Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 109

Thread: Anti-Gravity / Alternate propulsion system

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    930
    Alan: I replied to your last Newman post at the physics forum I mentioned earlier.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    930
    On topic again: I read through Cameron's paper, An Asymmetric Gravitational Wave Propulsion System, and I'm only a little wiser than before. (Not saying much!) But I had thought that gravitational waves were awfully weak, and he agrees: he gives a figure of 2.14 X 10<sup>-29</sup> watts for the power radiated through gravity waves from a single resonant vibrator cylinder. However, Cameron proposes that his array of cylinders can produce superimposed waves which will boost the power by a factor of roughly 10<sup>32</sup>.

    Frankly, I'm not competent to check his math...but at least there's some basis for his idea.

    Here are a couple of sites on gravity waves in general. The first, an Aussie university, is kind of general; the second, the Exodus Project, gives a very nice description.

    Slow night at work...good time to catch up on the board.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2001-10-28 02:36 ]</font>

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,808
    Alan,
    1) Newman does not need a patent to market his device and make money. Coca-cola was never patented (because to get the patent they would have had to divulge the formula).
    2) If you believe in his device, INVEST YOUR MONEY IN IT and when you are so rich you can buy Bill Gates out of pocket change, you can come back and laugh at us. Until then, you are taking up a lot of the BAs bandwidth on a topic that has, at best, marginal relevance to astronomy. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img]

    _________________
    All else (is never) being equal.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2001-10-28 05:30 ]</font>

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    845
    On 2001-10-28 05:28, Kaptain K wrote:
    Alan,
    1) Newman does not need a patent to market his device and make money. Coca-cola was never patented (because to get the patent they would have had to divulge the formula).
    2) If you believe in his device, INVEST YOUR MONEY IN IT and when you are so rich you can buy Bill Gates out of pocket change, you can come back and laugh at us. Until then, you are taking up a lot of the BAs bandwidth on a topic that has, at best, marginal relevance to astronomy. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img]
    Nevertheless please refrain from Newmanning around!

    You're abusing our hospitality! Refrain from bashing others!

    This is headed towards a flame war!

    You are surrounded! Surrender at once prepare to be boarded!

    Thank you!

  5. #65
    One poster wrote, "Newman does not need a patent to market his device and make money."

    While that sounds simple enough --- unfortunately the real world of business and finance is not quite that simple.

    The facts are: most businesses capable of funding development of major revolutionary technology will NOT do so without being assured of patent protection for their investment. Having closely followed Newman's struggle, I understand that he once met with the principal "new-technology-head-hunter" of Chrysler Corp. attended by two of Chrysler's electrical engineers. They conducted tests on Newman's technology. Their bottom line: they told Newman that they were extremely interested in the technology and that Newman should contact them as soon as he had secured patent protection.

    If the above poster specifically knows of major funding sources who ARE willing to see and test the technology for themselves, to their own satisfaction, and THEN provide capital funding WITHOUT patent protection, then -- by all means -- provide that information.

    Here's Newman telephone number: (480) 657-3722
    and website: http://www.josephnewman.com

    Alan

    __________________________________________

    And since this site DOES principally deal with astronomical issues, I thought I'd post the following which was sent to me:

    ____________________________

    AFFIDAVIT

    OBSERVATIONS AND PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS ON JOSEPH NEWMAN'S ELECTROMAGNETIC AIR/SPACE VEHICLE

    I have witnessed a demonstration of Joseph Newman's Electromagnetic Air and Space Vehicle prototype. It consists of an aluminized helium balloon wrapped with #38 gauge copper wire. The system is nominally heavier than air. When the wire coil is connected to a 200 volt battery, the balloon gradually lifts into the air. It then aligns with the earth's magnetic field as it rises. If the current is cut off, the balloon immediately begins to fall. If the current direction is reversed, the balloon rotates to align with the earth's field. The balloon can be made to rotate or oscillate by manipulating the direction of current flow. If the current is periodically switched so that the balloon always repels the earth's field, its rate of descent is about 25% faster than the case of steady attraction of the coils to the earth's field.

    Joseph Newman's design calls for creation of a magnetic field which is an average about equal to the earth's field over the volume of the balloon. This can be achieved with minimum input power using a large number of turns of fine wire. I have considered vehicle modules with the following properties:

    Volume = 10'x10'x10' = 1,000 cubic feet
    Helium Lift = 70 lbs.
    Wire = 12,000 turns of #38 AWG copper
    Wire Weight = 23 lbs.
    Battery = 3,000 volts DC
    Battery Weight = 15 lbs
    DC Current = 10 mA
    Material Weight = 10 lbs.
    Payload Weight = 22 lbs.

    A vehicle which is 100 feet in diameter and 50 feet high would consist of 400 of the above cubes and would carry a payload of 4.4 tons. A vehicle which is 1,000 feet in diameter and 500 feet high would consist of 400,000 of these cubes and carry a payload of 4,400 tons.

    The following points should be noted:

    (1) The total payload is proportional to vehicle volume.

    (2) The electromagnetic torque and lift are also proportional to volume in this design.

    (3) Navigation is achieved by manipulating the orientation of the coils.

    (4) If superconducting wires become available, the batteries would not be required.

    (5) For improved efficiency with copper wiring, sets of the cubes can be connected in series and energized with pulsed high voltage. Joseph Newman has developed such techniques to extend battery lifetime.

    (6) In the atmosphere, lift is provided by a combination of ohmic heating of the helium gas, electromagnetic interaction of the helium atoms with the applied fields, and interaction of the applied magnetic field with the earth's magnetic field.

    (7) It is intended that the craft can operate entirely through interaction with the earth's magnetic field once it leaves the atmosphere. The interaction will be especially strong in the ionosphere and persists in the earth's magnetotail.

    Joseph Newman's invention was designed and disclosed in a patent application to its construction. It represents a vastly improved means for propulsion and navigation of helium balloons (blimps). Large versions may well carry us gently and safely into space.

    Dr. Roger Hastings, Ph.D. [Signed and Notarized]
    Physicist

    -------------------------------------

    "Just as a long-legged spider can lift itself from the surface of a pond by dispersing its body weight over a wide area upon the molecular surface tension of the water, so too, by analogy, can a vehicle lift itself from the surface of the planet by dispersing a magnetic field over a wide area upon the planet's magnetic field." --- Joseph Newman

    "In 1967, I predicted that the Earth's true axis and the Earth's magnetic axis were one and the same. Moreover, I predicted that the Earth's magnetic axis was being warped into Space by the Sun's magnetic field and that such warpage caused the EFFECT of the Earth's 'true axis.'" --- Joseph Newman

    -------------------------------------

    "If the manner in which Joseph Newman conducted his experiments and the results were made known to the industrial or engineering community then, in my opinion, several companies and/or individuals possess the expertise and capabilities to construct the hardware required to fully exploit the apparent capability of his new concepts."

    "I have read your article several times, believe that it is very worthwhile, and that it should be studied in much more detail."

    "I am going to continue to study your work and I will provide you with additional relevant data and information as I find it. Once again, I think you should continue to expand your efforts, as it appears as if the results could be very significant. Please let me know if I can help you in any other way."

    Dr. Robert E. Smith
    Chief, Orbital and Space Environmental Branch
    George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    845
    <font size=10 color=red>GRRR!
    Take it outside, boys
    </font>





    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-28 10:04 ]</font>

  7. #67
    On 2001-10-26 20:37, Alan7Marshall wrote:
    Wiley wrote:

    "Joseph Newman can easily get a patent for his device. All he has to do is submit a working prototype, which he claims to have, to the patent office. This prototype must work on its own power for one year. Since 1911, this is what the U.S. Patent Office requires for all machines that violate the second law of thermodynamics."

    My reply:

    Your comment regarding the patent office indicates an unawareness of the facts relative to Newman's quest for patent protection.
    I'm quite aware of the facts, thank you. Yes Joe has often tried to get a patent, but on his terms. He has consistently refused to let the patent office test his device according to their rules, which are, simply, submit a working prototype and let run on its own power for 1 year. Joe does not want to play the game by rules 'cause if he does, he'll lose.

    11) It was at that point that he went to Federal Court, whereupon William Schuyler, (the Special Master to that Court and technical expert in electrical engineering who was also a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office) specifically concluded in his Report:

    "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."

    Those words speak for themselves.
    No, the words don't quite speak for themselves. William Schuyler was employed by the same law firm Joe had previously hired. Can you say "conflict of interest"? I thought you could.

    Wiley wrote:
    "Any electrical engineer looking at his device should be able to tell you exactly what it is. It is a motor. A simple, rather ordinary, high voltage, low current motor. It would not matter if it was grounded or not, it would still be a motor."

    My reply:
    No, Wiley ---- Newman's motor -- which operates as described by the Special Master -- is anything but an "ordinary" motor. And, according to Newman it certainly DOES matter whether or not it is grounded. And here's the MAIN POINT: the three incompetent bureaucrats at the NBS specifically did NOT ground the device in their test protocol/circuit diagram which they submitted to the Court and to Newman. Yet in EVERY test they conducted they grounded the device! They were not even competent enough to follow their own test protocol.
    I suppose you're right; it's not an ordinary motor. Most motors will have efficiencies greater than 0.8; however Joe's was between 0.3~0.7. It's actually a poor motor.

    And let's not get into the safety hazards of ungrounded high voltage devices, shall we?

    Alan, if you want to believe in Joe, more power to you. However patents should not be given to devices that do not work; it's as simple as that.

    For those who want more info on Joe's machine (and I really can't believe anybody does), here are some links:
    http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/newman.htm
    http://www.randi.org/jr/03-22-2000.html
    Also Robert Park's Voodoo Science has a good section on Joe.

    Okay, I've said all that I'm going to say on this matter. Back to Bad Asstronomy. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]





  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    845
    Okay, I've said all that I'm going to say on this matter. Back to Bad Astronomy.
    Ah, well, thank you.

    Well, you CAN continue to talk but no more inflamatory bashing.

    I'd hate to see this thread lost because of that.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-28 15:24 ]</font>

  9. #69
    On 2001-10-28 15:14, Mr. X wrote:
    Okay, I've said all that I'm going to say on this matter. Back to Bad Astronomy.
    Ah, well, thank you.

    Well, you CAN continue to talk but no more inflamatory bashing.
    Excuse me, Mr. X, but you misquoted me. I had two s's in asstronomy. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  10. #70
    Wiley said:
    What I meant was that any electrical engineer should recognize a motor when he or she sees one. Anyone who graduates in the U.S. with a B.S.E.E. from an A.B.E.T. accredited school must take classes on motors and generators. As far as I know, only EE's take these classes; why would anyone else have to take classes on electrical power generation? Hence my claim any electrical engineer should recognize Joe's machine as a motor.


    J-Man nitpicks:
    Actually BSEE's are NOT required to take a class on motors/generators. We (that means I am a BSEE) are required to take a class on the fundamentals of electro-magnetism. Motors/generators is an optional class.
    But I do agree that in most cases an EE should recognise a motor/generator when s/he sees one. (I graduated from Purdue... repeatedly in the top 5 engineering schools in the U.S.)

    =============================================

    Alan7Marshall said (about the Newman Balloon):

    The following points should be noted:
    (1) The total payload is proportional to vehicle volume.
    (2) The electromagnetic torque and lift are also proportional to volume in this design.
    (3) Navigation is achieved by manipulating the orientation of the coils.
    (4) If superconducting wires become available, the batteries would not be required.

    J-man says:
    Should point number two read "Altitude and orientataion" instead of "Navigation"?
    and...
    I disagree with point 4. How are you going to control it without a powersupply? Do you just use telepathy with the superconductor to orient the structure or to change the amount (and direction) of lift?


    Overall, these are all interesting ideas, keep the info flowing...

    J-Man

  11. #71
    I believe there is a little confusion as to what qualifies for an over-unity device, and what over-unity actually means.

    Personally, I would consider a hot air ballon as a candidate for an over-unity device. The work performed by the fuel is only a fraction of the actual energy which is required to make the journey that a high-altitude hot air ballon would require (the rest is provided by the air currents).

    If these type of devices do indeed operate at over 100% efficiency it probably means they are "stealing" the extra energy from the environment. If this is the case we should still consider such a device usefull, and we ought to learn how they work.

    Most are highly unlikely to work as advertised, but given the stakes I would not dismiss the more promising candidates without proper inspection.

    One last point, if I had invented such a device I would forgo the financial rewards, forget about patents and offer the devices for free. Seeing my own creation save millions of lives would give me immence satisfaction. Not only that, but given the fame that would probably follow I doubt that I would be short of cash after film, book rights and monies received for after dinner speaches etc.

    Jeff


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-28 17:45 ]</font>

  12. #72
    On 2001-10-28 16:34, J-Man wrote:
    Wiley said:
    What I meant was that any electrical engineer should recognize a motor when he or she sees one. Anyone who graduates in the U.S. with a B.S.E.E. from an A.B.E.T. accredited school must take classes on motors and generators. As far as I know, only EE's take these classes; why would anyone else have to take classes on electrical power generation? Hence my claim any electrical engineer should recognize Joe's machine as a motor.


    J-Man nitpicks:
    Actually BSEE's are NOT required to take a class on motors/generators. We (that means I am a BSEE) are required to take a class on the fundamentals of electro-magnetism. Motors/generators is an optional class.
    But I do agree that in most cases an EE should recognise a motor/generator when s/he sees one. (I graduated from Purdue... repeatedly in the top 5 engineering schools in the U.S.)
    I have first hand knowledge of four different EE programs either as student or professor: Clemson University, Georgia Tech, Saginaw Valley State Univ., and Univ. of Florida. Granted my ABET information is a little out of date (1991), I'm shocked that ABET would not require a motors/generators class. At minimum ABET (in 1991) required a "power" class which usually comprises basic motor/generators, three-phase circuits, and transmission lines. Some schools have an "electric machinery" course comprising transformers and motors/generators. Did you have to take a class like either of these, J-man?

    For those who are wondering what ABET is: ABET is the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. ABET accreditation is very important for schools since many states require a B.S. from an accredited school for the Professional Engineer license, many graduate schools won't accept students from non-accredited schools, and employers often won't pay "full" engineer wages to graduates from non-accredit schools.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2001-10-29 13:28 ]</font>

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2001-10-29 13:42 ]</font>

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    930
    A quick note on over-unity devices, tho' it's a bit off-topic:

    KeelyNet offers a prize to anyone who builds an over-unity (O/U) device. From their website:

    "Any device that needs recharging or replenishment of a fuel or material which is consumed or chemically converted to energy is not allowed. The competition also excludes natural energy accumulator systems including solar, wind, water, steam, thermal, heat pumps, thermocouples and other such systems."

    "If a claimed O/U device operates CONTINUOUSLY for 5 consecutive days, driving a minimum sustained load of at least 1 WATT and with NO outside source of power, and this device is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the majority of conference attendees and a panel of three qualified testers, the inventor of the working device wins the total for that conference."

    After looking at a couple of other perpetual-motion/over unity sites, I think that the accepted definition is that an over-unity device must produce more power than it consumes and do it without tapping any external power reservoir. An interesting sidelight: one writer opined that since the energy of the vacuum is according to conventional physics unavailable, "zero-point" energy devices are de facto over-unity devices.

    Since I'm such a sour skeptical fellow, it seems a little fantastical, like defining a fairy as a being having dragonfly-like wings and not bird-like wings, but hey...definitions are important if we want to all play in the same ballpark.

  14. #74
    For a very complete summary of the saga of Mr. Newman and his machine, see "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud" by Bob Park of the American Physical Society. Mr. Park follows the story from the beginning through many years right up to a special Congressional hearing which was held to try to get Mr. Newman a patent. At that hearing, Senator John Glenn suggested that it would be very easy to test Mr. Newman's machine without revealing the technology behind it; simply measure the energy in and the energy out and see if the latter is greater. This was not acceptable to Mr. Newman and the hearing was adjourned.

    In the book, Mr. Park is quite willing to accept that when Mr. Newman started he really thought that he had something but over time when it became clear that what he was comparing was power not energy, he made the transition from foolishness (didn't know he was wrong) to fraud (knew it and kept going anyway).

    It's a good read.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,252
    Keep in mind, patents that are pending do NOT necessarily show up on the uspto.gov website. This is because you can request them to be hidden till the grant date (I have one in this situation right now).
    Mark

    On 2001-10-24 20:56, Mr. X wrote:
    Three of the patents in the guy's resume check out. However the patents pending ones (if a request has been done) do not. Then again it might just be some computer error over at their place.

    Seems like score one for you! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    One of my people searches yielded no results at all for any Jeffrey A. Cameron anywhere in Alabama, so I guess this makes the score 1-1.

    Company lookup for Transdimensional Technologies yielded results! Transdimensional is actually spelled Trans Dimensional. At first it yielded no results because there is a typo (??!?!??) in the name, with the typo it is Trans DimensOInal Technologies. 2-1 for you!

    Reverse phone lookup brought me back to Trans DimensOInal Technologies. Good job! 3-1 for you!

    I'm not convinced, but so far your side is walloping mine real bad!

    Heads up, I'll continue!

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    845
    Thanks.

    That had already been brought to my attention (of sorts).

  17. #77
    Wiley: Since your previous post is factually inaccurate, it is appropriate to correct such inaccuracy:

    Wiley wrote:

    "I'm quite aware of the facts, thank you. Yes Joe has often tried to get a patent, but on his terms. He has consistently refused to let the patent office test his device according to their rules, which are, simply, submit a working prototype and let run on its own power for 1 year. Joe does not want to play the game by rules 'cause if he does, he'll lose."

    I'm sorry Wiley, but what you've written above is sheer fantasy. I've actually read the court transcripts involving Newman's battle with the patent office --- and the "rules" you describe above never existed. In the first place, the patent office entrusted the National Bureau of Standards (then NBS -- now NIST) with any testing of Newman's prototype(s) since patent office officials specifically stated that they were incapable of testing Applicants' prototypes.

    The testing protocol "rules" laid down by the three bureaucrats at the NBS included an schematic diagram protocol in which the unit was NOT grounded during testing. Yet, in EVERY SINGLE TEST THE THREE "experts" CONDUCTED --- they proceeded to GROUND the unit. One would think that the renowned "experts" at NBS/NIST would be at least competent enough to follow their OWN test protocol. At the very least one would think they would have the curiosity to conduct at least ONE test without grounding the prototype.

    No, Wiley, the so-called experts at NBS/NIST have clearly demonstrated their level of (in)competence.

    Wiley then wrote:

    "No, the words don't quite speak for themselves. William Schuyler was employed by the same law firm Joe had previously hired. Can you say "conflict of interest"? I thought you could."

    Once again, Wiley, you've overlooked the FACTS. Let's dispense with this "urban legend" of "conflict of interest" because that spurious accusation doesn't wash with the actual facts.

    First of all, if anything, the Special Master Schuyler could be accused of "conflict of interest' vis-a-vis the PATENT OFFICE --- not Joseph Newman --- because 1) Schuyler was the patent office's nominee for the position of Special Master (not Joseph Newman) and 2) Schuyler was a former U.S. Commissioner of the patent office.

    But here are the REAL facts, Wiley:

    When Schuyler was nominated as Special Master, Joseph Newman went before the court and explicitly told Judge Jackson about his (Newman's) prior connection years earlier with another attorney who had once worked at the same firm employing William Schuyler, Jr.. Judge Jackson examined the facts and determined that there was NO "conflict of interest" and that William Schuyler, Jr. could proceed as the Special Master to the Court.

    *************************************
    In other words, Wiley, it was legally determined in a U.S. Federal court of law, that there was NO conflict of interest on the part of Special Master William Schuyler, Jr.
    *************************************

    And here's another FACT: More than 30 scientists and engineers -- who HAVE tested Newman's prototypes for themselves -- have repeatedly concluded in their Affidavits that his prototypes DO have production efficiency ratings of greater than 100%.

    As to Robert Park's comments, the following sums it up very accurately:

    "COMMISSION AND OMISSION BY ROBERT PARK

    "Robert Park decries media bias favorable to Joseph Newman, yet Park clearly demonstrates HIS bias against Joseph Newman. I find Robert Park guilty of commission and omission. As an example of commission, he is factually incorrect when he claims that Joseph Newman never finished high school. In fact, Joseph Newman completed his Junior year of college. Moreover, if failing to finish high school and becoming self-educated in science insinuates an inability to become a scientist, then Michael Faraday and Thomas Edison were not scientists.

    "Park commits commission and omission when he states that Joseph Newman "rented the Superdome in New Orleans for a week, where thousands paid to watch him demonstrate his energy machine." In fact, Joseph Newman did not rent the Superdome. He was invited by two individuals in New Orleans who themselves rented the Superdome, and Joseph Newman spoke at their invitation. Park also fails to mention that Newman had requested the event be free and open to the public, but that Superdome management insisted in charging at least $1.00 per person. Joseph Newman refused to accept any admission monies from the more than 9,000 people who attended the event. Those monies were paid to and retained by the management of the Louisiana Superdome.

    "Park claims that Joseph Newman's technology is in conflict with the First Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Joseph Newman originally began his work in the 1960s specifically because he did not believe in "perpetual motion." The label "perpetual motion" was attached to his work by a patent examiner Donovan Duggan, who no longer works for the patent office, and whose "Knowledge of electrical theory may have been inadequate for his responsibilities," according to a Federal District Court in Texas. [See Lindsey v. United States, Civ. Action Nos. TX-79-60-CA, TX-81-39-CA]. Park fails to mention that fact.

    "Specifically, Joseph Newman has stated that his innovation produces "greater EXTERNAL energy output than EXTERNAL energy input." Another way of stating it: the external input energy PLUS the internal energy produced by Joseph Newman's technical process is EQUAL to the output energy. That process is totally in keeping with natural law.

    "Park also fails to mention that more than 30 scientists and engineers have signed Affidavits attesting to the validity of Joseph Newman's work and that it is not in any way related to "perpetual motion." Most recently, a distinguished Professor of Mathematics at Arizona State University [Dr. A. Swimmer, Ph.D.] has endorsed Joseph Newman's work as providing, for the first time, a mechanical model for the unification of the fields.

    "The National Bureau of Standards test that Park mentions has long been discredited, since -- among other deficiencies with respect to that faulty test -- those who conducted the test admitted to grounding the device even though their original schematic contained NO ground. Once again, Park fails to mention that factk. (The A&E Network featured a special broadcast that documented such incompetence on the part of NBS personnel.)

    "The original NBS test protocol schematic --- that was supplied by the NBS --- showed that the energy machine should NOT be grounded during testing. So why did the NBS later ground ALL tests conducted on the device? Why did they not have the curiosity to at least conduct ONE test without grounding the device?

    "Park stated a perversion of the truth when he said that Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson [of Microsoft lawsuit fame] engaged in "citing the laws of thermodynamics" with respect to Joseph Newman's technology. It was precisely because Jackson publicly admitted that he was technically incompetent to evaluate Joseph Newman's energy machine -- with respect to the laws of thermodynamics or on any other technical basis -- that Jackson ordered the appointment of a highly-qualified expert or Special Master with "superb credentials" (according to Jackson) to evaluate the energy machine.

    "Special Master William E. Schuyler, Jr., (a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office and a technical expert in the field of electrical engineering), specifically wrote in his Report: "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."

    "According to a reviewer of Robert Park's comments, Park stated that it was disclosed in a Senate Hearing in Washington, D.C. that the Special Master was once a patent attorney for Joseph Newman, and thus the Special Master was engaged in a conflict of interest. That statement is yet another example of demonstrated bias and total ignorance of the facts. In fact, the Special Master was NEVER a patent attorney for Joseph Newman. Moreover, the Special Master testified under oath that he had NEVER met Joseph Newman.

    "Actually, the above-mentioned reviewer is only compounding the distortion of facts initiated by Robert Park. Park specifically claims that it was disclosed at a Senate Hearing that Joseph Newman once hired the services of an attorney that worked for the same law firm (a very large Washignton D.C. law firm) as William Schuyler, Jr. Park then concludes that the Special Master only arrived at his endorsement of Joseph Newman's work as a result of a "conflict of interest."

    "But Park fails to disclose that William Schuyler, Jr. was nominated as Special Master by the Patent Office --- NOT by Joseph Newman. And more importantly, when Schuyler was nominated as Special Master, Joseph Newman went before the court and explicitly told Judge Jackson about his (Newman's) prior connection years earlier with another attorney who had also worked at the same firm employing William Schuyler, Jr.. Judge Jackson examined the facts and determined that there was NO "conflict of interest" and that William Schuyler, Jr. could proceed as the Special Master to the Court. Robert Park fails to mention that fact.

    "Knowing of Park's association with the American Physical Society (APS) -- many of whose members are on the receiving end of financially-lucrative federal grants and/or private investments for their proposed projects -- one can only speculate if his demonstrated bias could be also be the result of a conflict of interest on the part of Park. In fact, any proposed project connected with conventional energy research/production could be seriously jeopardized by a revolutionary technology that would totally replace our reliance on such conventional sources of energy.

    On January 13, 1920, The New York Times wrote that Robert Goddard, the pioneer of American rocketry, "lacked 'the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools,' and that space travel was impossible since a rocket could not move so much as an inch." In a similar vein, Robert Park's biased comments are factually misleading and thus misrepresent the original work of Joseph Newman with respect to his new understanding of electromagnetism."

    Alan

  18. #78
    Wiley says:
    "I have first hand knowledge of four different EE programs either as student or professor: Clemson University, Georgia Tech, Saginaw Valley State Univ., and Univ. of Florida. Granted my ABET information is a little out of date (1991), I'm shocked that ABET would not require a motors/generators class. At minimum ABET (in 1991) required a "power" class which usually comprises basic motor/generators, three-phase circuits, and transmission lines. Some schools have an "electric machinery" course comprising transformers and motors/generators. Did you have to take a class like either of these, J-man? "


    J-Man says:
    Sorry, I can't answer yes or no...
    Purdue's class titled EE202 (I think that's the number, it's been a while) covers 3-phase, transmission lines and transformers from a circuit analysis point of view, but not motors/generators. (Unless I was asleep during that part, but I'm sure we were not tested on it.)

    I'm sure they have a class on motors/generators, and they have a more detailed class on 3-phase/transmission, but it was not a Required class(es), and I did not take it/them. (How's that for 4 sentences in one? Isn't the comma great?)

  19. #79
    On 2001-11-08 21:31, J-Man wrote:
    Wiley says:
    "I have first hand knowledge of four different EE programs either as student or professor: Clemson University, Georgia Tech, Saginaw Valley State Univ., and Univ. of Florida. Granted my ABET information is a little out of date (1991), I'm shocked that ABET would not require a motors/generators class. At minimum ABET (in 1991) required a "power" class which usually comprises basic motor/generators, three-phase circuits, and transmission lines. Some schools have an "electric machinery" course comprising transformers and motors/generators. Did you have to take a class like either of these, J-man? "


    J-Man says:
    Sorry, I can't answer yes or no...
    Purdue's class titled EE202 (I think that's the number, it's been a while) covers 3-phase, transmission lines and transformers from a circuit analysis point of view, but not motors/generators. (Unless I was asleep during that part, but I'm sure we were not tested on it.)

    I'm sure they have a class on motors/generators, and they have a more detailed class on 3-phase/transmission, but it was not a Required class(es), and I did not take it/them. (How's that for 4 sentences in one? Isn't the comma great?)
    I checked the current curricula at my former schools. Georgia Tech no longer requires a motors/power class; the other three do. Since Georgia Tech is one of the best EE schools in the country and is ABET accredited, I'm forced to assume that ABET no longer requires a motors/generators class for the BSEE.

    " The times they are a-changin' "

  20. #80
    DEMONSTRATION NOW IN PROGRESS IN PHOENIX, AZ:

    FACTS:

    The conventional 1/14 HP Grainger Motor draws 200 TIMES MORE CURRENT THAN DOES THE NEWMAN 3HP MOTOR!

    The conventional 1/14 HP Grainger Motor draws TEN TIMES MORE WATTAGE THAN DOES THE NEWMAN 3 HP MOTOR! (You can only run one 1/14 HP Grainger Motor off of the solar panel system)

    THE NEWMAN 3 HP MOTOR IS PRODUCING TEN TIMES MORE POWER THAN DOES THE 1/14 HP Grainger Motor! (You can run 18 Newman 3 HP Motors and their loads off of the solar panel system.)

    Let your body cast a shadow on one of the solar panel systems connected to the 1/14 HP Grainger Motor and that Motor will basically STOP!

    Let your body cast a shadow on one of the solar panel systems connected to the Newman 3 HP Motor and there is basically NO DIFFERENCE IN SPEED!

    THE ABOVE RESULTS PROVE THAT THE NEWMAN MOTOR
    MAKES SOLAR PANELS FUNCTION VERY EFFICIENTLY AND
    THUS BECOME PRACTICAL FOR HOMES AND INDUSTRY.

    Come see this technology FOR YOURSELF!

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (PHOENIX, AZ) ------

    http://www.josephnewman.com

    Demonstration of Revolutionary Energy Technology
    Beginning at:
    Monday, February 11, 2002, 10am-2pm
    continuing through
    Sunday, February 17, 2002, 10am-2pm
    SPORTS AUTHORITY PLAZA
    Elliot Road
    "Guadalupe area" in Phoenix, Arizona
    (Held inside the Rockin Rodeo Bldg.)

    (see map on website)
    Free and Open to the Public

    http://www.josephnewman.com

  21. #81
    Guest
    <a name="20020214.6:55"> page 20020214.6:55 aka Gravity & Levitation
    On 2001-10-24 05:41, Phobos wrote: To: 6 CABAN 15 PAX 6:56 A.M. PST

    http://www.tdimension.com/
    6:57 A.M. I could not link thrru so I changed the link
    The link is labelled as "Real Anti-Gravity?"
    6:58 A.M. I do think it "possible" details below
    6:59 A.M. Had no time to read it all
    HERES: my version anyway
    take two masive objects and revolve : <spin them
    {take Earth and Moon for easy example}
    Together they do generate a Gravity Wave
    & THAT can be used to Levitate.
    to reach the point of levatation ?
    thats the trickey part
    it may be more than one small step
    My personal experiences was
    I had to lift both feet? that was Quite a feet
    So sure having done it already, of course I
    think it can be done. UNDER the proper conditions.

  22. #82
    So, Alan, from Joe's press release are we correct in inferring that the "energy machine" is actually a motor.
    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    403
    It's easy to lie about motor power statistics by only giving some of the numbers.

    I've got two motors on my workbench. One is a surplus electric-bicycle traction motor that can produce about 1HP. The other is a prototype for an electric motorcycle project with a 15HP output. If I hook them up to a power source and let them run, I'll find the 15HP motor is drawing a fraction of the current the 1HP motor is, and staying much cooler too.

    Magic? Free energy? No, I just haven't given you all the numbers. The 15HP motor is running at 140V, while the 1HP motor is running at 24V. Power is voltage times current, so a motor designed to run at high voltage will draw less current for the same output power. The 15HP motor is a super-high-efficiency brushless motor with a machined case, ball bearings, and a precision balanced armature, while the 1HP motor is a modified car fan motor - mass-produced, stamped and crimped steel plate shell, and bronze bushings. Most importantly, both motors are running with no mechanical load on the shaft. Current draw in a motor is proportional to load, and with no load other than internal friction the high-precision motor draws less current than the crappy fan motor.

    Without a few more numbers - namely voltage and actual output torque and speed - the stats given in Newman's press release are worthless and intentionally misleading.

  24. #84
    Thanks for the reply, T.F. Hat,

    You've beat me to the punch. I've not done any work with motors since my undergraduate days -you'll have to take your shoes off to count that far back- so I've had go back refresh my memory.

    And you're right, they don't give enough information to make any sort fair evaluation.


  25. #85
    Newman invites individuals living in the greater Phoenix area to come and see the technology in operation for themselves --- and THEN make up their OWN minds.

    Some people would prefer to argue/discuss/bicker and maintain that "it simply cannot work as stated." Obviously, it is likely that those people will not be attending the demonstration.... Fine. They have their minds made up.

    But individuals who are truly curious and intellectually honest can see it operate as claimed:

    Bottom line: for the truly curious ---

    SEE THE DEMONSTRATION FOR YOURSELVES!!!

    PROVE HIM WRONG --- *IF* YOU CAN!!!

    One would expect that SOMEONE on this Forum would either 1) live in Phoenix or 2) know someone in Phoenix whose judgement they would trust --- and have them SEE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR THEMSELVES.

    Newman challenges individuals to come to his free and public demonstration and prove that he is wrong.

    For those who ARE truly curious and wish to see the technology demonstrated FOR THEMSELVES and then make up their OWN minds ----

    Demonstration of Revolutionary Energy Technology
    Beginning at:
    ----Monday, February 11, 2002, 10am-2pm
    continuing through
    ----Sunday, February 17, 2002, 10am-2pm
    SPORTS AUTHORITY PLAZA
    Elliot Road
    "Guadalupe area" in Phoenix, Arizona
    (Held inside the Rockin Rodeo Bldg.)

    (see map on website)
    Free and Open to the Public

    http://www.josephnewman.com

    Alan

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    403
    If you want the full story on the stolen motor which Newman is using for his demonstration, read the following:

    http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/biss.htm


  27. #87
    On 2002-02-15 16:41, Alan7Marshall wrote:

    But individuals who are truly curious and intellectually honest can see it operate as claimed:
    And those individuals who are truly honest and intellectually curious would provide details of their testing procedure.

    Specifically which motors did they test? Were the motors actually loaded? What were the rpms? What were the voltages and current? As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof." The onus is on Joe Newman to provide credible proof, and, sorry, a staged demonstration is not proof.

    And incidentally, Grainger does not make motors. They are resellers, so when you buy a "Grainger motor", you actually buy a GE, Dayton, Emerson, or some brand name. Regarless of whether this is an oversight or intentional, it does not help Joe's case.


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2002-02-15 17:38 ]</font>

  28. #88
    Joseph Newman has not "stolen" anything. What is also interesting to note is that those who falsely accuse him, remain anonymous by refusing to provide their personal telephone number and mailing address and thus be willing to publicly stand behind their accusation.

    On the other hand, here is Joseph Newman personal telephone number and mailing address:

    Joseph Newman
    (480) 657-3722
    11445 East Via Linda, No. 416
    Scottsdale, Arizona 85259

    He publicly provides his personal telephone number and mailing address.

    His accusers hide behind their anonymity.

    Newman invites individuals living in the greater Phoenix area to come and see the technology in operation for themselves --- and THEN make up their OWN minds.

    Some people would prefer to argue/discuss/bicker and maintain that "it simply cannot work as stated." Obviously, it is likely that those people will not be attending the demonstration.... Fine. They have their minds made up.

    But individuals who are truly curious and intellectually honest can see it operate as claimed:

    Bottom line: for the truly curious ---

    See the demonstration for yourselves!

    Prove him wrong --- *if* you can!!

    One would expect that someone on this Forum would either 1) live in Phoenix or 2) know someone in Phoenix whose judgement they would trust --- and have them SEE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR THEMSELVES.

    Newman challenges individuals to come to his free and public demonstration and prove that he is wrong.

    For those who ARE truly curious and wish to see the technology demonstrated for themselves and then make up their own minds ----

    Demonstration of Revolutionary Energy Technology
    Beginning at:
    ----Monday, February 11, 2002, 10am-2pm
    continuing through
    ----Sunday, February 17, 2002, 10am-2pm
    SPORTS AUTHORITY PLAZA
    Elliot Road
    "Guadalupe area" in Phoenix, Arizona
    (Held inside the Rockin Rodeo Bldg.)

    (see map on website)
    Free and Open to the Public

    http://www.josephnewman.com

    Alan

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,808
    On Oct 28, 2001, I posted:
    If you believe in his device, INVEST YOUR MONEY IN IT and when you are so rich you can buy Bill Gates out of pocket change, you can come back and laugh at us. Until then, you are taking up a lot of the BAs bandwidth on a topic that has, at best, marginal relevance to astronomy.
    I now realise that you have probably invested your life savings in this Ponzi scheme and the only way to recoup your investment is to get as many more dupes into it as possible.

    _________________
    When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-02-16 02:12 ]</font>

  30. #90
    Ponzi scheme? Hardly. What is interesting is how some individuals will continually and negatively attack something .... but never actually go SEE the technology for themselves.

    Well, for those who ARE truly curious and intellectually honest:

    Newman invites individuals living in the greater Phoenix area to come and see the technology in operation for themselves --- and THEN make up their OWN minds.

    Some people would prefer to argue/discuss/bicker and maintain that "it simply cannot work as stated." Obviously, it is likely that those people will not be attending the demonstration.... Fine. They have their minds made up.

    But individuals who are truly curious and intellectually honest can see it operate as claimed:

    Bottom line: for the truly curious ---

    See the demonstration for yourselves!

    Prove him wrong --- *if* you can.

    One would expect that SOMEONE on this Forum would either 1) live in Phoenix or 2) know someone in Phoenix whose judgement they would trust --- and have them SEE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR THEMSELVES.

    Newman challenges individuals to come to his free and public demonstration and prove that he is wrong.

    Demonstration of Revolutionary Energy Technology
    Beginning at:
    ----Monday, February 11, 2002, 10am-2pm
    continuing through
    ----Sunday, February 17, 2002, 10am-2pm
    SPORTS AUTHORITY PLAZA
    Elliot Road
    "Guadalupe area" in Phoenix, Arizona
    (Held inside the Rockin Rodeo Bldg.)

    (see map on website)
    Free and Open to the Public

    http://www.josephnewman.com


    DECLARATION FOLLOWING TESTING OF 5,000 LB AND 900 LB UNITS

    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.

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

    ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

    Dr. Roger Hastings has a Ph.D. in Physics, University of Minnesota, 1975; MS in Physics, University of Denver,1971; ** 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 working as a Principal Physicist with the UNISYS Corporation. As a consultant, Dr. Hastings also designs electric motors for other corporations.


    ------------------------------------------------------
    [Note: Since the testing performed on the above Newman Motors, numerous improvements/innovations have been made to subsequent Newman Motor designs.]

    Alan

Similar Threads

  1. novel propulsion for travel with in the solar system
    By udtsith in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2011-Jun-29, 11:22 AM
  2. New fusion propulsion/power system...?
    By hiker in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2006-Jan-25, 07:46 PM
  3. gravity propulsion
    By damienpaul in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2004-Feb-22, 09:30 AM
  4. Anti-matter propulsion
    By John Kierein in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2002-Nov-04, 02:18 AM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2002-Aug-22, 10:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: