kpc@tulane.UUCP (Kevin Centanni) (10/10/85)
To whom it may concern:
Today, I had the oppurnity to attend the first public showing of the
Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. For those of you not familiar with Mr.
Newman and his "energy machine": It seems that a man from a place called
Lucedale, Mississippi has invented a motor that has a production efficiency
of over 800% (yes, that is correct, eight hundred percent). Somehow, this
rather small (less than 2 feet high and 1 foot wide) device consisting of
over 200 pounds of copper wire can put out more external energy than the
amount of external energy put into it. The demonstration given today at
the New Orleans Hilton consisted of a panel of about 8 competent scientists
who spoke of the machine with words like (quote) "The future of the human
race may be drastically uplifted by the large scale commercial development
of this invention". I purchased a copy of Mr. Newman's book which explains
the principles behind this machine. Upon Patent Office approval, Newman
plans to begin production on his machine. Within a year, the average home
could be powered by a Newman energy machine in the backyard costing around
$3000. The machine which I saw operate today used several lantern batteries
for a power source... connected to the machine's ouput leads were a neon
sign and about 12 florescent tubes (each 5 feet long). When Newman threw
the switch, the lights and sign started to blink on and off... the only
movement seen in the machine itself was a spark every tenth of a second or
so. Obvisouly, 12 florscent tubes cannor be powered by a few lantern
batteries, and there was NO trickery to be seen... it seems that the machine
was actually putting out more energy than it was taking in... the energy
being generated by the machine was coming directly for the conversion of
copper to energy (E=MC^2). Needless to say, I was very intrigued.
It seems that since March 22, 1979 Mr. Newman has been trying to obtain
a patent for the U.S. Patent Office; but they have refused on what seems to
be "arbitrary, capricious, and contradictory treatment" of Mr. Newman and
his invention. I am more than willing to provide more information on what
I have learned so far about Joseph Newman and his energy machine... I'd like
to know what the educated community thinks about this man and his machine.
Kevin P. Centanni
Dept. of Computer Science
Tulane University
New Orleans, Louisiana
{ulysses,akgua}!tulane!kpc
ulysses!tulane!kpc@Berkeley.ARPA
The views expressed here are personal and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the university.
-=< kpc >=-jfk@tulane.UUCP (John Kreuter) (10/10/85)
In article <173@tulane.UUCP> kpc@tulane.UUCP (Kevin Centanni) writes: >To whom it may concern: > Today, I had the oppurnity to attend the first public showing of the >Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. For those of you not familiar with Mr. >Newman and his "energy machine": It seems that a man from a place called >Lucedale, Mississippi has invented a motor that has a production efficiency >of over 800% (yes, that is correct, eight hundred percent). Somehow, this seems rather hard to believe.... >$3000. The machine which I saw operate today used several lantern batteries >for a power source... connected to the machine's ouput leads were a neon >sign and about 12 florescent tubes (each 5 feet long). When Newman threw >the switch, the lights and sign started to blink on and off... the only this reminds me of a circus sideshow...if the machine really does what the `inventor' claims, why not cook a meal in a microwave oven, or power up a color TV? >batteries, and there was NO trickery to be seen... it seems that the machine >was actually putting out more energy than it was taking in... the energy >being generated by the machine was coming directly for the conversion of >copper to energy (E=MC^2). Needless to say, I was very intrigued. if this is true, how about a measurement of the weight of the copper after a test of some duration? There should be quite measurable changes in weight. > It seems that since March 22, 1979 Mr. Newman has been trying to obtain >a patent for the U.S. Patent Office; but they have refused on what seems to >be "arbitrary, capricious, and contradictory treatment" of Mr. Newman and oh gee, must be the government is involved in another conspiracy with the oil companies to deprive us of cheap energy. sceptically John Kreuter ihnp4!ulysses!tulane!jfk these views do not reflect anyone's opinions including my own.....
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (10/12/85)
P.T. Barnum would have loved it. --Lauren--
ian@loral.UUCP (Ian Kaplan) (10/14/85)
In article <173@tulane.UUCP> kpc@tulane.UUCP (Kevin Centanni) writes: > Today, I had the oppurnity to attend the first public showing of the >Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. For those of you not familiar with Mr. >Newman and his "energy machine": It seems that a man from a place called >Lucedale, Mississippi has invented a motor that has a production efficiency >of over 800% (yes, that is correct, eight hundred percent). Somehow, this >rather small (less than 2 feet high and 1 foot wide) device consisting of >over 200 pounds of copper wire can put out more external energy than the >amount of external energy put into it. > ... > It seems that since March 22, 1979 Mr. Newman has been trying to obtain >a patent for the U.S. Patent Office; but they have refused on what seems to >be "arbitrary, capricious, and contradictory treatment" of Mr. Newman and >his invention. Actually I am sure that the Patent Office has seen patents for machines like Mr. Newman's before. > > Kevin P. Centanni > Dept. of Computer Science > Tulane University > There seem to be three possible reasons for posting this note to the net: 1. Mr. Centanni is pulling our collective legs. 2. He bet a friend that the people on the net are highly gullable and he posted this as a test case. 3. Mr. Centanni is totally ignorant of the laws of physics and actually believes that the Energy Machine is possible. If this is the case I recommend that Mr. Centanni sit in on some physics classes. Knowledge of computer science is no excuss for ignorance in other areas. If this is not a joke, then I would ask Mr. Centanni if the purpose of Mr. Newman's demonstration was to raise money for this invention that was sure to sweep the world. Perpetual motion machines and Ponzi schemes are old but they never seem to fail to gull people. Ian Kaplan USENET: {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!ian ARPA: sdcc6!loral!ian@UCSD The opinions expressed here are my own and are not necessarily shared by the owners of this computer system.
res@ihlpl.UUCP (Rich Strebendt @ AT&T Information Systems - Indian Hill West; formerly) (10/14/85)
> Today, I had the oppurnity to attend the first public showing of the > Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. For those of you not familiar with Mr. > Newman and his "energy machine": It seems that a man from a place called > Lucedale, Mississippi has invented a motor that has a production efficiency > of over 800% (yes, that is correct, eight hundred percent). Somehow, this ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ > rather small (less than 2 feet high and 1 foot wide) device consisting of > over 200 pounds of copper wire can put out more external energy than the > amount of external energy put into it. ... > I purchased a copy of Mr. Newman's book which explains ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > the principles behind this machine. ... [the machine is powered by a few lantern batteries.] > When Newman threw > the switch, the lights and sign started to blink on and off... the only > movement seen in the machine itself was a spark every tenth of a second or > so. Obvisouly, 12 florscent tubes cannor be powered by a few lantern ^^^^^^^^^ > batteries, and there was NO trickery to be seen... it seems that the machine ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ > was actually putting out more energy than it was taking in... the energy > being generated by the machine was coming directly for the conversion of > copper to energy (E=MC^2). Needless to say, I was very intrigued. ... > I am more than willing to provide more information on what > I have learned so far about Joseph Newman and his energy machine... I'd like > to know what the educated community thinks about this man and his machine. To quote Mr. P. T. Barnum: "There is a sucker born every minute." How much did he hit you for the book? Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!iwsl6!res
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (10/14/85)
>In article <173@tulane.UUCP> kpc@tulane.UUCP (Kevin Centanni) writes: >>To whom it may concern: >> Today, I had the oppurnity to attend the first public showing of the >>Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. For those of you not familiar with Mr. >>Newman and his "energy machine": It seems that a man from a place called >>Lucedale, Mississippi has invented a motor that has a production efficiency >>of over 800% (yes, that is correct, eight hundred percent). Somehow, this >>$3000. The machine which I saw operate today used several lantern batteries >>for a power source... connected to the machine's ouput leads were a neon >>sign and about 12 florescent tubes (each 5 feet long). When Newman threw >>the switch, the lights and sign started to blink on and off... the only >>batteries, and there was NO trickery to be seen... it seems that the machine >>was actually putting out more energy than it was taking in... the energy >>being generated by the machine was coming directly for the conversion of >>copper to energy (E=MC^2). Needless to say, I was very intrigued. >> It seems that since March 22, 1979 Mr. Newman has been trying to obtain >>a patent for the U.S. Patent Office; but they have refused on what seems to >>be "arbitrary, capricious, and contradictory treatment" of Mr. Newman and The story I heard was that the machine was not actually "creating"energy so much as utilizing a small amount of energy to tap into the earth's magnetic field to help set up a current. I'll admit to being a bit sceptical, yet I've not heard of a good explaination of what is going on with Newman's set-up. I'd be interested in hearing more of Newman's theory AND the objecting theories. Anyone got any definitive info? Curious, P.M.Pincha-Wagener
sukenick@ccnysci.UUCP (10/14/85)
> (John Kreuter) >> (Kevin Centanni) >>batteries, and there was NO trickery to be seen... it seems that the machine ^^^^^ ( *seems* is most likely the correct word) >>was actually putting out more energy than it was taking in... the energy >>being generated by the machine was coming directly for the conversion of >>copper to energy (E=MC^2). Needless to say, I was very intrigued. > >if this is true, how about a measurement of the weight of the copper after >a test of some duration? There should be quite measurable changes in weight. This is not a good test, if the machine works by converting the copper to energy, because the amount of mass required for a few watts is very small (C**2 is a big number) and so this measurement would be prone to error. How about measuring power capacities of the batteries and comparing to the power output of the machine? > > sceptically > John Kreuter just as skeptical if not more, GDS
gv@hou2e.UUCP (A.VANNUCCI) (10/14/85)
> Today, I had the oppurnity to attend the first public showing of the > Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. For those of you not familiar with Mr. > Newman and his "energy machine": It seems that a man from a place called > Lucedale, Mississippi has invented a motor that has a production efficiency > of over 800% (yes, that is correct, eight hundred percent)....... > > ...... The machine which I saw operate today used several lantern batteries > for a power source... connected to the machine's ouput leads were a neon > sign and about 12 florescent tubes (each 5 feet long). When Newman threw > the switch, the lights and sign started to blink on and off... the only > movement seen in the machine itself was a spark every tenth of a second or > so. Obvisouly, 12 florscent tubes cannor be powered by a few lantern > batteries, and there was NO trickery to be seen....... > > Kevin P. Centanni > Dept. of Computer Science > Tulane University > New Orleans, Louisiana > {ulysses,akgua}!tulane!kpc > ulysses!tulane!kpc@Berkeley.ARPA To make the demonstration *really* believable, Mr. Newman should (after starting the machine) connect its output back to its input and let it power itself indefinitely. That will certainly prove that it generates more power than it takes in. By the way, as an electrical engineer I don't see any difficulty in powering 12 fluorescent tubes (each five feet long) and a neon sign with several lantern batteries. All you need is a flyback transformer for voltage conversion (there are several possible designs with mechanical switches, which would be characterized by their producing a spark every tenth of a second or so). The lantern batteries have plenty of power, at a low voltage. Let's not confuse voltage with power. Giovanni Vannucci AT&T Bell Laboratories HOH R-207 Holmdel, NJ 07733 hou2e!gv
gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) (10/14/85)
I would like to offer a few comments about K. Centanni's posting concerning
an invention by J. Newman. These notes arise from an article that appeared in
SCIENCE NEWS several months ago.
It seems that Newman has produced an interesting device though the details
of its operation are obscure. When Newman first applied for a patent, the
Patent Office read his application as one for a perpetual motion machine and
rejected it. However, unlike most other inventors who request great sums of
money before displaying their inventions to anyone else, Newman has been most
interested in obtaining a patent. He asked for, and received, a review of his
device by an "expert" from the National Bureau of Standards. This reviewer
examined the device and filed a deposition with the Patent Office that the
invention worked essentially as Newman had described it. The Patent Office
has continued the patent application under review (dragging their feet?).
Newman has invited other people, mostly engineers from industry and
universities, to examine his machine. They have been quite interested but
have not supplied any detail about how they think the "energy machine" works.
Newman is, for the most part, a self-educated inventor (T. Edison was also
self-educated) and seems content to provide qualitative descriptions of how
his invention works. The short description that I have been able to read
indicates that Newman holds to some kind of ether theory (similar to Maxwell's
ether theory) and his device converts the ether energy into mechanical or
electrical energy (the mass to energy conversion is new to me).
Newman is working on a healthy paranoia concerning his difficulties in
obtaining a patent. Yes, the Patent Office is dragging its feet despite the
comments of the dozen or so people who have seen it and the NBS examiner.
However, in criticism, Newman has not demonstrated his device with any
equipment that requires a substantial amount of power (e.g., electrical motors
rather than light bulbs). He claims to have discovered a new electromagnetic
principle but no physicist has examined it and written an explanative article
about it. Without a quantitative description (i.e., mathematical) of the
operating principles, Newman's invention will not be taken seriously by the
physics community, even if he has stumbled onto some new phenomena of nature.
I recall cases where inventors built a small prototype device that relied
on some properties of which they were ignorant, and the device would not
operate when scaled up to a practical size. Newman does not appear to be
attempting fraud with his invention, but I am unconvinced that he understands
its operation or that it can be made practical. I would like a more careful
examination of the device by some EE's and physicists with a few articles
describing its operation. On the other hand, I can appreciate Newman's
refusal to permit this until the patent is safely in his possession.
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!ihwld!gjphwhmd@oce-rd2.UUCP (Hubert van Dongen) (10/15/85)
Did anyone happen to measure both voltage and size of both ingoing and
outcoming currents?
As most people will know P=V*I (power is voltage times current), sothat
this would be the most elementary test one can imagine to test this
perpetuum mobile.
Hubert van Dongen
Oce-Nederland B.V.
{seismo,decvax,ucbvax,philabs}mcvax!oce-rd1!hmdtomlin@dspo.UUCP (10/16/85)
Well scoffers, this machine has been reported on in national press (NPR)
and is supposedly on the up and up. Panels of doubting "experts" have
apparently authenticated it, etc. I don't know it works, but I sure
don't know it absolutely doesn't work either.
-- bob
--
Bob Tomlinson - dspo!tomlin@LANL or {ucbvax!unmvax,ihnp4!lanl}!dspo!tomlin
Los Alamos National Laboratory - E-10/Data Systems
Los Alamos, New Mexico - (505) 667-8495scott@hou2g.UUCP (Colonel'K) (10/17/85)
>>>was actually putting out more energy than it was taking in... the energy >>>being generated by the machine was coming directly for the conversion of >>>copper to energy (E=MC^2). Needless to say, I was very intrigued. >>if this is true, how about a measurement of the weight of the copper after >>a test of some duration? There should be quite measurable changes in weight. >This is not a good test, if the machine works by converting the copper to >energy, because the amount of mass required for a few watts is very small >(C**2 is a big number) and so this measurement would be prone to error. >How about measuring power capacities of the batteries and comparing to the >power output of the machine? How about just rigging some sort of feed back and disconnecting the batteries, then finding out how long the lights still work? Sounds like a pigment of your immigration, Scott J. Berry
quiroz@rochester.UUCP (Cesar Quiroz) (10/17/85)
(Do I really want to post this?) Sensible people please press 'q', 'n' or whatever is appropriate ... From article <463@iham1.UUCP> (gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant)): > > ... > > Newman is working on a healthy paranoia concerning his difficulties in > obtaining a patent. ... Sigh! Potential explanation ahead. > > ... On the other hand, I can appreciate Newman's > refusal to permit this until the patent is safely in his possession. > Me too. Problem is, there may be *nothing* to patent, which can delay the procedures a bit. It may well be true that Newman's machine exhibits some behavior of interest to science (or entertainment). But 800% energy efficiency?????? WAKE UP! As somebody already suggested, what about starting the thing in series with a single bulb, a la battery | thing | bulb and then switching the output to go from the bulb back into the input ports of the machine, bypassing the battery? Unless the bulb and the wiring display a rather remarkable resistance, I would expect a large fraction of the 800% to remain around. Want to see if the bulb (or the machine) fuses away? Now, THAT would be a demo. Cesar (Ever heard of exponential growth?) -- Cesar Augusto Quiroz Gonzalez Department of Computer Science {allegra|seismo}!rochester!quiroz University of Rochester or Rochester, NY 14627 quiroz@ROCHESTER
freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) (10/17/85)
It seems to me that in the interest of *real* scientific objectivity that
anyone who claims it to be a hoax should be able to back that claim up with
scientific evidence. It seems reasonable that Mr Newman want the protection
of a patent before subjecting his invention to detailed public scrutiny.
I am kind of ashamed of the lack of *open-minded* scientific curiosity dis-
played on this net over a fairly interesting phenomona. *WHETHER OR NOT* it
is a hoax. Flames on everyone!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik James Freed
Aurora Systems
San Francisco, CA
{dual,ptsfa}!aum!freedgwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (10/17/85)
> Well scoffers, this machine has been reported on in national press (NPR)
A real scientific criterion.steven@hp-lsd.UUCP (steven) (10/17/85)
> > Device #1: an electrical device which takes in 10 volts AC at 1 ampere > and puts out 100 volts AC at 1 ampere. The device will not > contain any internal energy sources and the measurements of > current and voltage will not be faked. I note that nothing is said about the phases of the voltage and current. Also, are these RMS or peak? > > Device #2: a closed box with a button on top. The box can be set on a > passive wheeled platform or on some wooden dowels and it > will move a distance much greater than its own length when > the button is pushed. The floor of the room will not be > slanted - the box may be turned around and it will move in > the other direction on activation. The box will not take in > or put out any matter for its propulsion. Not too difficult since wheels and rollers are not frictionless. Internal masses can be moved to provide reaction and can be restored to their original positions without reaction by not exceeding static friction forces. It is fairly easy to move a wheeled chair across a room without touching the floor. > > Device #3: an apparatus incorporating no batteries or other chemical > sources of electricity and no moving parts whatsoever, which > can light a small electric lamp. I can come up with nuclear cells, photovoltaic cells, thermocouples, lightning rods, radio antennae and large capacitors as possible solutions. Some of these might be classified as chemical. Since your price has already been undercut, I am curious about your intended solutions. How about at the same prices as mine :-). Steven Sharp hp-lsd!steven
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (10/17/85)
OK, people, enough is enough. There are too many gullible people out there and it's time to stop arguing and do the obvious thing. After the following comments I will make my offer (for a limited time only, and not available in any store!) In article <71@oce-rd2.UUCP> hmd@oce-rd2.UUCP (Hubert van Dongen) writes: >Did anyone happen to measure both voltage and size of both ingoing and >outcoming currents? > >As most people will know P=V*I (power is voltage times current), sothat >this would be the most elementary test one can imagine to test this >perpetuum mobile. While in article <1760@watdcsu.UUCP> sgcpal@watdcsu.UUCP (P.A. Layman) writes: >Indeed several reliable and independent sources have >confirmed the performance of this machine. Here is my offer: For the sum of US$25,000, payable on delivery, I will construct a device satisfying any one of the following descriptions (buyer's choice). Upon demonstration of the device in a an accessible location of my choosing and payment of the money, I will transfer the device and all rights to it to the buyer. Device #1: an electrical device which takes in 10 volts AC at 1 ampere and puts out 100 volts AC at 1 ampere. The device will not contain any internal energy sources and the measurements of current and voltage will not be faked. Device #2: a closed box with a button on top. The box can be set on a passive wheeled platform or on some wooden dowels and it will move a distance much greater than its own length when the button is pushed. The floor of the room will not be slanted - the box may be turned around and it will move in the other direction on activation. The box will not take in or put out any matter for its propulsion. Device #3: an apparatus incorporating no batteries or other chemical sources of electricity and no moving parts whatsoever, which can light a small electric lamp. If nobody accepts this offer in the near future, then I will explain the principle of operation of any one of these devices for the sum of US$1,000, paid in advance. Put up or shut up. _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (10/18/85)
> Here is my offer: For the sum of US$25,000, payable on delivery, > I will construct a device satisfying any one of the following > descriptions (buyer's choice). Upon demonstration of the device > in a an accessible location of my choosing and payment of the money, > I will transfer the device and all rights to it to the buyer. > > Device #1: an electrical device which takes in 10 volts AC at 1 ampere > and puts out 100 volts AC at 1 ampere. The device will not > contain any internal energy sources and the measurements of > current and voltage will not be faked. I'll take this one, as long as I can use a watt-meter to measure the power in and out. No tricks using tank circuits as loads or low duty cycle outputs allowed. > > Device #2: a closed box with a button on top. The box can be set on a > passive wheeled platform or on some wooden dowels and it > will move a distance much greater than its own length when > the button is pushed. The floor of the room will not be > slanted - the box may be turned around and it will move in > the other direction on activation. The box will not take in > or put out any matter for its propulsion. This one isn't that tough. I assume that Matt had something different in mind than my solution, since he asks that the device be placed on a wheeled platform or on dowels. My solution? The button releases a tightly wound spring, which spins a massive verticle wheel inside the box, causing the box to roll, end over end, across the room. > > Device #3: an apparatus incorporating no batteries or other chemical > sources of electricity and no moving parts whatsoever, which > can light a small electric lamp. You can get solar cells anywhere, Matt, and your description of this device seems to allow non-chemical sources of energy. > > If nobody accepts this offer in the near future, then I will explain > the principle of operation of any one of these devices for the sum of > US$1,000, paid in advance. > Sorry for messing up your business. Maybe you should try selling these things on a less physics oriented net. > _____________________________________________________ > Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa > Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
johansen@agrigene.UUCP (10/18/85)
> On the other hand, I can appreciate Newman's > refusal to permit this until the patent is safely in his possession. > It seems to me that a patent on a worthless piece of equipment would be worthless. On the other hand, if the machine really does work, Newman would not lose patent rights by having it examined by any number of experts. It is extremely unlikely that the idea could be stolen and another individual obtain the patent considering Newman has already applied for his. So why is he holding back?
rdp@teddy.UUCP (10/18/85)
In article <387@aum.UUCP> freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) writes: >It seems to me that in the interest of *real* scientific objectivity that >anyone who claims it to be a hoax should be able to back that claim up with >scientific evidence. It seems reasonable that Mr Newman want the protection >of a patent before subjecting his invention to detailed public scrutiny. >I am kind of ashamed of the lack of *open-minded* scientific curiosity dis- >played on this net over a fairly interesting phenomona. *WHETHER OR NOT* it >is a hoax. Flames on everyone! >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The burden of proof does not lie on the world to prove Mr. Newman wrong, it lies on Mr. Newman and his supporters to prove themselves right. Similarily, I could claim that I saw a flotilla of flying saucers land and disperse millions of aliens, which I single handedly killed and disposed of the bodies. Now, who needs to prove what? Do you need to prove me wrong or do I need to prove my ridiculous story is correct before you prove it wrong. Let's see what Mr. Newman has to say, sure. But his mere statement nor its description in the press is insufficient proof of anything. If what he is stating is true (800 percent efficiency), then the entire foundation of physics is in serious jeoporady. Note that this violates, very clearly the law of conservation of energy. Who his is director of engineering, Emanuel Velikovsky? :-)
tomlin@dspo.UUCP (10/18/85)
Re: NPR: A real scientific criterion.
And 20 blithering idiots with a machine connected to usenet is better?
--
Bob Tomlinson - dspo!tomlin@LANL or {ucbvax!unmvax,ihnp4!lanl}!dspo!tomlin
Los Alamos National Laboratory - E-10/Data Systems
Los Alamos, New Mexico - (505) 667-8495levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (10/19/85)
In article <1004@oddjob.UUCP>, matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) writes: >Here is my offer: For the sum of US$25,000, payable on delivery, >I will construct a device satisfying any one of the following >descriptions (buyer's choice). Upon demonstration of the device >in a an accessible location of my choosing and payment of the money, >I will transfer the device and all rights to it to the buyer. > >Device #1: an electrical device which takes in 10 volts AC at 1 ampere > and puts out 100 volts AC at 1 ampere. The device will not > contain any internal energy sources and the measurements of > current and voltage will not be faked. Transformer. (Note: it CAN'T be 100% efficient, either. Darn close but not 100%.) > >Device #2: a closed box with a button on top. The box can be set on a > passive wheeled platform or on some wooden dowels and it > will move a distance much greater than its own length when > the button is pushed. The floor of the room will not be > slanted - the box may be turned around and it will move in > the other direction on activation. The box will not take in > or put out any matter for its propulsion. Contains some kind of accelerating mass, powered by batteries. > >Device #3: an apparatus incorporating no batteries or other chemical > sources of electricity and no moving parts whatsoever, which > can light a small electric lamp. > A HUGE capacitor. >If nobody accepts this offer in the near future, then I will explain >the principle of operation of any one of these devices for the sum of >US$1,000, paid in advance. > >Put up or shut up. >_____________________________________________________ >Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa >Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt Sorry, your secrets are out. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (10/19/85)
Comments on the patentability of the magic energy machine... > Newman is, for the most part, a self-educated inventor (T. Edison was also > self-educated)... Nice for Mr. Newman, but the bit about Edison is a complete non-sequitur; I'm curious if this was just tossed into the parent article or is something that Newman uses as part of his pitch. > ...Newman is working on a healthy paranoia concerning his difficulties in > obtaining a patent... > However, in criticism, Newman has not demonstrated his device with any > equipment that requires a substantial amount of power ... ...which, no doubt, gives anyone else dealing with the mechanism a healthy paranoia (?) concerning any attempt to get a patent...He may not be attempting to hoodwink people, fine, but non-dishonesty (sic) is not enough reason for a patent. > ...I would like a more careful > examination of the device by some EE's and physicists with a few articles > describing its operation. On the other hand, I can appreciate Newman's > refusal to permit this until the patent is safely in his possession. No, this isn't the way it has to work. Newman has no justification for a patent until it's reasonably clear what's being patented. If the patent office isn't careful, they could end up granting a patent on a step-up transformer! If you don't understand the reason for caution in granting a patent, see the discussion in net.graphics about how someone supposedly claims patent rights to xor cursors! -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Simpler is better.
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (10/20/85)
> If nobody accepts this offer in the near future, then I will explain > the principle of operation of any one of these devices for the sum of > US$1,000, paid in advance. Hey, I'll explain the devices for only $999 each. I appreciate Matt's point but am afraid that the gullible people typically have a deep psychological need to believe in a conspiracy on the part of the scientific establishment to suppress good ideas from backyard inventors. Giving three examples of devices that look just like the bogus inventions but that have solid scientific explanations won't prove a thing to these people; they'll believe the next hoax for which they haven't yet seen the explanation. I think the root of the problem is that the general public can no longer tell the difference among fact, opinion, dogma, knowledge, etc. due to systematic undercutting of epistemology by intellectuals over several decades. This makes them skeptical about all claims to knowledge, with the inevitable result that they give as much credence to unfounded claims as to genuine scientific knowledge.
freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) (10/23/85)
> In article <387@aum.UUCP> freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) writes: > >It seems to me that in the interest of *real* scientific objectivity that > >anyone who claims it to be a hoax should be able to back that claim up with > >scientific evidence. It seems reasonable that Mr Newman want the protection > >of a patent before subjecting his invention to detailed public scrutiny. > >I am kind of ashamed of the lack of *open-minded* scientific curiosity dis- > >played on this net over a fairly interesting phenomona. *WHETHER OR NOT* it > >is a hoax. Flames on everyone! > >-- > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The burden of proof does not lie on the world to prove Mr. Newman wrong, > it lies on Mr. Newman and his supporters to prove themselves right. > Similarily, I could claim that I saw a flotilla of flying saucers land > and disperse millions of aliens, which I single handedly killed and disposed > of the bodies. Now, who needs to prove what? Do you need to prove me wrong > or do I need to prove my ridiculous story is correct before you prove it > wrong. > > Let's see what Mr. Newman has to say, sure. But his mere statement nor > its description in the press is insufficient proof of anything. If what he > is stating is true (800 percent efficiency), then the entire foundation > of physics is in serious jeoporady. Note that this violates, very clearly > the law of conservation of energy. > > Who his is director of engineering, Emanuel Velikovsky? :-) You will notice that according to him he does not violate the conservation laws, he derives energy from the mass of copper... My point is, however, that the tenor of the articles has been ridicule based on very unscientific and highly emotional prejudices; *NOT* understanding of the concepts involved. I still hold that the reactions have been childish much like the emotional reactions frontier scientists/inventors like Edison had to deal with. If people want to say there is *NO* chance he is right I think they should have a lot more evidence at their disposal! I am myself very sceptical, but I think that it is *possible* if not likely. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik James Freed Aurora Systems San Francisco, CA {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (Davidsen) (10/23/85)
This somewhat reminds me of the "Dean device", which purported to become lighter in operation. It was placed on a common bathroom scale and when operated did, in fact, cause the scale to have a lower reading. This got a patent, and in the process of trying to develop a practical use for the principle was shown to be using a characteristic of spring scales. I suspect that the Newman device is also a case of misapplication of a principle rather than a fraud of any type. The matter to energy conversion sounds VERY unlikely, but there is some posibility that a new discovery has been made (bloody unlikely tho). The only thing which makes this interesting to me is the fact that (a) he isn't trying to get any money out of it (yet), and (b) one of the categories of invention which used to be unpatentable was the heavier than air flying machine. Since the patent application will protect his rights if there is some commercial posibility here, I would love to see the machine really examined by professionals.
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (Davidsen) (10/23/85)
Device
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (Davidsen) (10/23/85)
In article <1221@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >> Device #2: a closed box with a button on top. The box can be set on a >> passive wheeled platform or on some wooden dowels and it >> will move a distance much greater than its own length when >> the button is pushed. The floor of the room will not be >> slanted - the box may be turned around and it will move in >> the other direction on activation. The box will not take in >> or put out any matter for its propulsion. > > This one isn't that tough. I assume that Matt had something different >in mind than my solution, since he asks that the device be placed on a >wheeled platform or on dowels. My solution? The button releases a tightly >wound spring, which spins a massive verticle wheel inside the box, causing >the box to roll, end over end, across the room. >Jeff Sonntag >ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > Actually, the easiest way to do this is to draw a weight slowly to one end of the box. Friction keeps the box from moving. Then move the weight rapidly back to the opposite end, giving a thrust great enough to move the box. For $25k I'll even do it with desmodromic cams! -billD "It seemed like a good idea at the time..."
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (10/24/85)
[Naw, I don't really believe there's a line-eater.] really believe there's a line-eater.
Kevin Centanni has mentioned a couple of times that Newman has demonstrated
his device before "hundreds of scientists". The suggestion, apparently,
is that scientists (of whatever sort) are the best observers, most
likely to detect fraud.
A countersuggestion, which derives from comments by Martin Gardner and
The Amazing Randi about Uri Geller, is that a better set of skeptical
observers would be illusionists (stage magicians). They know lots about
how to fool observers, and hence about how to detect trickery. Scientists
may be trained to make close observations of nature, but they don't
normally work under the assumption that there's a deception to be detected.
Inventor: As you can plainly see, only one wire connects A and B...
Scientist: Let's see... Okay...
Illusionist: How about this little compartment in back?
Inventor: Don't mess with that! That's just, ummm...
--
-- Mitch Marks @ UChicago
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmarjohn@hp-pcd.UUCP (john) (10/24/85)
<<<< < The machine which I saw operate today used several lantern batteries < for a power source... connected to the machine's ouput leads were a neon < sign and about 12 florescent tubes (each 5 feet long). When Newman threw < the switch, the lights and sign started to blink on and off... the only < movement seen in the machine itself was a spark every tenth of a second or < so. Obvisouly, 12 florscent tubes cannor be powered by a few lantern < batteries, and there was NO trickery to be seen... it seems that the machine < was actually putting out more energy than it was taking in... < For your information a standard Duracell lantern battery ( 2.5"X2.5"X4.2") will put out 6 volts at 20 amp * Hours. Several of them can put on an impressive demo as long as his device has a low enough power loss. John Eaton !hplabs!hp-pcd!john
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (10/25/85)
>It seems to me that in the interest of *real* scientific objectivity that >anyone who claims it to be a hoax should be able to back that claim up with >scientific evidence. It seems reasonable that Mr Newman want the protection >of a patent before subjecting his invention to detailed public scrutiny. The patent issue is a smokescreen. Sorry, but patenting is disclosure, and it is doubtful that he would lose any standing on his device (which has been filed) if he disclosed it without the patent being issued. The truth is that he is avoiding letting people know how his machine really works. Sorry, but I don't believe snakes who insist on invoking magic behind closed doors. -Ron
timothym@tekigm.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) (10/25/85)
Hi, The subject of open mindedness................................................. ............................................................................... ............................................................................... On the other hand..... Patent law says that if an engineering notebook contains timely documentation of events leading up to discovery of patentable ideas, said notebook WILL be acceptable evidence for the courts should another party apply for and receive a patent prior to the original designer, and all patent rights will be turned over to him/her. If Mr. Newman has been diligent in his work, he should have a notebook, and is already protected by patent law. I would love to hear that he has indeed invented something to rock the present technological community off their (insert something appropriate), but alas, I too fall into that catagory with most of the others on the net - cautious. Thanks for your attention and time, -- Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 tektronix!tekigm!timothym @@ 'Who said that?' PO Box 3500 d/s C1-465 Vancouver, WA. 98665
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (10/25/85)
In article <71@oce-rd2.UUCP> hmd@oce-rd2.UUCP (Hubert van Dongen) writes: >Did anyone happen to measure both voltage and size of both ingoing and >outcoming currents? > >As most people will know P=V*I (power is voltage times current), sothat >this would be the most elementary test one can imagine to test this >perpetuum mobile. > > > Hubert van Dongen > Oce-Nederland B.V. > {seismo,decvax,ucbvax,philabs}mcvax!oce-rd1!hmd Wow! All the E.E.'s on the net and no one has figured this one out? I guess that E.E.'s aren't, in general, very familiar with AC electric motors (I know, old technology). As a matter of fact, Mr. van Dongen has stated precisely the method Newman uses to ``prove'' his machine's capabilities. Newman uses electrical voltage and current meters on his machine's input and output as a ``scientific'' measure of the ``power'' produced. Well, the above formula is quite correct for DC or for AC when there is no reactance in the circuit. But in a reactive circuit there is something called ``power factor'', such that the correct formula is P=V*I/pf, where pf >= 1. As a simple example, consider an AC current driving into a capacitor. You'll be able to measure both current and voltage in the curcuit, but assuming an ideal capacitor you'll find that NO POWER WHATEVER is being consumed. What the capacitor takes from the power source while the voltage potential is increasing, it gives back on the next quarter-cycle when the voltage is decreasing. Current flows (in both directions!), but the power factor is infinite. Many AC electric motors, especially when lightly loaded, behave in exactly the same way. They can have a power factor of more than 10, such that a simple measure of voltage and current in the circuit can yield ``power'' measures of more than ten times what the current source is actually producing. The motor is performing energy-storage just like the capacitor, acting as a generator for part of the AC cycle. What Joseph Newman's machine probably is is really nothing more than an unloaded electric motor, driven by a DC-to-AC converter. He measures the (DC!) voltage and current feeding the device from the batteries, calculates a (true) power input, then measures the (AC!) output, neglecting the power factor and thus coming up with a much larger (false) number. Connecting resistive loads across his device will lower the power factor, but never eliminate it. Fluorescent or neon tubes will light on a small fraction of their rated power (though not at full brilliance), and because of their nonlinear conductance would have less of an effect on the power factor than incandescent bulbs. They *look* impressive, but they derive their power solely from the batteries--as does his ``machine''. [The above information was gathered in part from an article in ``The Laser'', newsletter of the Southern California Skeptics, who actually sent an electrical engineer to observe the device after they were contacted by a group of investors about to invest several million dollars to its development. Newman kept the engineer from observing the device too closely when he discovered who he was, but since the apparatus was pretty simple--batteries, a ``box'', and the ``machine''--the engineer was able to deduce the above explanation. The investors saved their money. BTW, Southern California Skeptics (SCS) is the regional chapter of The Committee for Scientific Investigation Of the Paranormal (CSIOP).] Note that Newman may well be completely sincere, misguided solely by his ignorance of AC electricity. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/26/85)
> ... > Today, I had the oppurnity to attend the first public showing of the > Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. ... > ... > The machine which I saw operate today used several lantern batteries > for a power source... connected to the machine's ouput leads were a neon > sign and about 12 florescent tubes (each 5 feet long). When Newman threw > the switch, the lights and sign started to blink on and off... the only > movement seen in the machine itself was a spark every tenth of a second or > so. Obvisouly, 12 florscent tubes cannor be powered by a few lantern > batteries, and there was NO trickery to be seen... > ... I have been aware of Mr. Newman's `energy machine' for quite some time, and am admittedly skeptical of his claims (speaking as an engineer). I must admit, though, that I have not seen the machine nor do I have enough technical information on it in my possession to give it a proper evaluation. HOWEVER, the possibility of fraud cannot be discounted, since some really spectacular frauds have been perpetrated in the past for alleged energy saving devices. The fact is that several lantern batteries are INDEED CAPABLE of powering 12 fluorescent tubes. Consider the following: Let's use four as the number of lantern batteries (you said several, so four seems reasonable). Assuming they were an Everyready P/N 731 6 volt lantern battery, these batteries have an approximate energy capacity of 10 ampere-hours to a 4.0 volt discharge. 4 batteries X 6 volts X 10 ampere-hours = 240 watt-hours of energy. A small neon sign can easily run on 25 watts (5 KV x .005 A). A Sylvania fluorescent tube 4 feet long, P/N F40SSP32/CW/RS requires only 32 watts of energy for FULL rated output. 32 watts X 12 lamps = 384 watts. 25 watts + 384 watts = 409 watts, which is quite capable of being supplied by four lantern batteries for say, 1/2 hour. For the moment I am ignoring energy conversion loss for any static inverter, since the above power consumption for the lamps is RMS anyhow. HOWEVER, the human eye is not a very accurate radiometer, so the lamps could well be running at LESS than full intensity, with no one being the wiser. Obviously this would increase battery life, especially if high-frequency excitation were being used for the lamps instead of conventional ballasts. The use of fluorescent lamps instead of incandescent sets off alarm bells in my mind, since fudging the energy consumption of incandescent lamps is not readily possible. Please bear in mind that I am NOT accusing Mr. Newman of tryng to perpetrate a fraud. I am only suggesting that people have an open mind. === Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York === === UUCP {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry === === VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice,shell}!baylor!/ === === FAX 716/741-9635 {AT&T 3510D} syr!buf!/ === === TELEX 69-71461 ansbak: ELGECOMCLR {via WUI} ihnp4!/ === === === === "Have you hugged your cat today?" ===
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (10/26/85)
> Inventor: As you can plainly see, only one wire connects A and B... > Scientist: Let's see... Okay... > Illusionist: How about this little compartment in back? > Inventor: Don't mess with that! That's just, ummm... > The term here is Pnambic. Pnambic [From Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain (Wizard of Oz trivia)] -Ron
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/28/85)
In article <288@steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes: >The only thing which makes this interesting to me is the fact that (a) he >isn't trying to get any money out of it (yet) Newman is now advertising the book about his machine in the classified ads in the back of Science '85. $38.45 per copy. Looks like he's now trying to make some money from it. His ad claims that the book "completely discloses the nature and construction" of the machine. If, indeed, the "nature and construction" of the machine is now completely disclosed, Newman has no further excuse for not letting competent people examine his machine to determine whether it (a) works and (b) can be patented. -- David Canzi "Permission is not freedom."
cej@ll1.UUCP (One of the Jones Boys) (10/28/85)
> Scientists may be trained to make close observations of nature, > but they don't normally work under the assumption that there's a > deception to be detected. > > Inventor: As you can plainly see, only one wire connects A and B... > Scientist: Let's see... Okay... > Illusionist: How about this little compartment in back? > Inventor: Don't mess with that! That's just, ummm... > > -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago As a side note, when Geller appeared on the Carson Show (...we all know Carson was a magician) none of his tricks worked. Seems Carson kept a close eye one him and his equipment, looking for just that deception. Rather than risk being exposed, he failed to perform. -- 'Just carrying coals to Newcastle. ...ihnp4!mgnetp!ll1!cej Llewellyn Jones
titley@btnix.UUCP (Nigel Titley) (10/28/85)
> The machine which I saw operate today used several lantern batteries > for a power source... connected to the machine's ouput leads were a neon > sign and about 12 florescent tubes (each 5 feet long). When Newman threw > the switch, the lights and sign started to blink on and off... the only > movement seen in the machine itself was a spark every tenth of a second or > so. Obvisouly, 12 florscent tubes cannor be powered by a few lantern > batteries, and there was NO trickery to be seen... it seems that the machine > was actually putting out more energy than it was taking in... the energy Actually, it is quite feasable for a few (sic) lantern batteries to power 12 fluorescent tubes for a short while (up to 1/4 an hour I would estimate). All that is required is a simple inverter, and some credulity on the part of the observer. The real test, as has been pointed out, is if VI(in) < VI(out). What furthur points to fraud is that the lights were made to flash, hence allowing the lantern batteries to depolarize and allowing higher currents to be drawn for short periods. Nigel Titley (British Telecom @ Ipswich) UUCP: ..!ukc!btnix!titley "Reason is out to lunch"
sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) (10/30/85)
In article <1453@teddy.UUCP> rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) writes: >In article <387@aum.UUCP> freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) writes: >>It seems to me that in the interest of *real* scientific objectivity that >>anyone who claims it to be a hoax should be able to back that claim up with >>scientific evidence. Scientific objectivity doesn't require that people have no opinion. An opinion (hypothesis) can't change experimental results. Scientific objectivity requires a willingness to throw away or modify an opinion (hypothesis) when experimental evidence conflicts with it. >> It seems reasonable that Mr Newman want the protection >>of a patent before subjecting his invention to detailed public scrutiny. Mr Newman has applied for a patent, so he already has invited public scrutiny. Many people are curious why he hasn't allowed it in more detail. PUBLICATION OF IDEAS DOES NOT AFFECT A PATENT APPLICATION, unless the publication is done more than a year before the patent is applied for. PUBLIC SCRUTINY IS REQUIRED FOR PATENTS. After a patent is issued, it is published. There are no secrets in a patent. Mr Newman must be aware of both the above. I learned them after a couple of hours reading. From a book in my school library. In seventh grade. Mr. Newman has already applied for his patent(s), so he could have printed construction drawings in his book. Independent construction of a working generator would rule out hidden mechanisms. I'll be convinced when two major establishments have their own machines working. >>I am kind of ashamed of the lack of *open-minded* scientific curiosity dis- >>played on this net over a fairly interesting phenomona. *WHETHER OR NOT* it >>is a hoax. Flames on everyone! Magical apparatus is also fairly interesting, but should be presented as such. If you want scientific curiosity, post construction instructions in net.research and help people to make motors work. Oh, if you find out it is a hoax make sure to let us know. We'll be interested. -- Scot E. Wilcoxon Minn. Ed. Comp. Corp. circadia!mecc!sewilco 45 03 N / 93 15 W (612)481-3507 {ihnp4,uwvax}!dicomed!mecc!sewilco
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (11/01/85)
> > Scientists may be trained to make close observations of nature, > > but they don't normally work under the assumption that there's a > > deception to be detected. Hmmm .. . Particle physicists may want to hear about this. You don't suppose the BIG GUY is deceiving us??? Twinkle twinkle little. ... - - NOTE: MAIL PATH MAY DIFFER FROM HEADER - - +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | ..umcp-cs!seismo!prometheus!pmk.UUCP | decade | +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (11/14/85)
According to US Patent Law, one cannot patent an idea. One must reduce the idea to practice, by building some prototype which successfully employs the novel idea to perform its function. If a proposed machine seemingly violates the laws of physics (e.g. conservation of energy), the reduction to practice requirement will resolve the question. There were many clever schemes for perpetual motion machines, which looked intriguing on paper, but failed to operate as their inventors expected. In most cases, the flaw in the inventor's logic was subtle, and required a non-trivial understanding of physics to uncover. A few authors have compiled some entertaining and informative reviews of such failed inventions.