janssen@milano.UUCP (07/23/86)
Anyone heard anything recently about the Joe Newman "Energy Machine".
The last I saw, he had a hearing scheduled for last February to
argue that the Patent Office should give him a patent. I understand
he's been on a lot of talk shows, etc., but nothing I've seen.
For those of you who like hard science (:-), the Energy Machine is
a device that converts (something?) to electrical energy, without
using much energy itself. "greater than 100% efficient", is the
claim I remember. Mr. Newman is a rural Mississippi inventor, with
some interesting patents to his name, who seems to have drawn a
parallel between gyroscopic effects and magnetic fields. He believes
that a magnetic field is composed of magnetons, which behave like
gyroscopes in some manner. His machine is supposedly based on that
"principle".
All the best people have claimed his machine is a hoax, but he's also
got some qualified folks sticking up for him. I'd be interested to
hear if any real information about his theory or machine has come to
light. Of course, the topic might not be controversial enough for
this newsgroup... :-)
Bill
--
Bill Janssen, MCC Software Technology
9430 Research Blvd, Austin, Texas 78759
ARPA: janssen@mcc.com PHONE: (512) 339-3682
UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech,pyramid}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!janssenrcd@nbires.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (07/25/86)
> Anyone heard anything recently about the Joe Newman "Energy Machine". > The last I saw, he had a hearing scheduled for last February to > argue that the Patent Office should give him a patent... Science News recently reported that the organization (from NBS, if memory serves) which was testing his machine finally reported...the efficiency of his machine was rather difficult to measure given the spike-y nature of the output, but they eventually concluded that it was substantially less than 100%. Newman's reported reaction was predictable--an attack on the character, biases, etc., of the organization studying his machine, rather than on the merits of their investigation per se. He or his lawyer (I forget) was even quoted as noting bias in the investigating organization because someone had claimed that his machine could not work, before having seen it. (The clod who said this was no doubt just parroting some of that obsolete scientific orthodoxy about thermodynamic laws...:-) There was also a note that the investigation of the energy machine had been rather expensive and there would be some attempt to get Newman to pay for the investigation. (My opinion: Given the amount of litigation thus far, it would seem reasonable to ask him to pay if his machine doesn't work. I think that the Patent Office probably has to deal with enough inventors whose inventions are out in left field without having to deal with a suit every time they deny a patent for a device that claims to violate accepted physical principles. A precedent is needed here.) > All the best people have claimed his machine is a hoax, but he's also > got some qualified folks sticking up for him... In addition to some qualified people, according to Science News he's got some Congresscritters sticking up for him--some bimbo introduced a bill attempting to force the Patent Office to give him a patent! (Think carefully about that one and the concept of "legislated science.") I'm beginning to formulate an idea about how one can derive a measure of the probable scientific merit of an [idea|theory|invention] by calculating the ratio science:litigation. Newman's little machine is hardly the only current example of people attempting to have non-science or bad science legislated or adjudicated into acceptance by science. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
gjphw@mhuxo.UUCP (WYANT) (07/25/86)
> Anyone heard anything recently about the Joe Newman "Energy Machine".
A recent issue of SCIENCE NEWS contained a short article about the
status of Newman's invention. The National Bureau of Standards, who
had been requested by the Patent Office to review Newman's device,
produced their final report. Using a lot of equipment to monitor
both the amplitude and phase of voltages and current at many points,
the NBS reported that Newman's invention does not produce more mechanical
energy than is consumed in electrical energy from its numerous batteries.
Another engineering professor who had read the NBS report said that
Newman may have a particularly efficient electric motor, and that may
be of value, but no new principles have been discovered by Newman.
Of course, Newman is not satisfied with the NBS report and still wants
a patent for his device as an energy machine.
Perhaps some engineering journal may provide more details about the
NBS report, especially now that the principles of electricity and
mechanics have been reaffirmed.
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville, IL
*!ihnp4!{mhuxo,ihwld}!gjphw