joyce, (15 February 1986). "PUSHING FOR A PATENT, INVENTOR AWAITS TEST OF ENERGY MACHINE,". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 2008-01-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ "Joseph Newman's Theory". [[1]]. Retrieved 2007-10-23. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  4. ^ a b "Perpetual Motion: Still Going Around". The Washington Post. 2000-01-12. Retrieved 2007-01-01. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  5. ^ Peterson, Ivars, (1985-06-01). "A patent pursuit: Joe Newman's 'energy machine'". Science News. Retrieved 2008-01-12. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ a b US National Bureau of Standards (June 1986). "Report of Tests on Joseph Newman's Device". The National Capital Area Skeptics. Retrieved 2008-01-12.
  7. ^ Hirsch, Jerry (2004-03-04). "ALCHEMY OR SCIENCE? ENERGY CRISIS ADDS ALLURE TO INVENTORS' POWER SOLUTIONS". Contra Costa Times. Retrieved 2007-01-12. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  8. ^ Newman, Joseph W. The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, p. 5.
  9. ^ "Inventor speaks to LSU audience on controversial "energy machine"". The Advocate (Baton Rouge). 1986-02-26. Retrieved 2007-01-24. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  10. ^ A. Einstein (1905-06-30). "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Annalen der Physik. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  11. ^ Donoghue, J. F.; Golowich, E.; Holstein, B. R. Dynamics of the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-47625-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ a b c Newman, Joseph (1983-03-17). "Patent Application: "ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEM HAVING HIGHER ENERGY OUTPUT THAN INPUT" (failed)". Retrieved 2008-01-12.
  13. ^ "Will Joseph Newman's energy machine revolutionize the world?". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 1986-06-14. Retrieved 2007-12-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  14. ^ US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Case #88-1312, Newman v Quigg.
  15. ^ ""Mexican Patent Search at infopat.com". Retrieved 2008-01-13.
  16. ^ a b c Park, Robert, L (2001-08-31). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0195147100.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. ^ "The Energy Machine of Joe Newman Abstracted from an article in the May 1987 issue of Disco". Retrieved 2008-01-13.

Optimistic sources

Skeptical sources

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newman%27s_energy_machine&oldid=186012003"