From smb@nmaa.org Mon Apr 1 00:37:34 1996 Received: from mail.nmaa.org (luckier.nmaa.org [204.91.49.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA14483 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 00:37:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ppp65.nmaa.org ([204.91.49.65]) by mail.nmaa.org (post.office MTA v1.9.1 ID# 0-11620) with SMTP id AAA100 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 00:39:02 -0400 Message-ID: <315FBFAE.64DF@nmaa.org> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 03:36:14 -0800 From: smb@nmaa.org (Steve Bugher) Organization: smb Associates X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freenrg-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: fnrg: scalars again References: <9602278279.AA827958997@westatpo.westat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: FLORESI1@westatpo.westat.com wrote: > > Hi there, > > I'm going to start to build the scalar generator found in Bill's page. > Any ideas about which materials I can use to shield electromagnetic > waves and just let the scalar go through? Just a guess, but look into MuMetal to shield the magnetic waves. It has been used to shield tape recorder playback heads and CRT electron guns, etc.. -- *_____ _ _ ____ /Steve) / \/ \ |Buer) Steven M. Bugher 301 565-2203 P: 202 424-8635 \____ \ / /\ \ |---< 1717 Luzerne Ave. Silver Spring MD 20910-1510 (_____//__/ \__\|____) smb@nmaa.org http://www.nmaa.org/members/smb From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 03:17:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA04017; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 21:31:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 21:31:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <1.5.4b12.32.19960402024108.006daa3c@mailbox.swip.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Tommy Andersson To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: The Searl Effect X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The Searl Effect on http://www.servtech.com/public/jasontee/index.html His electric generator and his Levity Disc are powered by a Searl Effect Generator (S.E.G.). From FLORESI1@westatpo.westat.com Tue Apr 2 07:42:17 1996 Received: from relay3.UU.NET (relay3.UU.NET [192.48.96.8]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA18437 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 07:42:11 -0800 (PST) From: FLORESI1@westatpo.westat.com Received: from alterdial.UU.NET by relay3.UU.NET with ESMTP id QQajsg12572; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from westatpo.westat.com by alterdial.UU.NET with SMTP id QQajsg23067; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:42:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from cc:Mail by westatpo.westat.com id AA828470567; Tue, 02 Apr 96 10:39:15 EDT Date: Tue, 02 Apr 96 10:39:15 EDT Encoding: 63 Text Message-Id: <9603028284.AA828470567@westatpo.westat.com> To: freenrg-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: fnrg: Scalar detector plans deadline! Status: RO X-Status: Hi there, Do you know if information about the supplier for the material for the scalar detector is available? Thank you for your attention Ismael Flores floresi1@westat.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: fnrg: Scalar detector plans deadline! Author: freenrg-list@eskimo.com at internet-e-mail Date: 03/15/96 01:26 PM Hello to all, Well, my self imposed deadline for the release of the scalar detector plans has arrived. I am pleased to announce that I have completed patching some text together from unfinished manuscripts, and updated the schematics, etc. This took a bit longer than I had expected, as the discussion of detector design theory was originally based on the presentation of a number of different detector designs. As only one original design is being released at this time, the test on detector design needed major revisions. You might well find references to designs or detector parameters that are not illustrated by any of the detector designs presented, but I have attempted to eliminate as much of this as is practical. I will be running one more last run through and spell check tonight, and then sending the text off to Bill Beaty over this weekend. I have made arrangements to scan the schematics, and several photographs of a completed unit, as well as a macro shot showing the crystal grain structure of the core material. This particular file might be a bit large in size to preserve the contrast needed to identify the proper crystal grain structure for detector core materials. These photographs will be in electronic format on next Monday, and then transmitted to Bill Monday evening. Arrangements have also been made to supply a limited amount of pre selected core material to interested builders. If demand is great, I may have to send more out to be cut to size. I don't expect this to be a problem. The details of just how this material will be made available is being finalized now. If desired, laser printed copies of the schematics and text can also be provided. Should the quality of the images suffer due to scanning, I could have prints produced at a reasonable cost as well. Details on the availability of these materials will be posted once the design files are on line. I'd like to thank everyone for their interest, and I hope this device will live up to your expectations. I will of course stand by to answer any question this design might raise, and help any builders that might run into difficulties in reproducing or modifying this design. Enjoy! From mwm@aa.net Tue Apr 2 23:05:57 1996 Received: from big.aa.net (root@big.aa.net [204.157.220.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA09844 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 23:05:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from Default (s3c0p5.aa.net [204.157.220.137]) by big.aa.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA17952 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 23:02:59 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199604030702.XAA17952@big.aa.net> X-Sender: mwm@aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:02:30 +0800 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Hastings report of 800% efficiency. Status: RO X-Status: At 03:14 PM 4/2/96 -0800, you wrote: >Only a set of tests performed with such a power supply can eliminate the >unusual behaviors of batteries such as shock excitation. The unusual >waveforms must be carefully analized as well to actually measure the energy >used by the Newman device, or even a conventional DC motor. Such complete >measurments are needed, as a minium, to correctly measure the performance >of the Newman motor. This is not as easy as it might appear. > >I hope that these issues are taken as constructive suggestions rather than >as an attack on Mr. Newman's or Dr. Hastings work. I deeply hope Mr. >Newman's device does prove to have an over unity efficiency. I have no >interest in >seeing Mr. Newman's invention disproven, and I am not of the opinion that over >unity operation is impossible. > >There have been quite a few claims of over unity operation that were due to >faulty measurment methods, as in the case of the MRA and N machines. I feel >it is important to distance any credible device from these false claims as >quickly as possible. > >Anything less lowers the credibility of the field as a whole. I hope Dr. >Hastings >will produce a new set of measurments that will address any issues raised by >his original report, and put these issues to rest once and for all. I would >be delighted to see these issues resolved in Mr. Newman's favor. > >Bob Shannon. > > > Thank you Bob for the critical response to the Newman claims. That obviously took some time to write but I consider it to be a fairly definitive call. Another way to do it is use a capacitor bank which has been calibrated in size to handle the Newman device. It either runs the sucker, and keeps running it, or it doesnt. A charged capacitor will provide an exact quantity of electrical energy. Then, use a dynameter on the motor shaft to measure work output. Energy In: Energy Out. If it keeps running, and running, like the everyready bunny, then the energy out on the dynameter is a good if crude approximation of the over unity. No waveforms, spikes, power factors, or other math needs to be considered. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From bshannon@tiac.net Tue Apr 2 07:30:05 1996 Received: from mailserver3.tiac.net (mailserver3.tiac.net [199.0.65.247]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA15975 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 07:29:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from zork.tiac.net (zork.tiac.net [199.0.65.2]) by mailserver3.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with ESMTP id KAA02137; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:30:26 -0500 Received: from bshannon.tiac.net (bshannon.tiac.net [206.119.135.211]) by zork.tiac.net (8.6.9/8.6.6.Beta9) with SMTP id KAA25552; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:28:58 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:28:58 -0500 Message-Id: <199604021528.KAA25552@zork.tiac.net> X-Sender: bshannon@tiac.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: neotech@xbn, shore.net@zork.tiac.net From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) Subject: Hastings report of 800% efficiency. Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The following message was posted some time ago, but never made it to the list server due to network problems on this end. Sorry for the delay. (Origninal message follows:) In the recent posting by Mr. Evan Soule, of a performance analysis of one Newman motor performed by Dr. Roger Hastings, a claim of 800% efficiency is made for the Newman motor. >From that report: >In this experiment, eight fresh 1.5 Volt alkaline batteries were >connected to an 80% rated efficient d.c. motor. The motor turned an >oil pump at about 1 Hz. The motor ran for 6 minutes, and the final >battery voltage was about 60% of the starting voltage. >Alkaline batteries were used because battery performance curves were >available from the manufacturer. One such chart is plotted in Fig. >1. The performance of the d.c. motor is verified by the chart, which >predicts that the batteries, when initially drained at 2 amps, will >last 6 min. The measured motor drain under load was near 2 amps. An explanation of the chart is included in the report: >FIGURE 1: Eveready Alkaline Battery Performance Curve Starting >Current Drain VS Time to Reach 60% of Fresh Battery Voltage The chart included in the report appears to be data collected by Dr. Hastings rather than a chart produced by the battery manufacturer. If a factory performance chart is not used here, why then are batteries used in the testing? >The above results allow us to estimate the power consumed by the oil >pump. >We find: > initial pump output power >___________________________ equals 0.8 >initial battery input power >pump output equals 0.8 times 2 amps times 12 volts equals 19 Watts This conclusion may not be justified. As the battery voltage drops, the current level and efficiency of the motor will change. The calculation above in not sufficient to describe the actual performance. The current drawn is not constant, so it is incorrect to calculate the power used in this way. >The same pump was connected to the Newman Motor (with a 90# permanent >magnet rotor) so that the pump again ran at near 1 Hz. Therefore, >the pump was consuming the same power in this experiment. I will assume that the pump is equally loaded (mechanically) in each case? Simply saying that it is connected to the Newman motor, and turning as "about" the same speed does not tell me that the pump is consuming the same power as before. >Eight fresh batteries were connected to the Newman Motor. The >batteries were drained to about 60% of their starting voltage after >seven (7) hours! Although the input current to the Newman Motor >follows a complicated waveform, we may estimate the initial average >input current from the performance curve (fig. 1). Here we have a sevear problem with how the test was performed. The batteries will not deliver the same net energy as measured by their voltage if discharged at differing rates. The factory performance data (apparently not included in the report, and surely not figure 1) supports this. This is true for most battery technologies available. Clearly if the Newman device ran for seven hours driving the same load as in the first case, where it only ran for six minutes, then we delivered 70 times as much work, or 7,000% more net energy than in the first case. (7 hrs. = 420 min. 420min./6min = 70 times longer. This is not 800%!) The problem with this is, that the rete of energy delivery in the first case was not uniform due to the lowering battery voltage, and changing motor and pump speeds. A claim of 7,000% is as wrong here as the 800% claimed by Dr. Hastings. >Using 0.2 amps at 12 volts we find: >Initial Newman Motor Input equals 2.4 Watts. Because "the input current to the Newman motor follows a complicated waveform" we cannot simply calculate the energy input in this manner. >Since the output is consuming 19 Watts, we have: >Newman Motor Efficiency equals 19 divided by 2.4 times 100 percent >equals 800 percent. We may only accept this if we make a lot of assumptions. The method used to reach this performance level is far from being an accepted method of measuring the efficiency of the Newman motor, or any other system. The energy levels delivered by the batteries in these two cases need not be at all similar due to the different current levels, and direct comparison by the use of figure 1 is simply not correct. More importantly, we do not know the net energy used in each case, clearly the energy delivered over time changed as the batteries discharged. The use of these batteries to deliver the 2 amp currents in the first case is far above the normal current for these devices. There is no basis in fact to assume that the total energy delivered in the first case is at all the same as in the second, hence the efficiency claim of 800% is suspect. Batteries just do not behave in the way suggested by the method used to calculate the efficiency in this case. If we draw current from two identical batteries, but at different rates, we will have two different amounts of energy remaining in those batteries when discharged to the same cell voltage. Apples and oranges, direct comparisons such as those in the report are inappropriate here. We find the same to be true for the static torque tests and battery lifetime tests. None of the measurement methods used in this report actually measure the true performance in ways that clearly support the claims made. Another posted pointed out issues if the conventional motor was stalled or not during these tests. These are valid questions not yet answered by the report or by anyone associated with Mr. Newman's device. The Newman motor can be expected to draw more total energy from a given battery simply because of the lower discharge rate alone, as batteries total energy delivery is a function of the rate of delivery. This effect can be quite large, and is not accounted for in Dr, Hastings analysis. Many modern laptop computers use this effect, and provide a number of power management settings that allow the user to select a performance level vs. battery life trade off that best suits their needs. In these cases, the total energy supplied varies with the demand rate. Such computers often have a battery gauge device, which must account for the discharge rate in calculating the battery energy remaining. Even these systems suffer from inaccuracies for several more subtle reasons. As discharge current rises, so does the cell temprature. The cell temprature can have a large effect on the batteries ability to deliver energy to a load. Another important fator is known as shock excitation. Large voltage spikes can cause unusual chemical reactions in the battery electrolyte, and cause "excess" energy to be delivered for a short time. This effect only extracts chemical energy from the battery, and is very damaging to rechargable cells. This effect might also play some role in the measurments given, but in no way effects the true efficiency of Mr. Newman's device. Rechargable and primary batteries take more energy to produce than can be liberated even by shock excitation, so even this is not over unity operation. In paragraph VII, we find the following: >As seen above, a number of properties of the Newman Motor follow >conventional theory. In specific, the input power is as expected. >The output power (in excess of input) is the non-conventional result. >In my mind, the most interesting motor measurement is the >oscillograph photos taken around the coil showing very high voltages. >This photo also shows the (to me amazing) fact that the coil current >is over three times the current at the battery when the voltage is >applied. While no mention is made of how the signals observed on the oscilloscope were collected, we might conclude that the high voltages observed are due to the large inductance of the Newman coil, and changes in the current through that coil. In this case, we have a dynamic system which demands much richer data collection and analysis than is presented in this report. The methods used to measure a DC system just do not apply to the Newman motor, and will produce incorrect results. The methods used to calculate the power delivered in Dr. Hastings report are not correct for such a system. There should be no shock that the current in a series circuit can be larger at one point than it is in another, provided that alternating or a changing current is present. This is why power factors must be accounted for. Sadly, this data is totally missing in this report. Only in a resistive series circuit will current be constant throughout the circuit. Given these observations, why were power factors not measured and accounted for? With this data missing, and with the presence of AC in the Newman device, why was the efficiency calculated as it was? Most importantly, are there any tests of the Newman device that were made with constant current supplies, and where AC power factors were accounted for? Batteries will play tricks if discharged at different rates, and performance claims based on such measurements cannot be accepted without much more careful testing, and more complete data collection. A critical reply to this report was cross posted from I_UFO, with comments added by Glenda Stocks: WoGT> - back to the drawing board. Alkaline batteries are designed to WoGT> operate small light bulbs and low power electronics and you WoGT> are running a 90 lb. motor from an alkaline - ridiculous. GS> other than the ridicule and insult, your other comments may have GS> been helpful. GS> That is why we have rules against ridiculing people or their ideas GS> here. While I have not read the whole original message, I must agree with WorGT that the use of batteries in this case is inappropriate unless much better data is collected to account for the differences in net energy delivered at a given cell voltage under different discharge rates. The test must be redesigned to account for several factors not addressed. Even the methods used to determine how much power was used by the conventional motor need improvements to measure the net energy delivered throughout the trial. Ridiculing (or insulting) people is one thing, pointing out potential flaws in a scientific test is quite another. It is possible to point out a possible flaw or source of error without (intended) insult. There are correct ways to measure a device such as Mr. Newman's motor, and there are incorrect methods as well. If a potential source for error is seen, it is important that the originator understand why the results might not be accurate, and cannot be accepted as presented. The potential for such an error in the testing of the Newman motor as described so far is so high that I personally do not accept the conclusions being drawn. Not having any direct experience with Mr. Newman's device, I cannot say that is does, or does not work as claimed. Given the test methods being used to support the claims, I grow increasingly skeptical of the claims however. The conclusions being drawn from the types of tests described so far just have too many sources for error. A solid set of measurements made with a proper regulated power supply, and measurements of the power factors in the device would shed a great deal of light on the actual operation Mr. Newman's device. While Mr. Newman addresses the reasons he feels operating his device in "perpetual motion" mode, (due to Lentz's law) we must ask how the claimed excess energy produced by the Newman device is any different from the energy already used to drive the device? If energy is fed into the motor, and more comes out than went into driving the machine, unless this excess energy is somehow different from the driving energy already in use, this makes no apparent sense. I asked this question, and received the reply that the energy delivered by the device is no different than that used to drive it. The problems described in "closing the loop" might be easily explained if the device is not over unity. I will admit, that there may very well be as yet unknown phenomena that effects the device only in closed loop mode however. It is not critical to operate the device in a self sustaining mode to verify excess energy production, if proper measurements are made under controlled conditions. Can the excess energy of one Newman device be used to power another device which also produces excess energy, without closing the loop? Simply put, what happens if I drive a Newman motor from a regulated DC supply, and then take the output of that first Newman machine and drive a second Newman device? Will the claimed over unity efficiencies add? Will a Newman motor appear to operate over unity while driven by such a regulated power supply at all? I suspect it will not, but this is only my opinion based on the test methods and data presented by Mr. Soule and others. Only a set of tests performed with such a power supply can eliminate the unusual behaviors of batteries such as shock excitation. The unusual waveforms must be carefully analized as well to actually measure the energy used by the Newman device, or even a conventional DC motor. Such complete measurments are needed, as a minium, to correctly measure the performance of the Newman motor. This is not as easy as it might appear. I hope that these issues are taken as constructive suggestions rather than as an attack on Mr. Newman's or Dr. Hastings work. I deeply hope Mr. Newman's device does prove to have an over unity efficiency. I have no interest in seeing Mr. Newman's invention disproven, and I am not of the opinion that over unity operation is impossible. There have been quite a few claims of over unity operation that were due to faulty measurment methods, as in the case of the MRA and N machines. I feel it is important to distance any credible device from these false claims as quickly as possible. Anything less lowers the credibility of the field as a whole. I hope Dr. Hastings will produce a new set of measurments that will address any issues raised by his original report, and put these issues to rest once and for all. I would be delighted to see these issues resolved in Mr. Newman's favor. Bob Shannon. From harti@bbtt.de Tue Apr 2 16:05:05 1996 Received: from ns.bbtt.com (ns.bbtt.com [194.77.35.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA25077 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:04:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (harti.bbtt.com [194.77.35.75]) by ns.bbtt.com (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA14008 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:03:16 +0200 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:03:16 +0200 Message-Id: <199604030003.CAA14008@ns.bbtt.com> X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Re: The Searl Effect Status: RO X-Status: > >The Searl Effect on > >http://www.servtech.com/public/jasontee/index.html > >His electric generator and his Levity Disc are powered by a Searl Effect >Generator (S.E.G.). > Well, almost all pics on the site seems to be generated by Photoshop and a few effects... I heard rmors, that Searl is a cook and his discs never have been flying.. The site with almost no real pics supports this rumor. Regards, Stefan. P.S.. I am open to hear other opinions about it. > > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ From bilb@mail.eskimo.com Tue Apr 2 22:51:49 1996 Received: from eskimo.com (bilb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA07725; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 22:51:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by eskimo.com (8.7.5) id WAA27717; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 22:50:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 22:50:23 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: freenrg-list@mail.eskimo.com cc: "Science wig. sig." Subject: Re: fnrg: (DON'T!) MAKE $50,00! In-Reply-To: <199603262124.QAA21045@ra.cs.ohiou.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, Science wig. sig. wrote: > MAKE $30,00 OR MORE!!! > > Read this message slowly and carefully. > Print it out and save it-you'll want it later! > > It tells you how to turn $5.00, 5 stamps, 5 envelopes, and 5 minutes, into > $30,000, easily, and legaly. Oh jeeze, now why did you have to go and post this crap?! THIS IS A BLATANT VIOLATION OF ONE OF THE FREENRG RULES 4. "Junkmail" email advertizing will not be tolerated. While not illegal, widecasting of junk email ads to listserv sites is against the Unwritten Rules of the Internet. Anyone who spams freenrg-l with junkmail will be referred to the Internet Vigilante Justice team. ;) Occasional on-topic advertizing by regular freenrg-l users is acceptable. Sale of test equipment, yes. Get-rich-quick schemes, no. Note: WEIRD SCIENCE now has a for-sale area. If you had sent your ad using the US post office, the FBI would come and arrest you. Know why? If not, then I'd say you are playing with stuff you don't understand. If you've sent this ad anywhere else, you might seriously consider sending apologies. Your ad is: A pyramid scam A chain letter A get-rich-quick scheme An off-topic ad Also, I personally take extreme exception to internet chain letters. They are the vermin of the net. Ever hear of MAKE MONEY FAST and the Usenet? I know that many internet providers will kick their customers off internet if they catch them passing on chain letters. Did you pass this thing along out of ignorance? Any reason why I shouldn't respond harshly to this blatant violation of my listserver rules? .............................freenrg-list................................ William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-LIST VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 From bilb@mail.eskimo.com Wed Apr 3 07:38:25 1996 Received: from eskimo.com (bilb@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA27483 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:38:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by eskimo.com (8.7.5) id HAA22007; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:37:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:37:38 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: freenrg-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: fnrg: DONT MAILBOMB "$30,000" chainletter Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Hey, I just found this message (see below). It was received EARLIER than the "$30,000" chain letter, so it didn't make sense at the time. OK Andrew, you're forgiven. Sounds like your internet provider came down hard on you. Hey FREENRG people, don't mailbomb Andrew C. .............................freenrg-list................................ William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-LIST VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 21:30:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Science wig. sig." Reply-To: freenrg-list@mail.eskimo.com To: freng Subject: fnrg: sorry I'm sorry I posted that stupid chain letter. Please forgive me. It will not be posted anywhere ever again. The records of that letter have been erased from my account by my admin. Sorry. Andrew Cantino -- Andrew Cantino--Sig Master for The Great World of Science sig. >>gopher://seorf.ohiou.edu:2001/hGET/seorf.stuff/Sci/xx053/Homepage.html My Free Stuff page: >>gopher://seorf.ohiou.edu:2001/hGET/seorf.stuff/Sci/xx053/hide/free.html From mattm@servtech.com Wed Apr 3 12:59:30 1996 Received: from cyber1.servtech.com (root@cyber1.servtech.com [199.1.22.8]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA29582 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:59:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyber1 (mattm@cyber1.servtech.com [199.1.22.8]) by cyber1.servtech.com (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id PAA20265; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 15:59:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 15:59:25 -0500 (EST) From: matt mahoney X-Sender: mattm@cyber1 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Searl Effect In-Reply-To: <199604030003.CAA14008@ns.bbtt.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: I don't think it is a fake. Yes, some may be generated by photoshop to show what it DID look like because remember the British government destroyed all of his photos and work. On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Stefan Hartmann wrote: > > > >The Searl Effect on > > > >http://www.servtech.com/public/jasontee/index.html > > > >His electric generator and his Levity Disc are powered by a Searl Effect > >Generator (S.E.G.). > > > > Well, > almost all pics on the site seems to be generated by Photoshop and > a few effects... > > I heard rmors, that Searl is a cook and his discs never have been flying.. > > The site with almost no real pics supports this rumor. > > Regards, Stefan. > > P.S.. I am open to hear other opinions about it. > --------------------------------- E-mail: mattm@servtech.com WWW: http://www.servtech.com/public/mattm --------------------------------- From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 3 22:31:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA08807; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:30:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:30:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Byrun_Fox@mindlink.bc.ca (Byrun Fox) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hastings report of 800% efficiency. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Fellow fanatics; I would like to compliment everyone with the horse sense to suggest the simple over unity test of, for lack of a better term, self-propulsion. All of this measurement, debates over instruments, math that sometimes stretches credulity is a sign of very wishful thinking. Let's approach this the way a farmer might. Either it works or it doesn't work. The thing to do is get it working first, not figure out some complicated method to explain why it should work or perhaps isn't working. As far as I am concerned, the test is very simple, if it can't power itself on a more or less continuous basis, it is not what all of us are seeking, period. Thanks for the opportunity to rant, Byrun. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 3 22:34:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA09318; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:32:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:32:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <316355b3.17255128@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hastings report of 800% efficiency. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 03:00:02 -0800 (PST), Michael Mandeville wrote: [snip] >Thank you Bob for the critical response to the Newman claims. That >obviously took some time to write but I consider it to be a fairly >definitive call. > >Another way to do it is use a capacitor bank which has been calibrated in >size to handle the Newman device. It either runs the sucker, and keeps >running it, or it doesnt. A charged capacitor will provide an exact >quantity of electrical energy. Then, use a dynameter on the motor shaft to >measure work output. Energy In: Energy Out. If it keeps running, and >running, like the everyready bunny, then the energy out on the dynameter is >a good if crude approximation of the over unity. No waveforms, spikes, >power factors, or other math needs to be considered. [snip] My reading of previous posts from Evan is that the output from the Newman motor is of two forms, electrical and mechanical. Based on the fact that when driven by batteries, those batteries eventually do go flat, I presume that the electrical output doesn't quite equal the electrical input. Both outputs together however (electrical and mechanical) may exceed the input power. It would therefore seem to be necessary to use at least part of the output mechanical power to generate electrical power with which to continuously top up the battery while in operation. This may then lead to a self sustaining machine (at least until it has consumed all of its mass that it is capable of consuming). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 4 01:43:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA16922; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:39:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:39:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <960404025436_263745805@mail06> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: DVNelson@aol.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hastings report of 800% efficiency. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >My reading of previous posts from Evan is that the output from the >Newman motor is of two forms, electrical and mechanical. Based on the >fact that when driven by batteries, those batteries eventually do go >flat, I presume that the electrical output doesn't quite equal the >electrical input. Both outputs together however (electrical and >mechanical) may exceed the input power. It would therefore seem to be >necessary to use at least part of the output mechanical power to >generate electrical power with which to continuously top up the >battery while in operation. This may then lead to a self sustaining >machine (at least until it has consumed all of its mass that it is >capable of consuming). Obviously, your right, the output is mechanical and electrical. The debate, it would seem, is chemo-electrical. Batteries have some chemo-electrical dynamics that simple DC/AC do not have. If the batteries were driven to exhaustion it might be a valid test. But, at 60% exhaustion as the control, NO WAY. I would love to see some results with a capacitor as the power source. This would ensure that no other external power source provided the power for the motor. No scientific conclusion here, but batteries are NOT the most precise way to measure efficiency. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 4 23:56:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA03029; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:54:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:54:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <31646f97.5766081@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hastings report of 800% efficiency. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:43:37 -0800 (PST), DVNelson@aol.com wrote: [snip] >>mechanical) may exceed the input power. It would therefore seem to be >>necessary to use at least part of the output mechanical power to >>generate electrical power with which to continuously top up the >>battery while in operation. This may then lead to a self sustaining >>machine (at least until it has consumed all of its mass that it is >>capable of consuming). > >Obviously, your right, the output is mechanical and electrical. The debate, >it would seem, is chemo-electrical. Batteries have some chemo-electrical >dynamics that simple DC/AC do not have. If the batteries were driven to >exhaustion it might be a valid test. But, at 60% exhaustion as the control, >NO WAY. > >I would love to see some results with a capacitor as the power source. This >would ensure that no other external power source provided the power for the >motor. > >No scientific conclusion here, but batteries are NOT the most precise way to >measure efficiency. [snip] In a previous post someone mentioned that it had been tried with (a) capacitor(s), and did not work. However this is to be expected, if as I had suggested above, the electrical output alone is not quite equal to the electrical input. In short "topping up" the capacitor with energy converted from the mechanical output would seem a prerequisite to any possible success. BTW I believe that I have previously seen reports on various experiments, based on similar circumstances (i.e. a motor generator combination driven by a battery that is recharged), wherein it was suggested that the energy generation in fact occurred in the battery. This theory falls down however, when Newman uses the grid as his voltage supply. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 14:15:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA14233; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:12:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:12:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <9603058287.AA828738705@ccgate2.nectech.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rshannon@nectech.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Newman tests and grid power. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >BTW I believe that I have previously seen reports on various >experiments, based on similar circumstances (i.e. a motor generator >combination driven by a battery that is recharged), wherein it was >suggested that the energy generation in fact occurred in the battery. >This theory falls down however, when Newman uses the grid as his >voltage supply. This might be correct if the power factors were also measured. This has not been the case however, and these grid driven tests are not what was chosen for release to support the Newman device. Simply because it has been said to have been tested with grid power does not mean that the claims have been proven. A perfect example of power factor issues appearing as over unity operation can be found in the case of the MRA and similar switching devices. Measuring efficiency is not as simple as it might appear to be. This is as true for conventional motors as it is for more esoteric designs. I think the problem many are having with the Newman device testing is that the conclusions being drawn, and claims being made cannot be supported by the types of testing being reported. I don't think anyone is saying that Mr. Newman's machine does not work, or is not worthy of a more detailed study. Many people deeply wish that the issues raised with the tests and claims so far are understood and appreciated by Mr. Newman and his associates. I personally called Mr. Soule, who told me the devices has been "tested and tested and tested....". Yes it has. With all this testing, why are the test methods used not addressing these very real concerns? Why not support the claims with valid testing? Quantity is no substitute for quality. My confidence in the Newman device was higher before I read the test report. This is exactly the wrong response a proper set of test results should produce. I'm sure that this is not the intent of releasing such results, so I must wonder with all that testing, was Dr. Hastings report the best one available? The recent confusion over the number of atoms vs. conventional ampere turns, and the measuring of the force produced by different coils might tend to suggest that the basic testing that formed Mr. Newman's theory might also be suspect. It's interesting to note that in that video taped demonstration, batteries were used as in the Hastings report. A pattern of drawing potentially incorrect conclusions from flawed tests is shown here. A good many really want to believe in Mr. Newman's invention, just as was the case with Depalma's N machine, and the MRA, etc. I'm sure some people still do accept these as proven over unity devices. I really do not wish to play the role of a skeptic here, but as a professional engineer, the tests documented so far are flawed, and in my opinion cannot support the claims made to date. If Mr. Newman's motor is indeed 800% efficient, why has it not claimed the 1 watt challenge? Is there a cash award for demonstrating an over unity device that is sill unclaimed? Lets assume for the moment that Mr. Newman's invention can back up any and all claims made for it. If we cannot suppress the arcing of the commutator, it the motor still practical? What about all the electromagnetic interference produced by the arcing and magnetic field collapse? No matter how efficient, this is a serious problem. If we cannot suppress this arcing, the whole motor would need to be shielded, which is rather expensive. There are regulations on EMI and RFI for good reason after all, not to mention the possible health effects of these fields. Has anyone in Mr. Newman's organization attempted to use electronic commutation to bypass this issue? I would expect that a well designed electronic commutation system would add additional efficiency over any mechanical commutation system. The short, open, and fire modes can all be implemented electronically without this arcing. This could permit adaptive timing to match changing load conditions, etc. Perhaps this is part of the improvements mentioned elsewhere. I'd like to add, that if I can be of any service to Mr. Newman or Mr. Soule in developing a test that would be more accepted by others, please do not hesitate to ask. I have no wish to raise only negative points with this work. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 14:23:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA15809; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:21:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:21:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604051920.VAA20809@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: THE HEART OF THE SYSTEM: Commutator Design X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >X-POP3-Rcpt: harti@ns >Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 12:28:46 -0800 >To: Stewardo@msn.com >From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) >Subject: THE HEART OF THE SYSTEM: Commutator Design > >From: ralph.hartwell@emachine.com (Ralph Hartwell) >To: josephnewman@earthlink.com > >_________________________________________ >Note: The views expressed herein may or may not represent the position of >Joseph Newman and, as informational material, are provided here from >submissions by other individuals interested in the technology >_________________________________________ > > > > SETUP AND OPERATION OF ROTATING ARMATURE NEWMAN MOTORS. > > The following comments apply to rotating magnet Newman >motors as shown in Mr Newmans' books and patent drawings. They >have been derived from my personal observations on his motors >while I was working with him a few years ago, and from >information obtained while talking to other people who have >constructed Newman motors. > > The commutator is the most critical component of the entire >system. The proper operation of the commutator is essential - >if it does not work correctly, the machine will be a failure. >Unlike a conventional motor, where brush arcing is to be reduced >to a minimum, in the Newman system, arcing is essential to allow >the rapid collapse of the field in the device. Any attempts to >reduce arcing by using conventional suppression techniques will >result in failure of the system to produce any usable output. > > Remember, that Newman refers to his commutator as having >three seperate parts - The "Fire" segment, the "Short" segment, >and the "Open" segment. These refer respectively to the >conducting segment connecting the battery to the coil windings, >the conducting segments which are used to short the ends of the >coil winding together, and the insulating segments which >completely disconnect the coil ends from everything else. > > In a conventional commutator system, the motor brushes >always short circuit adjacent commutator segments when moving >from one segment to the next one. This prevents the commutator >circuit from actually becoming electrically "open" and thereby >producing an electrical spark. The Newman system, on the other >hand, always allows the brush to completely leave the individual >commutator segments. This produces a complete open circuit >after each commutator segment, along with the resultant arc. >This "open" is essential to the operation of the Newman motor. >It should occur as many times per revolution as is possible, >consistent with the proper make-break cycle time of the particu- >lar motor. > > The brush length in the "running" dimension MUST be less >than the insulating gap between the "fire" and "short" segments. >If this is not done. the brushes will short-circuit the battery >through the "short" segments. Also, unless you make the brushes >about half the width of the insulating segment, there is a very >real possibility of a severe arc occurring across the insulation, >especially when there has been some deposition of carbon dust >from brush wear. Needless to say, shorting the battery will >result in a drastic loss in efficiency! > > Just as in a permanent magnet motor, a 180 degree reversal >of the magnet with relation to the commutator will cause the >rotor to turn in the opposite direction. Of course, this means >that the commutator will be running the wrong way, and the >machine will not work. It is necessary to determine the proper >initial direction of the magnet experimentally. (As an example, >if the coil is wound CW, the magnet will have to be oriented one >way, perhaps North pole up, and if the coil is wound CCW, the >magnet would be South pole up.) > > However, just to complicate things, reversing the polarity >of the battery will also reverse the direction of rotation. In >practice, this means that you can assemble the magnet, coil and >commutator in either orientation and then simply reverse the >battery polarity if the machine tries runs backwards. > > Now, for the tricky part - timing the commutator / magnet >combination. The magnet will not rotate if power is applied >when the magnet is aligned with the coil axis. For this reason, >the polarity of the current through the coil must be reversed >BEFORE the magnet reaches the fully aligned position, in much the >same manner that an automobile engine must fire the ignition in a >cylinder before the piston reaches the top of its compression >stroke. > > NOTE: The magnet has no particular relationship to any >INDIVIDUAL firing segment, but rather only to the polarity >reversal at the 180 degree points on the commutator. > > This means that for adjustment purposes, either the brush >holders connected to the coil must be adjustable so that they can >be rotated together around the commutator while remaining in >exact 180 degree alignment with each other, or the commutator >itself must be adjustable on the shaft so it may be turned to >adjust its polarity reversal point in relation to the position of >the magnet. > > Start the adjustment process by setting the commutator / >brush combination so that when the magnet is horizontal the >commutator reverses polarity. Now, apply battery voltage, and >the machine should run, although poorly. Make sure it runs in >the correct direction, reversing the battery polarity if >necessary. > > When the correct rotation has been established, stop the >machine and hold the magnet so that it is about 15 to 20 degrees >from vertical, BEFORE it would reach Top Dead Center. In other >words, rotate the magnet backwards from the normal direction of >rotation about 15 to 20 degrees. At this point, adjust the >commutator so it will reverse the polarity of the coil current. >This is fairly close to the correct operating point, at least for >a first trial. > > NOTE: When you adjust the "firing angle" you will find there >is a position where the machine will run the fastest. This is >NOT the correct operating position. At that point, the ma- >chine is running as a motor, and exhibits poor efficiency. >The correct operating point is in the slower speed range. You >will need to make oscilloscope readings and/or other measure- >ments to determine the best position. > > Factors which affect the exact position seem to be; coil >inductance and resistance,,rotational speed of the magnet, >commutator interruption rate, short out time, blank time, the >energy density of the magnet, and I am sure there are others! I >other words, you're 'gonna have to "play" with it a bit! > > A few notes about coil protection. The use of 40 watt >fluorescent tubes is cheap and easy. If they are connected >directly across the coil without using a capacitor, each tube >will hold off about 250 volts DC, so if you have a 500 volt >battery supply, you would need two tubes in series. It does not >matter if you use the bipin tubes or the single pin tubes. Just >get whichever is cheaper, since they won't last too long anyway, >as the pulses of current from the machine will burn the ends of >the tubes black in a rather short time as compared to normal use. >When the tube gets too dark on the ends, or if it does not appear >to function properly, replace it, as the firing voltage changes >to an excessively high value as the tube ages. > > If you prefer, a spark gap may be used, instead of the >fluorescent tubes, however, the tubes give a more stable firing >voltage. > > Ralph Hartwell, New Orleans > >_________________________________________ >Note: The principles described above are generally applicable "across the >breadth of the technology." However, considerable improvements to the >commutator design have been made in the recent past. These improvements >are intended to actually reduce the intensity of the sparking by >distributing the physical connections over a wider area. >_________________________________________ > > > > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 5 14:27:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA16565; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:26:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:26:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604051912.VAA20797@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: THE HEART OF THE SYSTEM: Commutator Design X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > > SETUP AND OPERATION OF ROTATING ARMATURE NEWMAN MOTORS. > > (Some introduction deleted) > > When the correct rotation has been established, stop the >machine and hold the magnet so that it is about 15 to 20 degrees >from vertical, BEFORE it would reach Top Dead Center. In other >words, rotate the magnet backwards from the normal direction of >rotation about 15 to 20 degrees. At this point, adjust the >commutator so it will reverse the polarity of the coil current. >This is fairly close to the correct operating point, at least for >a first trial. > > NOTE: When you adjust the "firing angle" you will find there >is a position where the machine will run the fastest. This is >NOT the correct operating position. At that point, the ma- >chine is running as a motor, and exhibits poor efficiency. >The correct operating point is in the slower speed range. You >will need to make oscilloscope readings and/or other measure- >ments to determine the best position. Hmm, maybe I did this wrong !?? I adjusted always the rotor-commutator position this way, that the rotor-magnet got the best speed and thus run as a motor. But that way I did not get these current spikes going back to the battery, which seem to occur,when the battery is switched at the other position... Hmm, maybe this is the whole secreet to the Newman motor to switch the battery at the not optimal angle, so it also works as a current pulse generator also producing "back" power to the battery ?? > > Factors which affect the exact position seem to be; coil >inductance and resistance,,rotational speed of the magnet, >commutator interruption rate, short out time, blank time, the >energy density of the magnet, and I am sure there are others! I >other words, you're 'gonna have to "play" with it a bit! > > A few notes about coil protection. The use of 40 watt >fluorescent tubes is cheap and easy. If they are connected >directly across the coil without using a capacitor, each tube >will hold off about 250 volts DC, so if you have a 500 volt >battery supply, you would need two tubes in series. It does not >matter if you use the bipin tubes or the single pin tubes. Just >get whichever is cheaper, since they won't last too long anyway, >as the pulses of current from the machine will burn the ends of >the tubes black in a rather short time as compared to normal use. >When the tube gets too dark on the ends, or if it does not appear >to function properly, replace it, as the firing voltage changes >to an excessively high value as the tube ages. > > If you prefer, a spark gap may be used, instead of the >fluorescent tubes, however, the tubes give a more stable firing >voltage. > > Ralph Hartwell, New Orleans > >_________________________________________ >Note: The principles described above are generally applicable "across the >breadth of the technology." However, considerable improvements to the >commutator design have been made in the recent past. These improvements >are intended to actually reduce the intensity of the sparking by >distributing the physical connections over a wider area. >_________________________________________ > > > > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 14:49:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA17248; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:48:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:48:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604061923.VAA22071@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hastings report of 800% efficiency. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 03:00:02 -0800 (PST), Michael Mandeville wrote: >[snip] >>Thank you Bob for the critical response to the Newman claims. That >>obviously took some time to write but I consider it to be a fairly >>definitive call. >> >>Another way to do it is use a capacitor bank which has been calibrated in >>size to handle the Newman device. It either runs the sucker, and keeps >>running it, or it doesnt. A charged capacitor will provide an exact >>quantity of electrical energy. Then, use a dynameter on the motor shaft= to >>measure work output. Energy In: Energy Out. If it keeps running, and >>running, like the everyready bunny, then the energy out on the dynameter= is >>a good if crude approximation of the over unity. No waveforms, spikes, >>power factors, or other math needs to be considered. >[snip] >My reading of previous posts from Evan is that the output from the >Newman motor is of two forms, electrical and mechanical. There are still a few more: Heat, cause the wire of the coil has an ohmic resistance, so the Newman motor will also heat the environment. Light, cause you have to use mechanical commutator switching and to safe the coils you have to use neon bulbs to convert the=20 RF HV spikes to usefull light output... BTW, electronically commutators don=B4t seem to work with the Newman motors, cause they don=B4t generate these huge spikes, so this was also a reason, why the NBS test report was a failure. They just did not understand the technology.... > Based on the >fact that when driven by batteries, those batteries eventually do go >flat, I presume that the electrical output doesn't quite equal the >electrical input.=20 That is right. My batteries always discharged after a while, but I also did not run the Newman motor as a generator, but only as a motor and the posting from Ralph Hartwell, which is a local friend from Newman suggests, that running the Newman motor only as a motor (using the commutator settings wrong) does not give a high energy out ratio.... >Both outputs together however (electrical and >mechanical) may exceed the input power.=20 Yes, in my case it was maximum 135 % efficieny including the heat output in my rebuild Newman machine. But I don=B4t know, if these numbers did not include some measurement errors, due to the setup. You will soon see it on my upcoming free energy web server. >It would therefore seem to be >necessary to use at least part of the output mechanical power to >generate electrical power with which to continuously top up the >battery while in operation. This may then lead to a self sustaining >machine (at least until it has consumed all of its mass that it is >capable of consuming). > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* >Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac >Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, >Learns all his life, >And leaves knowing nothing. >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > Regards, Stefan. > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service =20 Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 14:52:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA17671; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:51:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:51:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604061940.VAA22094@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Newman tests and grid power. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > =20 > >BTW I believe that I have previously seen reports on various=20 > >experiments, based on similar circumstances (i.e. a motor generator= =20 > >combination driven by a battery that is recharged), wherein it was=20 > >suggested that the energy generation in fact occurred in the battery.= =20 > >This theory falls down however, when Newman uses the grid as his=20 > >voltage supply. > =20 > This might be correct if the power factors were also measured. This > has not been the case however, and these grid driven tests are not=20 > what was chosen for release to support the Newman device. Simply=20 > because it has been said to have been tested with grid power does not= =20 > mean that the claims have been proven. > =20 > A perfect example of power factor issues appearing as over unity=20 > operation can be found in the case of the MRA and similar switching=20 > devices. > =20 > Measuring efficiency is not as simple as it might appear to be. This= =20 > is as true for conventional motors as it is for more esoteric designs. > =20 > I think the problem many are having with the Newman device testing is= =20 > that the conclusions being drawn, and claims being made cannot be=20 > supported by the types of testing being reported. > =20 You can just use a DC amperemeter to measure the input current and multiply it with the Battery voltage, if you use a few T-filters (capacitors and inductances, lowpass filter) at the input of the Newman= motor, so it works like a DC motor. The input into a Newman motor is only about 2 to 5 Watts in general, when I remember my experiments right. (about 1000 Volts DC and 2 to 5 ma input current) At this wattage level it is pretty difficult to do exact measurements, when you have these high voltage RF spikes when the commutator is switching. Also > I don't think anyone is saying that Mr. Newman's machine does not=20 > work, or is not worthy of a more detailed study. Many people deeply= =20 > wish that the issues raised with the tests and claims so far are=20 > understood and appreciated by Mr. Newman and his associates. > =20 > I personally called Mr. Soule, who told me the devices has been=20 > "tested and tested and tested....". Yes it has. With all this=20 > testing, why are the test methods used not addressing these very real= =20 > concerns? Why not support the claims with valid testing? Quantity is= =20 > no substitute for quality. > =20 > My confidence in the Newman device was higher before I read the test= =20 > report. This is exactly the wrong response a proper set of test=20 > results should produce. I'm sure that this is not the intent of=20 > releasing such results, so I must wonder with all that testing, was=20 > Dr. Hastings report the best one available? > =20 > The recent confusion over the number of atoms vs. conventional ampere= =20 > turns, and the measuring of the force produced by different coils=20 > might tend to suggest that the basic testing that formed Mr. Newman's= =20 > theory might also be suspect. It's interesting to note that in that=20 > video taped demonstration, batteries were used as in the Hastings=20 > report. > =20 > A pattern of drawing potentially incorrect conclusions from flawed=20 > tests is shown here. A good many really want to believe in Mr.=20 > Newman's invention, just as was the case with Depalma's N machine, and= =20 > the MRA, etc. I'm sure some people still do accept these as proven=20 > over unity devices. I really do not wish to play the role of a=20 > skeptic here, but as a professional engineer, the tests documented so= =20 > far are flawed, and in my opinion cannot support the claims made to=20 > date. > =20 > If Mr. Newman's motor is indeed 800% efficient, why has it not claimed= =20 > the 1 watt challenge? Is there a cash award for demonstrating an over= =20 > unity device that is sill unclaimed? > =20 > Lets assume for the moment that Mr. Newman's invention can back up any= =20 > and all claims made for it. If we cannot suppress the arcing of the= =20 > commutator, it the motor still practical? What about all the=20 > electromagnetic interference produced by the arcing and magnetic field= =20 > collapse? No matter how efficient, this is a serious problem. If we= =20 > cannot suppress this arcing, the whole motor would need to be=20 > shielded, which is rather expensive. There are regulations on EMI and= =20 > RFI for good reason after all, not to mention the possible health=20 > effects of these fields. Yes, that is a good point ! It won=B4t go into big production, until this point is solved... Also the huge High Voltage DC to run it is pretty dangerous ! So it is pretty laughable to market this design as a toy motor, which=20 Mr. Newman wanted to do. At these high voltage levels it will never make it into a children=B4s room ! > =20 > Has anyone in Mr. Newman's organization attempted to use electronic=20 > commutation to bypass this issue? I would expect that a well designed= =20 > electronic commutation system would add additional efficiency over any= =20 > mechanical commutation system. The short, open, and fire modes can=20 > all be implemented electronically without this arcing. This could=20 > permit adaptive timing to match changing load conditions, etc. Perhaps= =20 > this is part of the improvements mentioned elsewhere. > =20 It won=B4t work ! The mechanical switching is a must for a Newman motor ! > I'd like to add, that if I can be of any service to Mr. Newman or Mr.= =20 > Soule in developing a test that would be more accepted by others,=20 > please do not hesitate to ask. I have no wish to raise only negative= =20 > points with this work. > =20 I would suggest using the FAN motor or any bigger motor Newman has to couple with a DC generator mechanically and try to produce enough output from the DC-generator and transform this to High voltage DC and=20 use this to run the Newman motor with a big capacitor bank at the input. This test was never done yet and it will show, if the Newman motors could be a self sustained system. Regards, Stefan. P.S:: My Newman machines were only from the crude type and had no good mechanical output power, so I could not have done the closing of the loop. I just wanted to check the system efficiency with the basic setup=20 and to see, if the NBS report was true or not and it was not true... > > > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service =20 Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 6 14:55:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA18008; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:53:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:53:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604061947.VAA22112@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Searl Effect X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > > I don't think it is a fake. Yes, some may be generated by=20 >photoshop to show what it DID look like because remember the British=20 >government destroyed all of his photos and work. > > Well, there would be probably enough photos, that should still be around taken by friends and other people, so that is no argument ! He should have gathered all these photos back from some friends by now.... so it is a shame, that he can=B4t show right now some REAL photos ! When you look at his photos he presents over there, you can see, that they are all faked, cause they don=B4t rotate ! A rotating disk would look different on a photo ! It just looks to static ! Regards, Stefan. > >On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Stefan Hartmann wrote: > >> > >> >The Searl Effect on >> > >> >http://www.servtech.com/public/jasontee/index.html >> > >> >His electric generator and his Levity Disc are powered by a Searl Effect >> >Generator (S.E.G.). >> > >>=20 >> Well, >> almost all pics on the site seems to be generated by Photoshop and >> a few effects... >>=20 >> I heard rmors, that Searl is a cook and his discs never have been= flying.. >>=20 >> The site with almost no real pics supports this rumor. >>=20 >> Regards, Stefan. >>=20 >> P.S.. I am open to hear other opinions about it. >>=20 > >--------------------------------- >E-mail: mattm@servtech.com >WWW: http://www.servtech.com/public/mattm >--------------------------------- > > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service =20 Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 03:00:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA20678; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 01:58:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 01:58:56 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Taos Hum Technical Details (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:45:16 -0800 (PST) From: LGrant44@aol.com Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com Subject: Taos Hum Technical Details Now that the Taos Hum newsgroup is functioning again let me drop in some technical details and suggestions for those of you who are trying to bring the Taos Hum under electronic examination and for anyone interested in the Hum in general, especially the last note at the bottom. When I first joined the Newsgroup a few months ago a Hum hearer and seasoned electronics designer of filters for long distance telecommunications in Sweden, Lennart Branthle, had posted a waveform on the Hum Web page which showed a signal that his own ears quite simply informed him was exactly the hum he was hearing internally. He had considered that the hum was some kind of very low level acoustic (sound in the air) signal and had build an amplifier and filter to try and pick it up electronically. As he assumed the signal to be acoustic he started by using both magnetic and electret microphones as receivers for the 'sound.' Both of these could detect precisely his hum but the electret seemed to be more sensitive to it than the magnetic. He told me that the level of the signal at the output of the microphones was about 10 to 20 microvolts and that his amplifier/filter, built from three '741' chips produced an exact replica of his Hum, which is the waveform on the Taos Hum Web Page, with about 90-95Db of gain and fairly narrow bandpass filtering. As I have a recording which was made at Avebury, in Britain which is at the stated main 'cluster' frequency of the Taos Hum, 75 Hz., and because that recording was made using a simple relay coil and microphone input on a tape deck I considered that the issue of just what the Hum is, electromagnetic or acoustic, was not simply defined. I asked Lennart to try and distinguish whether his microphones were acting as true acoustic receivers, or whether by physically padding the microphones so they could not pick up sound he could tell if they were instead acting as receivers of some other signal form. The last I heard from him was that he was going to try my suggestions to discriminate just how the signal was being recieved. He has subsequently disappeared from the Newsgroup and has not contacted me by E-Mail. The last note that I have from him shows that the signal came through with heavy padding just as it did without padding, suggesting that it is not a sound but a signal with at least some electromagnetic characteristic, although I found his answer a bit unclear. I am building a potential Hum receiver of my own but as spring has appeared I have been spending a lot of time outdoors taking pictures, my professional pursuit, and have not been able to proceed as directly as I had hoped. For those of you who are sincerely trying to help people with the Hum problem I suggest the following technical considerations: While Lennarts' amplifier and filter are very sensitive his approaching the problem as acoustic has resulted in using very poor electromagnetic detectors. A magnetic microphone only has a few turns of wire. The success of the Electret microphone at picking up the signal suggests that it is not an electromagnetic signal but is of some other form which the electret is acting as an inadvertant receiver for, much like the old Galena 'Crystal' receivers for radio. I have suggested that the signal is 'Supernatural' because my years of researching Crop Circles have shown me that there are most definitely other forms of energy besides electricity, one of these is to my mind what is actually humming. I've stated part of my case in the article 'Shadowmass Viewpoint' which can be downloaded from the Hum Web Page unless it got eaten by the Net failure. In short if you are trying to build a receiver for the Hum you may not need an outrageously sensitive amplifier or a very fancy filter if you can find the right pick-up to use rather than a microphone. I've noticed suggestions of using coils or piezoelectric devices and these comments can be made: 1. Don't try to resonate the coil, it will be too large to be practical and Lennart did not even begin an attempt at resonance in his pick-up. If you hope to suppress the 60 Hz. power-grid hum it is doubtful that resonating the coil at 75 Hz. will do this enough to be worth the trouble of winding a huge coil. 2. Don't use a coil which is physically small in diameter if you wish to get good sensitivity. An ideal coil form to use is a common 'Hula Hoop,' the childs toy about 28 to 36 inches in diameter. Slit the outside edge of one of these open and use it as a circular conduit for your winding, this provides support for the wire and protection against damage if you carry it around to get it away from power lines so you can bring up the gain. 3. Center tap the coil and ground the center tap (circuit ground not earth ground). Fasten one end of the coil to the + input of a good low noise-low drift Op-amp like the Texas Instruments TLE2027 or Maxim MAX410 or any other high quality op-amp. The other end of the coil goes to the - input. A simple feedback resistor from the op-amp output to the - input lets you set the gain. On the TLE2027 I found that the feedback resistance could be set as high as 10 Megohms without trouble with oscillation. This provides significant gain. The grounded center-tap arrangement provides an ideal noise and drift set-up for most op-amps, they usually like to see a balanced low resistance input and my own 1200 turn coil used in Electronic Earthquake Precursor research easily picks up the Schumann resonances in the ionosphere when hooked to an Oscilloscope with 5Mv/Cm sensitivity. This should at least provide a beginning platform for trying to locate the Hum. You will probably need a post amplifier like the microphone input on a tape deck to really boost the signal, that's why you should use a good low-noise op-amp for the pre-amplifier. I used #30 wire in this design, about two and a half pounds of it. This wire is thick enough to avoid snapping easily while winding but thin enough to not weigh too much. It may eventually be possible to use fewer turns for the pick-up, if you have the time you could start with a few hundred turns and try that, winding another larger coil if necessary. 4. The hard part of this is getting rid of the huge 60 Hz. power grid hum right next door and that is where I'm concentrating my effort now so that we can study the Hum at home rather than having to go into the field several miles from the nearest power grid. The Power line hum can be removed for Earthquake precursor research by using a Maxim Switched capacitor filter but the simplicity of this circuit, which is low-pass, needs further work in order to make it into an effective bandpass filter at 75 Hz. Earthquake precursor research is done at 3Hz. and below, where significant and repetitive precursor signals have now been established in relation to some earthquakes. A 75 Hz. bandpass filter of some kind is probably needed in order to suppress various competing noises and hiss found with wider band receivers, although this is not certain as Lennart has not completely defined the results of using a more appropriate transducer for the Taos Hum. 5. An exposition of these ideas and a circuit for precursor research are to be published in 'Electronics Now' magazine this spring although I don't yet know the date of publication. I've written an article on using this coil and amplifier with a post-processor to provide 60 Hz. free precursor amplification, you might study that when it comes out. A longer and more detailed description can be had from the original publisher of my article, Vince Migliore at the Geo-Monitor, 65 Washington Street, #400, Santa Clara, CA 95050. Again, this is a beginning platform, not a direct Taos Hum receiver. The articles you want are 'Life at 1200 Turns' and 'A Contemporary ULF Receiver.' Vince and I co-wrote the Electronics Now article. 6. Of course a coil is not necessarily the best pick-up for Taos Hum. I also suggested to Lennart that he try a quartz crystal as found in radio transmitter crystals, and several unexpected transducers such as chalk, limestone or even plain tap water. These will have significantly different hook-up characteristics for correct connection to an op-amp and Lennart has never returned an answer on them. I've not had time to look into the necessary circuitry for providing good sensitivity with these. Piezoelectric transducers have been suggested also. These could be for example a Radio Shack 'Piezoelectric Speaker Element' Cat.#273-091, or just about any kind of piezoelectric noise-making element as found in inexpensive fire alarms. These piezoelectric 'squeelers' can also be used as good sensors because piezoelectricity is a two way street, electricity in means physical movement out, physical movement in means electricity out. You will probably have to shield any piezoelectric element from physical vibration and sound because these may override the tiny hum signal. Any reception of Taos Hum with piezoelectrics may show that piezoelectricity is a three-way street, with the third tapping some unknown energy or signal form. It is to be noted that bone as in skulls and jaws surrounding our brains is also piezoelectric and could provide the entrance point for the signal, although so far as we know there is no 'normal' perception of sound or unprecedented signals in this manner, except around Crop Circles. You could also try an electret microphone. You are probably not trying to use piezoelectrics as acoustic transducers but rather as detectors of a signal which is being generated in ways unknown to science. This should be rather fascinating work for engineering types, as the possibility of reception of the Taos Hum this way is essentially proven and you aren't whistling in the dark. If you fail to receive the Hum you should also consider that the geographic area you are in might provide for a lower electromagnetic component accompanying the Hum. I've noticed for example that being over large quartz gold ore bodies seems to provide a strong Hum perceived by people, and being near or in large old Megalithic sites like Chaco Canyon may provide for a larger electromagnetic component. Either way you are looking for a signal which can lay people low when it's strong and yet barely or not be detected by sensitive electronic receivers of various sorts right next to people who clearly are hearing it. A difficult but interesting task to unravel, possibly providing incredible insights into unusual and unsuspected energy forms. You may also need to be very close to a 'Hum Source' to receive the electromagnetic or other component of the Taos Hum. The British Avebury Hum recording done by my friends over there seemed to show that the Hum was audible by simple pick-up coil even in the monument parking lot, but it was strongest in small patches only a few inches to two feet across on the ground. One last suggestion would be to read 'Fingerprints of the Gods' by Graham Hancock (Crown publishing) in which the very long term precessionary cycles of our planet are described in part as being connected with a sound like the 'bellowing of a bull,' which I take to be a form of Hum, perhaps the Taos Hum. Larry Grant LGrant44@aol.com From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 09:28:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA04709; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 09:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 09:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604071815.SAA02015@agora.stm.it> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: j.hasslberger@agora.stm.it (Josef Hasslberger) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Newman motor/generator X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A I have just read an article in Space Energy Journal on the Newman motor, which apparently is an excerpt from a book written by Mr. Soule'. >From what I read in the article and in an earlier publication by Tom Bearden, it would seem to me that Newman may have found a way of utilizing a thing that Bearden describes, that is, using a potential of electrical energy without actually consuming the energy. The Newman motor uses unusual high voltage low current excitation of coils, and this may a way of avoiding problems normally associated with electro motors, such as back drag by collapsing magnetic fields. Just an idea. (I am not an expert by any means). Maybe the discussion should not be centered so much on finding fault with the tests that were performed, but with figuring out how the results (it seems that there were actual results) could be explained? - Josef Josef Hasslberger Rampa Brancaleone 25, 00165 Rome, Italy j.hasslberger@agora.stm.it From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 18:52:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA01295; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SEATTLE WEIRD SCIENCE MEETING X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Henry Eisenson wrote: > What a great idea! > > Do you know of similar groups in other cities --- such as San Diego? > > All the best, > > Henry Only Jerry Decker's "roundtable" group in Dallas/Ft.-Worth. And there's a Tesla group in SF. There are so few because everyone wants to join, but no one wants to be the leader (hint hint!) Any other S.D. people here? .............................freenrg-list................................ William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-LIST VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 19:12:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA01718; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Newman motor/generator X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 7 Apr 1996, Josef Hasslberger wrote: > > Maybe the discussion should not be centered so much on finding fault with > the tests that were performed, but with figuring out how the results (it > seems that there were actual results) could be explained? I'm somewhat in agreement with Bob Shannon. There is every indication that the testing was very badly done. If the testing was screwy, then the results were meaningless. Or more clearly: there WERE no interesting results. I'm very pro-free-energy (for example, running this listserver!), and I want to see it come out of the closet. Newman and crew may be seeing lots of evidence for unconventional energy generation. But the way to prove that it works is NOT to say things that essentially mean "I saw it work, and if you don't trust me then you're trying to suppress my work." That's not the right path. So, I strongly suggest that lots of GOOD testing be done. And most especially, rather than explaining why a closed-loop self-acting system is hard to construct, Newman and promoters should be solving the problems standing in the way of closed-loop operation. Conventional nuke plants use their steam output to run generators which operate all the pumps and control systems in the plant. Such a thing is not impossible for ANY device which puts out a few hundred percent excess energy. Good measurements are hard to do on pulse-mode systems. Human beings are fallible, and can easily talk themselves into what they want to believe. And so, extreme amounts of self-examination and self-honesty are required in order to defeat the human tendency to let bad testing go by as long as the results are in one's favor. When outsiders point out flaws in the testing, the proper response is NOT to become defensive and hostile! The proper response is to accept the existance of the flaws, and then to fix them! Maybe I'm different than normal people, but I WANT others to (kindly) point out my flaws occasionally. I know I am usually blind to them. If they interfere with something I'm trying to accomplish, and an outsider trys to help me see them, I'm experienced enough to know that their help is not just some sort of unwarranted attack. .............................freenrg-list................................ William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-LIST VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 19:21:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA02820; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Special Report, Part A. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The Emerging Technology of Joseph Newman --- The SPECIAL REPORT, Part A. THE FOLLOWING IS A SPECIAL REPORT CONCERNING THE TECHNOLOGY OF JOSEPH NEWMAN "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- MAX PLANCK What I am going to suggest to you in this Special Report is more than simply 'a genuine improvement in electrical technology,' but rather a significant paradigm shift which may challenge some of the fundamental beliefs held today in electrical theory. While I don't know you personally, I am hoping that you, the reader, possess the gift of intellectual honesty, i.e., a willingness to look at the facts regardless of one's predispositions and/or prejudices. My personal background is history and science, and I have devoted the past twenty years to studying the history of physics -- especially with regard to invention and the great difficulties major innovators have had in presenting their achievements to society. In many instances the history of physics (science) has taught me that "the greater the innovation -- the greater the resistance." This is very unfortunate for the progress of humanity. I am hoping that the independence of your thinking will give you the freedom to view a new technology, a new paradigm -- with the open-mindedness and intellectual honesty of Planck's 'new generation.' Allow me to present to you a sterling example of "intellectual dishonesty": this brief story involves a young upstart thinker by the name of Galileo Galilei and a most distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Padua University by the name of Cesare Cremonini. One may ask today, "Who is Cesare Cremonini?" Yet four hundred years ago, Cremonini was the well-known and famous professor and Galileo Galilei was a virtually unknown original thinker. Once upon a time (so the story goes), this young thinker Galileo claimed to have discovered "mountains on the moon" by virtue of the utilization of a new tool called the telescope. Naively believing that other thinkers and professors would welcome this discovery, Galileo invited professor Cremonini to view these moon mountains for himself through the telescope. Cremonini chided Galileo for his insanity since, as everyone knows, "the moon cannot contain protuberances or blemishes since Aristotle has said that the moon is a perfect sphere." Galileo replied, "I don't care what Aristotle said, simply come look through my telescope and see for yourself." "No, Galileo, my young friend," responded Cremonini, "I KNOW that there are no mountains on the moon." Professor Cremonini then opened the book of Aristotle to the appropriate page and 'proved' that Galileo could not possibly be correct. But Galileo was insistent. "If you just look through the telescope you will see that Aristotle was incorrect," he said to Cremonini. Then Professor Cremonini responded by saying, "No Galileo, I will NOT look through that confounded tube of yours. But IF I did look and if I DID see mountains on the moon, then I would know that you have simply enchanted me." This, dear reader, is intellectual dishonesty. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am asking you, the reader, in this Special Report to be willing to "look through the tube." And the "tube" here represents a new understanding of electromagnetism. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- You may ask, "How could this be so?" One may maintain that in a post-Faraday electrical society, everything that can be known about electromagnetism is known. In response to this position, I ask that you consider the quotation of Charles H. Duell, Director of the Patent Office in 1899: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." But before I present an introduction to the new technology in question, permit me to introduce its inventor -- Joseph W. Newman. [In my study of the history of science, I have discovered a passion for biography, i.e., by knowing something of the inventor one acquires a much greater depth, richness and appreciation for the significance of the innovation. In addition, biographies allow the reader to learn something of the personal struggles of the great thinkers and inventors of history.] Who is Joseph Newman? He is an original thinker who has educated himself over the past forty years in physics, chemistry, astronomy and many other areas which have intrigued him. The focus of his life has become his work in electromagnetics which he began developing over thirty years ago. And he is not a starry-eyed theoretician. Since he has made his living by inventing, he has discovered a need to remain grounded in reality, in practical applications of his concepts. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- These quotations are from scientists who have endorsed Joseph Newman's work: "The future of the human race may be dramatically uplifted by the large-scale, commercial development of this invention." -- Dr. Roger Hastings, Principal Physicist, UNISYS CORPORATION "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." -- Dr. Robert E. Smith Chief, Orbital and Space Environment Branch, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA "You have opened an area in Astrophysics which may revolutionize the magnetic energy problems which is now the most paramount problem in future energy and space travel. I do believe with proper research funds, the results would not only be a great financial boom to your financiers, but would lead to developments that will be practical and beneficial to all mankind and develop a new step in science." -- Dr. E. L. Moragne, MORAGNE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CO. [Dr. Moragne was an electromagnetic pioneer in the development of the first atomic bomb.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Better than 30 physicists, nuclear engineers, electrical engineers and electrical technicians have signed Affidavits attesting to the validity of his invention: an electromagnetic motor/generator that could supply every American's home, farm, business, automobile and appliance with electrical power at a fraction of the present cost. But before I discuss the invention itself, permit me to digress a moment about magnetism. Over the years I have posed this questions to professors of electrical engineering: "What is the mechanical essence of magnetism?" The standard reply is vague at best, but includes such answers as, "It consists of lines of force and action at a distance; potential energy." The fifth edition of the Modern Dictionary of Electronics by Rudolf F. Graf [published by Howard W. Sams & Co., Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana] defines magnetism as: "A property possessed by certain materials by which these materials can exert mechanical force on neighboring masses of magnetic materials and can cause voltages to be inducted in conducting bodies moving relative to the magnetized bodies." And, lines of force are defined as: "In an electric or magnetic field, an imaginary line in the same direction as the field intensity at each point. Sometimes called a maxwell when used as a unit of magnetic flux." These definitions seem superficially fine, but fail to specifically address the real question: "What is the mechanical essence of magnetism?" "Of what do these 'imaginary lines of force' consist?" "What is the real nature of mechanical force -- what physically causes such action at the most fundamental level?" These questions perplexed Michael Faraday, who said: "How few understand the PHYSICAL lines of force! They will not see them, yet all the researches on the subject tend to confirm the views I put forth many years since. Thompson of Glasgow seems almost the only one who acknowledges them. He is perhaps the nearest to understanding what I meant. I am content to wait convinced as I am of the truth of my views." (Emphasis added.) [Although he had only a 7th grade, formal education, Faraday was a mechanical genius.] I must postulate that if Faraday were alive today he would claim that because of the manner in which electric motors are constructed today -- utilizing high current and low voltage -- we have yet to discover the true nature of electromagnetism. Joseph Newman unequivocally states that all electrical motors built to date are constructed with built-in inefficiencies since they should be operating with low current and high voltage. [But I am jumping ahead of myself at this point.] Back to Faraday . . . One man truly understood Faraday's mechanical genius and was capable of translating his mechanical work into mathematics: James Clerk Maxwell -- a towering genius and innovator in science. Maxwell specifically wrote the following: "The theory I propose may . . . be called a theory of the Electromagnetic Field because it has to do with the space in the neighborhood of the electric or magnetic bodies, and it may be called a Dynamical Theory, because it assumes that in that space there is MATTER IN MOTION, by which the observed electromagnetic phenomena are produced." (Emphasis added.) Maxwell even went on to add: "In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. ALL ENERGY IS THE SAME AS MECHANICAL ENERGY, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is MECHANICAL ENERGY." (Emphasis added.) Matter in motion. Back in the early 1960's Joseph Newman wondered what was the mechanical essence, the nature, of this "matter in motion." In Chapter Two of his book -- THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN -- Joseph Newman describes the fundamental essence of a magnetic field as a particle having a "gyroscopic spin." This gyroscopic action is fundamental to understanding the mechanical nature of electromagnetism. When one understands the gyroscopic characteristics of the matter in motion contained within an electromagnetic field, then one begins to recognize a better mechanical means of harnessing this kinetic energy. To generate the largest possible magnetic field within a copper coil and therefore to have access to greater numbers of "matter in motion" -- (for purposes of simplicity of understanding, Joseph Newman refers to this matter in motion as gyroscopic particles) -- one must input large amounts of voltage to achieve maximum atom alignment in the copper coil. When this high voltage input occurs, the copper coil atoms release their kinetic energy in the form of a magnetic field. _________________________________________________ END OF PART A., SPECIAL REPORT For additional information, contact: Joseph Newman Publishing Company, Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 USA or Evan Soule Director of Information Newman Energy Products (504) 524-3063 email: josephnewman@earthlink.net or email: johntesla@aol.com. Post Office Box 57684 New Orleans, Louisiana 70157-7684 United States of America From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 7 19:30:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA03495; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 16:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 16:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Special Report, Part B X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The Emerging Technology of Joseph Newman --- The SPECIAL REPORT, Part B. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Newman has discovered a highly efficient means to harness this magnetic energy emanating from the copper coil. And Joseph Newman takes this a step farther by stating that these gyroscopic particles represent the mechanical essence of Einstein's equation of E=mc2. He states that these gyroscopic particles spin at the speed of light and move in a given direction (lines of force) at the speed of light, and are thus the mechanical equivalent of E=mc2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nearly twelve years ago, it took me about three weeks to really understand Joseph Newman's mechanical explanation of magnetism. I repeatedly studied the diagrams until I grasped what he was trying to say. As a result of understanding his explanation of magnetism I observed a simple magnetic phenomena which was elegantly explained by Joseph Newman's mechanical work in magnetism (see Chapter Three of his book). I submit the following quotation from Ken Arno, Research Director at G.E.R.D., Co.: "I can speak with a 'personal knowledge' and 'hands-on-experience' when I talk about the collapsing magnetic field phenomena in a coil. We here at G.E.R.D. Co. and everyone else who makes use of electrical circuits have always considered the collapsing field effect to be a nuisance because, when using a mechanical relay coil in an electronic circuit, it would cause a current to be pumped back into our circuit, creating havoc. "One solution to the problem of C.E.M.F. was to install a diode across the coil leads and when the power was removed, the C.E.M.F. caused a current to flow which passed through the diode and to be dissipated as heat in the coil itself and not in our circuit. "The fact that this effect has for over one hundred years been viewed as a problem to be designed out of electrical systems is the reason no one until you, Joseph Newman, had seriously considered it as a source of abundant free energy. Everyone knew it was there, but no one recognized its potential." I submit the following from a Letter to the Editor of the Mobile Press Register: "Never having met, talked with, nor had financial dealings with Joseph Newman, I read his book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. After 30 years in the electrical profession I felt eminently qualified to debunk his claim to a device that generated more energy than it consumes. In the second chapter, I sat up in bed and shouted, 'He's got it!'" --- Patrick McLain, Mobile, Alabama I don't wish to dampen Mr. McLain's enthusiasm for this technology and, although his comments are well-intentioned, Mr. McLain is laboring under the superficial conclusion that Joseph Newman's motor "generates more energy than it consumes." This is simply not the case. In fact, the motor does generate greater external energy output than external energy input. This technology does not violate the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. On the contrary -- this technology further corroborates the Laws of Thermodynamics, i.e., the only way one will achieve the internal production of energy within the system is by supplying the system with high voltage (and low current) to align the copper atoms in the coil. Joseph Newman supplies an external electrical stimulus to his coil (and special commutator system) that generates the magnetic field containing the gyroscopic particles (matter in motion). This external electrical stimulus takes the form of high voltage -- and the higher the better until maximum atom alignment of the coil is achieved. At the same time the current is kept as low as possible to minimize resistance; thereby the Newman motor always runs "cool." The externally applied high voltage is not "consumed" by the system -- it operates in the same manner as the hydraulic system in an automobile. The reservoir of brake fluid is not "used up" but supplies a continual hydraulic pressure to the automobile's brake system. In a similar fashion the high input voltage (and low current) acts as an electrical 'hydraulic' pressure to continually realign the atoms within the motor's copper coil. The continual collapse and expansion of the copper coil's magnetic field creates the mechanical torque of the motor. (The special commutator system achieves this continual collapse and expansion of the magnetic field.) The net increase of external electrical energy from the system directly comes from the energy produced internally within the copper coil. This net energy is greater than the small amount of current originally inputed into the system along with the high voltage. In the final analysis where is the excess energy coming from? Answer: from the atoms of the copper coil within the motor/generator. Dr. Roger Hastings, a physicist who has worked extensively with Joseph Newman over a number of years, has calculated that this system is so conversion efficient that it may take decades (or far longer) to be able to measure any appreciable mass loss in the coil. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This brings me to a discussion of efficiency. If Joseph Newman's motor/generator system is viewed as a whole -- considering both external energy and internal energy -- then the total energy output for the system is equal to the total external and internal energy input combined. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Such a process is fully in accordance with the First Law of Thermodynamics! When the system is viewed as a whole, it is imprecise to say that the Newman motor/generator simply "produces more than it consumes." However, it is correct to say that "the external energy output is greater than the external energy input" -- an external energy input considered independently of the large internal energy produced by the Newman motor/generator. In other words, the revolutionary nature of this system is the fact that Joseph Newman has discovered a new electromagnetic principle of nature and has innovated a technology capable of converting matter (copper coil) into energy (in accordance with E=mc2) via a highly efficient electromagnetic reaction rather than an inefficient fission reaction. Those who state that "one can never build a device which exceeds 100% efficiency" do not understand the nature of the phenomenal efficiencies (in excess of 800%) produced by the Newman motor/generator. Such a statement demonstrates an inability to distinguish between CONVERSION efficiency and PRODUCTION efficiency. To state that Joseph Newman's motor/generator is 8.2 production efficient, i.e., that it produces over eight times as much external energy output as external energy input, is different from stating that the invention approaches 100% conversion efficiency, i.e., that it converts the internal mass of the copper coil into energy in accordance with E=mc2. The former process involves production efficiency and the latter process involves conversion efficiency. These two different types of efficiencies should not be confused. In his motor/generator system, the electromagnetic conversion (of matter to energy) efficiency approaches 100% [rather than the less than 1% conversion (of matter to energy) efficiency of a typical nuclear fission reaction.] The production efficiency of the Newman energy machine has been found to be in excess of 800%, i.e., over eight times as much external energy output as external energy input. Consider the following crude analogy of a nuclear fission reactor to Joseph Newman's motor/generator: a typical nuclear reactor consists of a small amount of external electrical energy being inputed into the reactor station to turn on lights, activate control panels, start machinery, etc. The large external energy produced by the reactor, however, is the result of the nuclear fission process which internally occurs within the system. As a result of such an internal fission process, external electrical energy is produced in the system. If, however, one ignores the internal energy and only considers the initial, small external energy input, then one could say that the net external electrical energy output produced by a nuclear reactor is greater than the external electrical energy input. The important distinction, however, between a conventional nuclear reactor and Joseph Newman's motor/generator is that the former is less than 1% conversion efficient and the latter approaches 100% conversion efficiency. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- In essence, Joseph Newman has integrated the work of Faraday with that of Einstein and has created a motor technology that will bring us into the 21st century. One may say that "this is too good to be true." Is this -- our current electrical technology -- the BEST that we can do? Is there no expectation that we may achieve a deeper understanding of electromagnetism which will allow us to build fundamentally different (and more efficient) motors? Could one not conceive that such a revolutionary technology could be achieved in fifty years? One hundred years? One thousand years? Can anyone really believe that our traditional motor/electromagnetic technology is the technology that will be utilized five thousand years from now? But why must we wait five thousand years? Why not in a hundred years? Why not in fifty years? Why not NOW. You may say, "Well, why hasn't it been done before now?" My response: why did the Wright Brothers 'wait' until 1903 to invent the aeroplane? Things happen when they do, I suppose . . . often in spite of tremendous ignorance, apathy and hostility. Christian Morgenstern summed it up quite well when he said: "The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply." In its essence, Joseph Newman's technology is the model of simplicity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Since 1979, Joseph Newman has spent over $1,000,000 in legal fees battling U. S. patent office bureaucrats in an effort to secure a patent for his revolutionary invention. The Wright Brothers had to battle Patent Office bureaucrats all the way to the Supreme Court to secure a patent for their invention since they were told that it was impossible for man to fly in a "heavier-than-air machine." Recently, Joseph Newman demonstrated his newest production model of his motor/generator: from 8:00AM to 8:00PM -- attached to a Grainger Reciprocating Pump -- the Newman Motor/Generator pumped 1 gallon of water per minute at 12 PSI at the Lucedale, Mississippi City Park. The voltage source was a local alternating current connection to the Newman Motor/Generator through a conventional house watt meter. The Newman Motor/Generator utilized the city grid voltage but not the current. When a conventional motor was operated on this city grid system the house watt meter proceeded to turn, indicating that external electrical energy was being consumed. During the entire 12 hours that the Newman Motor/Generator pumped water, the house watt meter did not move. Moreover, for the entire 12 hour period that the Newman Motor/Generator continuously pumped water, the Newman Motor/Generator ran cool. The news media, city officials and representatives of the local power station observed and corroborated these results. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT CAN YOU DO? (This section is for everyone in general...) 1) Tell your friends and associates about the new technology. 2) If you are mechanically inclined and have at least a fundamental understand of electrical circuitry, you are invited to construct a prototype for yourself and demonstrate the remarkable nature of this technology. An 8-year-old girl built a small prototype of the Newman Motor/Generator and won 1st place in her science fair! [Of course, the fact that her father was an electrical engineer probably didn't hurt!] We recently received a VHS tape from a mechanically-gifted individual in Philadelphia who constructed a Newman energy machine from having read the book, THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN. We had no prior contact or knowledge of this individual, yet he corroborated Joseph Newman's results. This VHS tape is featured on a special VHS tape recently produced (see below) 3) We are looking for manufacturers who would be interested in producing Newman Motor/Generators. Contact the address below. 4) We are building up a list of mechanically-gifted individuals such that, as manufacturers begin to generate this technology, they will have a pool of individuals to draw from who are familiar with Joseph Newman's work. 5) Joseph Newman's fundamental, 450-page, hardcover book, 7th Edition [ISBN: 0-9613835-7-7] which features over 150 illustrations, charts, graphs, and photographs can be ordered from: Joseph Newman Publishing Company, Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, Mississippi 39452. This book represents over thirty years of research on the part of Joseph Newman. In some cases, you can ask your library to purchase this book, or, many libraries across the country already have earlier editions which you can borrow via interlibrary loans. 6) Obtain a copy of the recently-produced VHS tape of the Special Demonstration on February 5, 1996 at the Adams Mark Hotel in Mobile, Alabama. This VHS tape, available from Joseph Newman Publishing Company, features the Philadelphia version of Joseph Newman's energy machine, as well as considerable additional information. Also on the tape is a simple, inexpensive and repeatable demonstration that would make an excellent student project for a science fair. This demonstration proves conclusively that traditional electrical engineering has been harboring a 150-year-old fallacy that has resulted in all motors being constructed with built-in efficiencies! This fallacy is the belief that the strength of the magnetic field surrounding a copper conductor coil comes from the input CURRENT. THIS IS FALSE! The strength of the magnetic field surrounding a copper conductor coil comes from the ATOMS OF THE COPPER WIRE contained WITHIN THE TURNS OF WIRE as aligned by the input VOLTAGE.....NOT the CURRENT. And the greater the input VOLTAGE (up to maximum atom alignment of the atoms in the copper coil) the stronger the magnetic field surrounding the coil and hence, the greater the back-emf. For additional information, contact: Joseph Newman Publishing Company, Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 USA or Evan Soule Director of Information Newman Energy Products (504) 524-3063 email: josephnewman@earthlink.net or email: johntesla@aol.com. Post Office Box 57684 New Orleans, Louisiana 70157-7684 United States of America ______________________________________ ______________________________________ End of Part B., SPECIAL REPORT From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 8 00:42:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA25785; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 18:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 18:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604080019.UAA13286@zork.tiac.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Newman motor/generator X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Maybe the discussion should not be centered so much on finding fault with >the tests that were performed, but with figuring out how the results (it >seems that there were actual results) could be explained? > >- Josef I agree, assuming the results show something extrordinary, hence the issues with how the measurments were made, and what these measurments then show. After all, Mr. Bearden endorsed the MRA, and indeed if, and only if the measurments are made in a specific way, and then interpreted in a specific way does the MRA appear over unity. But hte MRA will not power itself, for when proper measurments are made, is no longer appears to be over unity. The Newman device is said not to be able to power itself, while it is also claimed that the power produced is in no way different than that sued to drive the device in the first place, a clear paradox. How does the Newman machine know if the power used to run it is produced from it's one output, if the output is in fact in excess of it's input? The similarities between the MRA and the Newman claims are quite striking in several ways. The number of coper atoms issue turned into the conventional phenomema of amper turns. Is it then impossible for the claims of excess power production to be quite similar to the apparent excess power production of the MRA? Only proper measurments can say if there is anything special to be explained in the first place. Do you accept the testing performed and the conclusions being drawn from them? I'm not convinced the king has any clothes on or not, but I do know those tests in no way prove to me he has, as they claim to do. That makes me wonder. With these tests, your accepting that there is something needing special explaination on faith alone. If there is somthing to it. I hope they have made far better tests than have been reported. AC wattmeters are easily fooled by power factors and high frequency components present in the Newman device, so many of the demonstrations are not conclusive proof. Conclusive testing is not easy, but it's also not that hard as to be beyond reach. With all the years of research and testing, surely there must be some conclusive results if indeed the device works as claimed. Where is it? From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 8 05:03:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA28775; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 01:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 01:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31685f26.5675894@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Searl Effect X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:56:16 -0800 (PST), Stefan Hartmann wrote: >> >> I don't think it is a fake. Yes, some may be generated by=20 >>photoshop to show what it DID look like because remember the British=20 >>government destroyed all of his photos and work. >> >> > >Well, there would be probably enough photos, that should still be around >taken by friends and other people, so that is no argument ! > >He should have gathered all these photos back from some friends by now.... > >so it is a shame, that he can=B4t show right now some REAL photos ! > >When you look at his photos he presents over there, you can see, >that they are all faked, cause they don=B4t rotate ! > >A rotating disk would look different on a photo ! > >It just looks to static ! What's more, in at least one "photo", the shadow cast on the ground by the "disk in the air", is in the wrong place. i.e. on the opposite side to shadows cast by other objects. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 18:36:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01601; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 06:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 06:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604081220.FAA29350@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Special Report, Part A. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > >The Emerging Technology of Joseph Newman --- The SPECIAL REPORT, Part >A. > . . . large snip . . . This is indeed a fine article Mr. Newman. You may put an end to this unending controversy very simply and quickly. CLOSE THE LOOP. Until then your O/U claims will be suspect and considered invalid. Sincerely, Richard Wall From josephnewman@earthlink.net Mon Apr 8 15:31:58 1996 Received: from austria.it.earthlink.net ([206.85.92.44]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA23633; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 15:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [153.37.129.11] (pool011.Max1.New-Orleans.LA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET [153.37.129.11]) by austria.it.earthlink.net (8.6.11/8.6.4) with SMTP id PAA20612; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 15:31:11 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 15:31:11 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: freenrg-list@mail.eskimo.com From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: Intellectual dishonesty and Newman's claims and tests. Cc: bilb@eskimo.com, rshannon@nectech.com Status: RO X-Status: A > Why then to the batteries run down? Clearly this last statement is in > error where the facts are concerned, as described by the same test > results. Anybody else find this significant? > Well, professor Soule has opened the book of Newman and claims to have > proven it right, while failing to address the flaws in what they claim > as their proof. It this intellectual honesty? Is this good science? To rshannon: The only thing "flawed" is the above writer's ability to understand what Joseph Newman has accomplished: namely, an energy technology which generates greater external energy (output) than external energy (input) in accordance with E=mc(squared). Throughout his book --- The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman --- the author has been completely intellectually-honest and has demonstrated thirty(+) years of "good science." Your statement above: "Why then do(sic) the batteries run down?" is typical of one who has NO comprehension of the technical processes involved in Joseph Newman's system. Quite the opposite, rshannon: his batteries --- when connected to his system DO NOT RUN DOWN! When the batteries are connected to a conventional motor they DO INDEED run down! Since you have initiated the questioning of my intellectual honesty, I also question your level of intellectual honesty since it is obvious to me that this level prevents you from understanding that, in principle, the system is NO different from that of a conventional nuclear reactor. Since you speak of "challenges" I state this for your edification, rshannon: Joseph Newman at this time has a WORKING PROTOTYPE of his technology. This is a portable unit which can be tested by both an oscilloscope as well as conventional ampmeters and RF meters. If you would like to arrange for the EE department of an established, reputable college or university to conduct an unbiased, unprejudiced, scientific test of this unit, [and such college or university be willing to PUBLICLY state that it works (or does not work) as claimed], I would like you to contact Joseph Newman at (601) 947-7147 with this information. He has NOTHING to hide, do you? We can debate the theoretical/technical implications of this system "until the cows come home and die of old age...." But, Joseph Newman HAS --- RIGHT NOW --- a functioning, operable unit that does EXACTLY what he states that it does. Moreover, rshannon, you can BUILD ONE FOR YOURSELF (if you are truly curious) --- others are so doing as I write this. For those who are curious, I invite you to "look through the tube" by mastering the technology and either building one for yourself and/or arranging for the testing of an existing, FUNCTIONAL unit. Evan Soule (504) 524-3063 josephnewman@earthlink.net Joseph Newman (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 20:55:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA28876; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 15:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 15:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Intellectual dishonesty and Newman's claims and tests. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > Why then to the batteries run down? Clearly this last statement is in > error where the facts are concerned, as described by the same test > results. Anybody else find this significant? > Well, professor Soule has opened the book of Newman and claims to have > proven it right, while failing to address the flaws in what they claim > as their proof. It this intellectual honesty? Is this good science? To rshannon: The only thing "flawed" is the above writer's ability to understand what Joseph Newman has accomplished: namely, an energy technology which generates greater external energy (output) than external energy (input) in accordance with E=mc(squared). Throughout his book --- The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman --- the author has been completely intellectually-honest and has demonstrated thirty(+) years of "good science." Your statement above: "Why then do(sic) the batteries run down?" is typical of one who has NO comprehension of the technical processes involved in Joseph Newman's system. Quite the opposite, rshannon: his batteries --- when connected to his system DO NOT RUN DOWN! When the batteries are connected to a conventional motor they DO INDEED run down! Since you have initiated the questioning of my intellectual honesty, I also question your level of intellectual honesty since it is obvious to me that this level prevents you from understanding that, in principle, the system is NO different from that of a conventional nuclear reactor. Since you speak of "challenges" I state this for your edification, rshannon: Joseph Newman at this time has a WORKING PROTOTYPE of his technology. This is a portable unit which can be tested by both an oscilloscope as well as conventional ampmeters and RF meters. If you would like to arrange for the EE department of an established, reputable college or university to conduct an unbiased, unprejudiced, scientific test of this unit, [and such college or university be willing to PUBLICLY state that it works (or does not work) as claimed], I would like you to contact Joseph Newman at (601) 947-7147 with this information. He has NOTHING to hide, do you? We can debate the theoretical/technical implications of this system "until the cows come home and die of old age...." But, Joseph Newman HAS --- RIGHT NOW --- a functioning, operable unit that does EXACTLY what he states that it does. Moreover, rshannon, you can BUILD ONE FOR YOURSELF (if you are truly curious) --- others are so doing as I write this. For those who are curious, I invite you to "look through the tube" by mastering the technology and either building one for yourself and/or arranging for the testing of an existing, FUNCTIONAL unit. Evan Soule (504) 524-3063 josephnewman@earthlink.net Joseph Newman (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 18:09:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA12920; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604082304.SAA27770@firefly.prairienet.org> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: fnrg: MAKE $50,00! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >STOP SENDING ME THIS CRAP ON HOW TO MAKE $50.000 NOW. > > I believe Andrew apologized for posting that message shortly after he did and said he would never do it again. It's not polite not to accept someone's apology. Zack From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 18:45:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA13106; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:11:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:11:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604090035.CAA25095@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Kawai motors X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi, has anybody any experiments done with a KAWAI type motor ? Here is the URL to check it out: http://www.virtualtimes.com/writers/bearden/mageng/fig09.htm It sounds pretty interesting. Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 19:20:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA13236; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Newman Motor/Generator X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >>You wrote: >>> >>>The Emerging Technology of Joseph Newman --- The SPECIAL REPORT, Part >>>A. >>This is indeed a fine article Mr. Newman. You may put an end to this >>unending controversy very simply and quickly. CLOSE THE LOOP. Until >>then your O/U claims will be suspect and considered invalid. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Richard Wall __________________________________ Dear Richard: Joseph Newman has never claimed "over-unity" --- whatever this is....and I say "whatever this is" because there seems to be some question on exactly what IS over-unity. [See the discussion of the nature of a conventional nuclear reactor.] As to "CLOSING THE LOOP" -- this statement demonstrates how some do not understand the nature of this technology. Joseph Newman explicitly describes why one cannot "simply feed the generated, outpu current back into itself, eliminating the need for an input battery" on pages 58-59 of his book. Sincerely, Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net __________________________________ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 21:47:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA13370; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: "Over-Unity": What is it? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Recently, I posted the following on several of forums: I have a simple question for you --- and it's one involving "a matter of semantics" and/or a "paradigmological" question: Would you consider a typical, conventional, nuclear fission reactor/power station complex to be "an over-unity" operation? If yes, please explain or, if no, please explain. My best, Evan Soule ___________________________________ The following were several replies (some "yes" some "no"): ___________________________________ I would call no power station an overunity device, regardless of the 'fuel' or input energy it uses. Each of them is an energy converter. This is quite clear for traditional power stations which make use of energy stored in mechanical movement (water, wind), chemical substances which can be transferred to other chemical substances in an exothermal reaction, in radiation energy (sun) or thermal energy reservoirs (geothermal energy). In converting energy, the amount of 'stored' energy will diminuish. Thus, no 'overunity'. In nuclear fission, you make use of the energy / matter equivalence stated by Einstein. You will actually lose mass in the process of energy conversion. Thus, no 'overunity', either. In this case, you have a nice difference between operating parts of the converter (i.e., the power station itself) and 'fuel' (eg. uranium or plutonium). Dirk __________________ another reply: __________________ That is a very good question! I guess you could say the answer is "Yes". The problem is that they are highly regulated by the government(s), and I and other "garage experimenters" cannot just buy the materials at a hardware store or hobby shop and throw one together! They do produce more energy than is being put into them. The fuel is a nuclear reaction. The o/u/o devices some of us are playing with utilize the fabric of spacetime, or zero-point energy, as a fuel source (if they do work), according to theory. Zack __________________ another reply: __________________ > Would you consider a typical, conventional, nuclear fission reactor/power > station complex to be "an over-unity" operation? I often use just this issue to illustrate the ridiculous objections people have to "free energy" devices. I'd differentiate O/U versus non-O/U by whether mainstream science has accepted the explanation for the effect. A nuke plant is not O/U because the source of energy is "known," while the Newman Motor is O/U because mainstream researchers will tell you that nuclear energy can't be extracted from copper. Here's another: The original discovery that Pitchblende ore would expose film was an example of an O/U effect. I believe that the original reports were even greeted by skepticism because continual emission of energy by a rock constitutes Perpetual Motion! But today we know that the Uranium in the ore is unstable and randomly transmutes to simpler elements, liberating energy in the process, so film-fogging is no longer "O/U". Bill __________________ another reply: __________________ -> Would you consider a typical, conventional, nuclear fission reactor/power -> station complex to be "an over-unity" operation? I was wondering about this one as well. . .If it is, it's definitely not very safe! Mark __________________ another reply: __________________ >Would you consider a typical, conventional, nuclear fission >reactor/power station complex to be "an over-unity" operation? No. There is no 'excess' power production, and the energy output is far less than is extracted from the fuel in it's operation. The efficiency is well under 100%, so a nuclear plant in just a fancy water heater connected to a normal generator plant. Over unity operation or efficiencies of over 100% are very special situations describing open systems such as a water wheel, but not the driving water fall itself. If the water fall and hydrologic cycle is included, then the water wheel is not over unity, nor does it have high efficiency. Bob __________________ another reply __________________ >Would you consider a typical, conventional, nuclear fission reactor/power >station complex to be "an over-unity" operation? > >If yes, please explain or, if no, please explain. Well, I would say yes, because it puts out energy more than it is needed to dig out the Uranium and process it to run the powerplant. Stefan. __________________ Mark's reply to Bob: __________________ Could you describe the process of extracting the energy from the fuel to gain the necessary power production? And also, would you consider a nuclear/hydrogen bomb over-unity? Mark __________________ another reply of Bob to Mark __________________ Sure, The energy liberated from the nuclear fuel was formerly binding energy in the nucleus of the fuel atoms. By splitting more fuel atoms with the byproducts of already split atoms, that is high speed neutrons, we can produce a chain reaction of atom splitting. In addition to the high speed neutrons, this splitting also releases heat energy. The neutrons keep the "fire" burning, while the heat energy is used to drive the generators. If we do not control the rate of atom splitting, and have just enough fuel, we produce a huge pulse of energy from the mass lost in the splitting process and we have an atomic bomb. The energy released still comes from the fuel mass lost in the chain reaction. Hydrogen bombs work on a quite different process where atoms fuse together, and release energy in the process. In all these situations, the energy delivered is accounted for by the fuel mass, hence, this does not constitute over unity operation. No excess energy is produced. This does not imply that over unity operation is impossible. This is a matter of how we define what the system is made of. A water wheel turning under a waterfall shows over unity operation in that the wheel turns due to some external force. In this case, that force is the falling water. In a larger context, the water flows over the wheel because water evaporates from the oceans, rain falls on the hills, and flows downhill due to gravity. >From the point of view of our sun, the water wheel in not over unity, as the sun produces energy that evaporates the water, which the Earth's gravitational field then causes to fall and flow downhill. In reality, the sun and Earth's gravitational field cause the water wheel to turn, and in this context, the water wheel is no longer over unity. So you can see how we define what is and is not part of our system has a lot to do with claims of over unity operation. Bob __________________ another reply which responds to Mark which responds to Bob: __________________ Mark, The operant phrase is "over-unity" -- it's a sham phrase made-up by sceptics to obfuscate the issue of Newman's machine. As I understand the phrase's intended definition, only a true perpetual motion machine, i. e., a machine that runs without ever using energy, thereby putting out more energy than it inputs, so that e(out)/e(in)>1, that is, the ratio is "over-unity." In short, the answer to your second question is "no." The combined heats of fission (to start the fusion process) and fusion release the energy of the hydrogen bomb. Considered as a fuel, these heats supply an energy(in) that equals the energy(out). The same is true for Newman's machine if his theory is accurate. Evidence points to its accuracy. One must be individually convinced. I spend no time trying to convince sceptics. Sceptics spend a lot of time trying to get others to convince them. That's perforce a waste of time both for the sceptic and for their selected victim. I worked for 14 years at a Nuclear Power Station, called a Steam Electric Station, which should give you a big hint as to how the power is extracted from the nuclear fuel. There are two principal methods of extraction and thus two major types of nuclear power plants in the USA. These are called BWR and PWR. The Boiling Water Reactor style has only a primary steam loop. Water, under 2000 lbs of pressure is circulated in close contact with the fuel rods and is heated to about 500 degrees or so. The steam is directed against a turbine and moves the turbine which is connected to a generator. The PWR has a primary steam loop which extracts heat from the fuel rods and a secondary steam loop which drives the turbine. The heat is transmitted from primary to secondary by a huge heat exchanger called a Steam Generator. Advantage of PWR is isolation of primary radioactivity from the turbine. I worked at PWR. Hope this clarifies things a bit. R. Matherne _______________________________ To everyone: It would appear as though there is a difference of opinion on this question. Evan Soule email: josephnewman@earthlink.net P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, Louisiana 70157-7684 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 9 07:57:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA23349; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 07:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 07:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604091313.GAA23392@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor/Generator X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 4/9/96 Mr. Soule wrote: "Joseph Newman explicitly describes why one cannot "simply feed the generated, outpu current back into itself, eliminating the need for an input battery" on pages 58-59 of his book." Precisely, Mr. Soule. Now you, also, have defined the exact controversy in this debate. So we may all talk the same language, for this debate define O/U energy as follows. In a defined closed system (e.g. Neuman motor/genertator), more measured energy is produced than measured energy supplied to the system. Simply Eout > Ein. Energy is interchangable and interconvertable and may take many forms. The common denominator used is Joules. For simplicity, this is only a functional defintion, such as, a Neuman motor/genertator sitting alone and running. Take note this is a defined, tightly designed closed system. Nor is there any implication that any energy is created de noveau in violation of any thermodynamic law. Only, that output energy is greater than it's source. Perhaps, you or Mr. Neuman, using the definition above would care to characterize the Neuman motor/genertator. You have only three choices. 1. Under unity Ein > Eout. 2.Unity Ein = Eout 3.Over Unity Eout > Ein. No waffling please. Please note the title of this list in which you choose to publish. Since Energy is a fungible commodity and takes many forms, I leave it up to you to and Mr. Neuman to define energy source and output of your device. However, all energy must be measured correctly and precisely. Any deviation in these measurements will make your claims spurious and unacceptable. Since energy is absolutely interconvertable, it makes little difference as to it's type in source or production. It's all the same. Hence, if you claim Eout > Ein, the suggestion of closing the loop as so many on this list have suggested. If you do not claim Eout > Ein, then your device is only a conventional one, all be it, a most interesting one. Sincerely, RWW From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 20:19:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA23349; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 07:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 07:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604091313.GAA23392@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor/Generator X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 4/9/96 Mr. Soule wrote: "Joseph Newman explicitly describes why one cannot "simply feed the generated, outpu current back into itself, eliminating the need for an input battery" on pages 58-59 of his book." Precisely, Mr. Soule. Now you, also, have defined the exact controversy in this debate. So we may all talk the same language, for this debate define O/U energy as follows. In a defined closed system (e.g. Neuman motor/genertator), more measured energy is produced than measured energy supplied to the system. Simply Eout > Ein. Energy is interchangable and interconvertable and may take many forms. The common denominator used is Joules. For simplicity, this is only a functional defintion, such as, a Neuman motor/genertator sitting alone and running. Take note this is a defined, tightly designed closed system. Nor is there any implication that any energy is created de noveau in violation of any thermodynamic law. Only, that output energy is greater than it's source. Perhaps, you or Mr. Neuman, using the definition above would care to characterize the Neuman motor/genertator. You have only three choices. 1. Under unity Ein > Eout. 2.Unity Ein = Eout 3.Over Unity Eout > Ein. No waffling please. Please note the title of this list in which you choose to publish. Since Energy is a fungible commodity and takes many forms, I leave it up to you to and Mr. Neuman to define energy source and output of your device. However, all energy must be measured correctly and precisely. Any deviation in these measurements will make your claims spurious and unacceptable. Since energy is absolutely interconvertable, it makes little difference as to it's type in source or production. It's all the same. Hence, if you claim Eout > Ein, the suggestion of closing the loop as so many on this list have suggested. If you do not claim Eout > Ein, then your device is only a conventional one, all be it, a most interesting one. Sincerely, RWW From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 21:42:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA13013; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9603098290.AA829074876@ccgate4.nectech.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rshannon@nectech.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Challange and counter challange? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I had challenged Mr. Newman and Mr. Soule to stand behind the two coils experiment shown on the video tape which has been used as evidence for the claims for the Newman Energy Machine. I received a counter challenge, asking that I arrange for a University physics department to test Mr. Newman's new, portable demonstration unit. As I am not connected to a university physics department, this is not practical. Were I a director of such a department, I would test Mr. Newman's new demonstration unit as there is nothing to fear in performing reasonable testing. Such a series of tests would be an invaluable learning experience for students in my opinion. Especially if the device works as claimed! If not, finding why not is an equally valid learning experience. I strongly recommend anyone in such a position accept Mr. Newman's offer. A claim had been made that "The externally applied high voltage is not "consumed" by the system". I had made a critical comment on this: >Why then to the batteries run down? Clearly this last statement is >in error where the facts are concerned, as described by the same test >results. Anybody else find this significant? To which the reply came: >To rshannon: >The only thing "flawed" is the above writer's ability to understand >what Joseph Newman has accomplished: namely, an energy technology >which generates greater external energy (output) than external energy >(input) in accordance with E=mc(squared). Throughout his book --- >The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman --- the author has been >completely intellectually-honest and has demonstrated thirty(+) years >of "good science." >Your statement above: "Why then do(sic) the batteries run down?" is >typical of one who has NO comprehension of the technical processes >involved in Joseph Newman's system. Quite the opposite, rshannon: >his batteries --- when connected to his system DO NOT RUN DOWN! When >the batteries are connected to a conventional motor they DO INDEED >run down! Since you have initiated the questioning of my >intellectual honesty, I also question your level of intellectual >honesty since it is obvious to me that this level prevents you from >understanding that, in principle, the system is NO different from >that of a conventional nuclear reactor. This is interesting, as in the Hastings report, we find: >The batteries were drained to about 60% of their starting voltage >after seven (7) hours! Although the input current to the Newman >Motor follows a complicated waveform, we may estimate the initial >average input current from the performance curve (fig. 1). >Using 0.2 amps at 12 volts we find: >Initial Newman Motor Input equals 2.4 Watts. Clearly in this case, Dr. Hastings is attempting to measure the energy delivered from the batteries to the Newman device, and the batteries are being discharged in the process. Voltage is being "consumed" by the very test reports used to support the claims. From a web site: >I have done about 3 to 4 years of studying the Newman machines at our >University and rebuilded 2 different Newman machines myself and got >simular results as Newman described in his book. >But the Battery pack every time discharged after a while... >Mine did discharge after a few hours of running time ! Clearly there is a difference of opinion here, and there has also been University testing performed already, as well as NBS and other testing which is disputed by Mr. Newman, much as Dr. Hastings supportive report has drawn critical reviews. I personally have no direct experience with a Newman machine, but I do have experience as a test engineer. I cannot fairly say Mr. Newman's machine works as claimed or does not, but I can say that the measurement methods used are improper in my opinion. As these results are inconclusive, they do not prove the truth to be one way or the other in all fairness. I have personally tested a version of Mr. Newman's two coil demonstration both with batteries and a regulated power supply, and a commercial Gaussmeter. No effects other than the conventional ampere turns law presented itself. The video taped test as described is misleading, and apparently does not support Mr. Newman's theory or claims. Rather than muddy the waters with additional testing by a University physics department (which I just don't happen to have handy), why not stand by the video taped demonstration? People have paid money for this video tape. What did they get for that price? Let me assure Mr. Newman and Mr. Soule that I do understand the difference in production efficiency and conversion efficiency, and that the theory is that copper atoms are consumed, and account for the claimed excess energy. Fine, a compelling theory. It's the evidence for this production efficiency, and the evidence being sold used to support Mr. Newman's theory that is in question. Clearly, I do not stand alone in pointing out problems with the testing so far. Convince me that the two coil video demonstration is proper, and I'll stand by it 'till doomsday, and this goes for the rest of the claims and theories. On the other hand, if you do not stand by your product, don't expect me to accept what it shows as being proven. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 21:41:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA13966; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9603098290.AA829091024@ccgate4.nectech.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rshannon@nectech.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Challange and counter challange. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: (This bounced on the first try...) A recently posted "SPECIAL REPORT" repeats many claims based on improper tests performed on the Newman Energy machine. These major flaws render the test results meaningless, and cannot be taken as support of Mr. Newman's claims. These flaws have been described in detail in other posts here, and on Neotech as well. Rather than address these flaws, either by refuting them, or addressing them with other tests, we receive a lecture on intellectual dishonesty, and a rehashing of the very same disputed test results! >Professor Cremonini then opened the book of Aristotle to the >appropriate page, and 'proved' that Galileo could not possibly be >correct. Well, professor Soule has opened the book of Newman and claims to have proven it right, while failing to address the flaws in what they claim as their proof. It this intellectual honesty? Is this good science? >to generate the largest possible magnetic field within a copper coil, >and therefore to have access to greater numbers of "matter in motion" >... one must input large amounts of voltage to achieve maximum atom >alignment in the copper coil." For a given coils, raising the current increases the magnetic field strength. Raising the voltage produces a higher current flow, and a higher total energy, in perfect accordance to conventional theory. >The externally applied high voltage is not "consumed" by the system >-- it operates in the same manner as the hydraulic system, in an >automobile. Why then to the batteries run down? Clearly this last statement is in error where the facts are concerned, as described by the same test results. Anybody else find this significant? >Those who state that "once can never build a device which exceeds >100% efficiency" do not understand the nature of the phenomenal >efficiencies (in excess of 800%) produced by the Newman >motor/generator. I must conclude that Mr. Newman and Mr. Soule do not feel that anything is wrong with the measurement methods Dr. Hastings used to calculate the 800% efficiency claim. Can anyone defend the testing methods used, or conclusions being drawn from these tests? If not, why are the claims being taken as proven? Simply because people wish to believe them, and not because anything has been proven conclusively. While Mr. Newman may well have spent over $1,000,000 in legal fees fighting the patent office, I think he would have done far better to have spend 1/100th of that sum on proper testing. With trustworthy test results, there would be no question of a patent, nor any possibility of a cover up of the technology. When flaws are pointed out in the Hastings report testing, Mr. Soule reiterates the tests performed at the Lucedale City Park. In these tests, a conventional house watt meter is used, and again, the Newman camp cites this as proof of Mr. Newman's claims. Why should we expect a standard watt meter to correctly measure the high frequency power components of the Newman motor? It is well known that odd power factor angles will cause these meters to measure lower than actual power consumption. This is again, not a valid test for quite simple and conventional reasons. >Also on the tape is a simple, inexpensive and repeatable >demonstration that would make an excellent student project for a >science fair. This demonstration proves conclusively that >traditional electrical engineering has been harboring a 150 year old >fallacy that has resulted in all motors being constructed with built >in efficiencies! This fallacy is the belief that the strength of the >magnetic field surrounding a copper conductor coil comes from the >input current. THIS IS FALSE. I agree that the potential for an excellent science fair project is there, in that you could show how easily people can be fooled by the conventional phenomena of ampere turns, and improper measurements. Electrical engineering does not maintain that the strength of the magnetic field is due only to the current alone as Mr. Newman claims. What conventional theory claims, is that for a given coil, higher currents produce a higher magnetic field level. This is why Mr. Newman must use high voltages to overcome the resistance of his coils to produce the large magnetic fields. Mr. Newman is twisting the facts to suit his needs here, either by a misunderstanding or deliberately I cannot say. Pay close attention here to how this has been altered by Mr. Newman. The strength of the magnetic field is due to the ampere-turns, and this is as true for Mr. Newman's coils as it is for any other coil. As the total energy delivered in this demonstration is not equal, clearly the magnetic fields are also unequal. So much for the number of copper atoms theory... If these same two coils are tested again with a fixed current, or with measured currents and voltages, the effect Mr. Newman demonstrates vanishes completely. (I've checked, interested in a challenge on this one Mr. Newman? Any Newman believers interested here? Lets resolve this issue once and for all, in the interests of truth and good science!) If the level of testing so far is acceptable to Mr. Newman, he is the last person I would have developing such an important technology as he claims to have in the Newman motor. Are there negative test reports we have not seen yet? Please Mr. Newman, either address the flaws which force us to reject your tests and subsequent claims, or stop claiming them as being conclusive proof of your claims. If in despute, how are they then described as being conclusive proof? If the issues raised are not valid concerns, why not? Have Mr. Newman's believers noticed that he has not addressed the issue of conventional ampere turns explaining the video tape test of the coils? Nor have the questions of if the energy output of the Newman invention is no different than the energy input, why can the machine not operate in a closed system? This makes no sense at all. As these tests are again referred to as proof, is this intellectually honest on their part? Mr. Newman's and Mr. Soule's responses to these issues will show what degree of intellectual honesty is present in the claims made. To bring the issue of intellectual honesty up, and to then state that Newman Energy Products is looking for a manufacturer interested in producing Newman motors, while ignoring the flaws in the testing is quite suspicious. (Perhaps Mr. Newman will accept my challenge that conventional ampere turns theory will fully explain the two coils video taped test? This should be a reasonable test any potential investor should insist on at a minimum. In any case, Mr. Newman is being "called out" on this test and related claim here and now.) Before asking readers to view through the tube of Mr. Newman's theory, it might be wise for us all to view Mr. Newman's tests and claims in the light of conventional theory first, and then decide if anything out of the ordinary is happening. Doing this the other way around is less than objective. Fair warning, the picture is quite different, and far less enchanting. If you choose to believe the claims in light of the problems with the tests so far, don't bother to look. If on the other hand, if the truth is more important than any personal desire for this to be real, you will find an all too familiar pattern forming. We have seen this before. >WHAT CAN YOU DO? (This section is for everyone in general...) >1) Tell your friends and associates about this new technology. Oh, don't worry, I will! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 19:14:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA14458; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604100220.TAA04128@big.aa.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Kawai motors X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:10 AM 4/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >Hi, > >has anybody any experiments done with a KAWAI type >motor ? > >Here is the URL to check it out: > >http://www.virtualtimes.com/writers/bearden/mageng/fig09.htm > >It sounds pretty interesting. > >Regards, Stefan. >-- >Hartmann Multimedia Service >Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann >Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany >Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 >email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de >Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti > _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ > > > Stefan, could you doublecheck the url cited above? I get "No DNS" message for this. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 20:39:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18931; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604100526.AAA13306@firefly.prairienet.org> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor/Generator X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > > > >4/9/96 > >Mr. Soule wrote: > >"Joseph Newman explicitly describes why one cannot "simply feed the >generated, outpu current back into itself, eliminating the need for an >input battery" on pages 58-59 of his book." > >Precisely, Mr. Soule. Now you, also, have defined the exact >controversy in this debate. > [snip] > >Since energy is absolutely interconvertable, it makes little difference >as to it's type in source or production. It's all the same. Hence, if >you claim Eout > Ein, the suggestion of closing the loop as so many on >this list have suggested. If you do not claim Eout > Ein, then your >device is only a conventional one, all be it, a most interesting one. > >Sincerely, > >RWW Evan, Richard, et al, I thought I'd make a brief coment on this area. Some of you may have guessed by a few of my postings that I do a lot of reading! I do not know if Mr. Newman has read the works of Bearden, Tesla, T. Henry Moray, Moray B. King, John Bedini, etc. I suspect a few flaws in Mr. Newman's theories based on other material I have read. John Bedini's device feeds part of the output back into the input to keep the batteries charged. I understand a very few people have somewhat successfully built them. I am still constructing the device; maybe I'll get it done some day but my "play" time has been very limited lately. Tom Bearden, in his recent paper "Chasing The Wild Dragon", however, stated that John Bedini's device has been running continuously for 5 years. If true, that certainly sounds like o/u/o. The Brandt/Tesla Switch, also built by Mr. Bedini, feeds the output back to the input. I have heard a very few people have also had some success with it but the problem with it seems to be that the batteries wear out after some time. Several other devices I've seen notes on feed some of the output back into the input. Most are reported as working by the designers, but others seem to have difficulty in getting them to work (perhaps we still have a ways to go on that "paradigm shift" mentioned in THE DANCING WU-LI MASTERS by Gary Zukav, etc.) Zack Widup w9sz@prairienet.org From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 18:17:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA19225; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Zachary DeAquila To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: The Newman Machine... plans? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Are there any *free* plans for the Newman Machine? Seems like they'd lay to rest alot of the debate... all I've seen so far are a bunch of claims that seem to be aimed at selling a (fairly expensive) book. How about the simplest possible circuit for a newman machine? --Zachary From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 19:42:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA00602; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 02:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 02:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316B5550.72E6@bigbear.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Doyle P. Henderson" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Regarding Tesla X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This seems to be the place to report some activities and comments regarding Nikola Tesla's work in transmitting large amounts of electrical energy without use of wires, lasers, or plasma. I have no evidence whatsoever, only unsubstantiated reports... but some of you may find them interesting. 1. In Australia there is a very deep vertical hole that the National Security Admin. has funded and which has equipment allegedly for the transmission of electrical energy... not communications... to power non-nuclear military submarines trailing long "antennae." It is alleged that nuclear reactors are now detectable from space satellites. There has also been speculation that the ozone layer depletions over Antarctica are related to the use of this Australian hole/equipment. Pretty wild, eh? 2. The same source also says that the government had N. Tesla murdered because he refused to keep secret certain inventions of his which the government (special interests affected by his invention) wanted classified and unpublicized. Then, virtually all of his files were confiscated and never found. NOTICE: The above is heresay and placed here without one shred of evidence or proof that it is true. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 19:56:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA09161; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 04:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 04:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604101056.DAA20741@big.aa.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Regarding Tesla X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 02:29 AM 4/10/96 -0700, you wrote: > This seems to be the place to report some activities >and comments regarding Nikola Tesla's work in transmitting >large amounts of electrical energy without use of wires, lasers, >or plasma. I have no evidence whatsoever, only unsubstantiated >reports... but some of you may find them interesting. > >1. In Australia there is a very deep vertical hole that the > National Security Admin. has funded and which has equipment > allegedly for the transmission of electrical energy... not > communications... to power non-nuclear military submarines > trailing long "antennae." It is alleged that nuclear > reactors are now detectable from space satellites. There > has also been speculation that the ozone layer depletions > over Antarctica are related to the use of this Australian > hole/equipment. Pretty wild, eh? > yep >2. The same source also says that the government had N. Tesla > murdered because he refused to keep secret certain inventions > of his which the government (special interests affected by > his invention) wanted classified and unpublicized. Then, > virtually all of his files were confiscated and never found. > > NOTICE: The above is heresay and placed here without one > shred of evidence or proof that it is true. > > grossly ignorant horseshit Tesla died as an old man of a broken heart during World War II...the paralyzing realization that humanity was not worthy of the scientific principles and techno power which he could see... ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 19:44:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA10913; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:29:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:29:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: superconducting motor? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- from: THEYWOOD@MINNIE.NIC.KINGSTON.IBM.COM Doesn't this sound suspiciously like an approaching overunity engine development? The key here is "high temperature superconductivity", effects of which are sometimes linked to overunity and antigravity phenomena. If anyone finds out more, please post it here. Todd Heywood ======================== From http://www.calstart.org/news/newsnotes/96031904.html Rockwell International Corp.'s Reliance Electric subsidiary and American Superconductor Corp. have developed and demonstrated a super-efficient 200-horsepower "high-temperature superconducting"(HTS) electric motor, reports Reuters. The breakthrough is significant because the efficiency of the motors could drastically cut the amount of energy currently used by electric motors, which now consume about 58 percent of all electrical energy generated in the United States. Nearly half of the motors currently in use are ideal for conversion to HTS motors for, among others, pumps and fans in utilities, oil and gas pumping and compressors. The Electric Power Research Institute says the motors, half the size and weight of conventional motors, will result in much lower electricity costs for utilities and industry. The team expects to commercialize a large industrial-sized motor in f our to five years. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 10 23:17:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA23099; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604101545.RAA29958@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Best test for Newman machine X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi, the best and most realistic test to prove, if the Newman machines deliver "greater external energy out than energy put into the system" (to say it with Newman=B4s own words) would be to: Put the Newman motor into a Calorimeter and measure the totall heat output versus the DC-Wattage input. Do do this test, one could use the Newman FAN motor=20 and let it run inside the Calorimeter. With using the fan, the air inside the Calorimeter will be circulated the right way, so there will be everywhere the same temperature inside the Calorimeter. So it is easy to measure the raised temperature inside the Calorimeter just with using a thermometer. For the input into the Newman motor one could use a battery pack or a AC/DC converter delivering e.g. 1000 Volts DC and use T-filters to block the RF coming from the Motor.=20 This way, there will be only DC going into the motor without any RF-spikes superimposed. Then you can place a DC amperemeter directly at the voltage source to monitor the DC ampere input and multiply this with the=20 DC Voltage to get the DC-power input. Then let the motor run for a few hours and monitor the raised temperature inside the calorimeter. Then using the difference temperature and the heat capacity of the media inside the calorimeter, it will be pretty easy to measure the whole power output (as heat) versus the DC-power input. This would be the best test report and should have been done at the NBS test report a few years ago! I would like to hear comments. Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service =20 Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 10 23:14:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA24364; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604101601.SAA00138@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: The Newman Machine... plans? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >Are there any *free* plans for the Newman Machine? Seems like they'd lay >to rest alot of the debate... all I've seen so far are a bunch of >claims that seem to be aimed at selling a (fairly expensive) book. >How about the simplest possible circuit for a newman machine? > > --Zachary > > You can watch it soon on my new WEB server, which I will soon announce over here as soon as the new Domain-name is registered and routed... Stay tuned. Regards, Stefan. > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 10 23:53:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA25016; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604101622.SAA00216@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Dr. Hasting´s Newman test reports X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To clear up the debate I post this very interesting Test report of Dr. Hasting. I would like to know, if Dr. Hasting still nowadays stand behind Mr. Newman and if he still stands behind this text he has written a few years ago. When I called him a few years ago, he told me, that he now does not work anymor together with Newman and that he rated his FAN motor only 90 % efficient, but not Overunity... Anyway, here is the old test report on the older motors, NOT the newer FAN motor.. (word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2) Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501 Sponsored by Vangard Sciences PO BOX 1031 Mesquite, TX 75150 There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS on duplicating, publishing or distributing the files on KeelyNet except where noted! October 30, 1993 NEMWAN5.ASC -------------------------------------------------------------------- This file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of Idan Mandelbaum. -------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWMAN'S THEORY By Roger Hastings PhD Transcribed By George W. Dahlberg P.E. I do not intend to recapitulate the theory presented in Newman's book, but rather to briefly provide my interpretation of his ideas. Newman began studying electricity and magnetism in the mid 1960's. He has a mechanical background, and was looking for a mechanical description of electromagnetic fields. That is, he assumed that there must be a mechanical interaction between, for example, two magnets. He could not find such a description in any book, and decided that he would have to provide his own explanation. He came to the conclusion that if electromagnetic fields consisted of tiny spinning particles moving at the speed of light along the field lines, then he could explain all standard electromagnetic phenomena through the interaction of spinning particles. Since the spinning particles interact in the same way as gyroscopes, he called the particles gyroscopic particles. In my opinion, such spinning particles do provide a qualitative description of electromagnetic phenomena, and his model is useful in understanding complex electrical situations (note that without a pictoral model one must rely solely upon mathematical equations which can become extremely complex). Given that electromagnetic fields consist of matter in motion, or kenetic energy, Joe decided that it should be possible to tap this kinetic energy. He likes to say "How long did man sit next to a stream before he invented the paddle wheel?". Joe built a variety of unusual devices to tap the kinetic energy in electromagnetic fields before he arrived at his present motor design. He likes to point out that both Maxwell and Faraday, the pioneers of electromagnitism, believed that the fields consisted of matter in motion. This is stated in no uncertain terms in Maxwell's book "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field". In fact, Maxwell used a dynamical model to derive his famous equations. This fact has all but been lost in current books on electromagnetic theory. The quantity which Maxwell called "electromagnetic momentum" is now refered to as the "vector potential". Going further, Joe realized that when a magnetic field is Page 1 created, its gyroscopic particles must come from the atoms of the materials which created the field. Thus he decided that all matter must consist of the same gyroscopic particles. For example, when a voltage is applied to a wire, Newman pictures gyroscopic particles (which I will call gyrotons for short) moving down the wire at the speed of light. These gyrotons line up the electrons in the wire. The electrons themselves consist of a swirling mass of gyrotrons, and their matter fields combine when lined up to form the magnetic lines of force circulating around the wire. In this process, the wire has literally lost some of its mass to the magnetic field, and this is accounted for by Einstein's equation of energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light. According to Einstein, every conversion of energy involves a corresponding conversion of matter. According to Newman, this may be interpreted as an exchange of gyrotrons. For example, if two atoms combine to give off light, the atoms would weight slightly less after the reaction than before. According to Newman, the atoms have combined and given off some of their gyrotrons in the form of light. Thus Einstein's equation is interpreted as a matter of counting gyrotrons. These particles cannot be created or destroyed in Newman's theory, and they always move at the speed of light. My interpretation of Newman's original idea for his motor is as follows. As a thought experiment, suppose one made a coil consisting of 186,000 miles of wire. An electrical field would require one second to travel the length of the wire, or in Newman's language, it would take one second for gyrotons inserted at one end of the wire to reach the other end. Now suppose that the polarity of the applied voltage was switched before the one second has elapsed, and this polarity switching was repeated with a period less than one second. Gyrotons would become trapped in the wire, as their number increased, so would the alignment of electrons and the number of gyrotons in the magnetic field increase. The intensified magnetic field could be used to do work on an external magnet, while the input current to the coil would be small or non-existant. Newman's motors contain up to 55 miles of wire, and the voltage is rapidly switched as the magnet rotates. He elaborates upon his theory in his book, and uses it to interpret a variety of physical phenomena. RECENT DATA ON THE NEWMAN MOTOR In May of 1985 Joe Newman demonstrated his most recent motor prototype in Washington, D.C.. The motor consisted of a large coil wound as a solenoid, with a large magnet rotating within the bore of the solenoid. Power was supplied by a bank of six volt lantern batteries. The battery voltage was switched to the coil through a commutator mounted on the shaft of the rotating magnet. The commutator switched the polarity of the voltage across the coil each half cycle to keep a positive torque on the rotating magnet. In addition, the commutator was designed to break and remake the voltage contact about 30 times per cycle. Thus the voltage to the coil was pulsed. The speed of the magnet rotation was adjusted by covering up portions of the commutator so that pulsed voltage was applied for a fraction of a cycle. Two speeds were demonstrated: 12 R.P.M. for which 12 pulses occured each revolution; and 120 rpm for which all commutator segments were firing. The slower speed was used to provide clear oscilloscope Page 2 pictures of currents and voltages. The fast speed was used to demonstrate the potential power of the motor. Energy outputs consisted of incandescent bulbs in series with the batteries, flourescent tubes across the coil, and a fan powered by a belt attached to the shaft of the rotor. Revelent ,otor parameters are given below: Coil weight : 9000 lbs. Coil length : 55 miles of copper wire Coil Inductance: 1,100 Henries measured by observing the current rise time when a D.C. voltage was applied. Coil resistance: 770 Ohms Coil Height : about 4 ft. Coil Diameter : slightly over 4 ft. I.D. Magnet weight : 700 lbs. Magnet Radius : 2 feet Magnet geometry: cylinder rotating about its perpendicular axis Magnet Moment of Inertia: 40 kg-sq.m. (M.K.S.) computed as one third mass times radius squared Battery Voltage: 590 volts under load Battery Type : Six volt Ray-O-Vac lantern batteries connected in series A brief description of the measurements taken and distributed at the press conference follows. When the motor was rotating at 12 rpm, the average D.C. input current from the batteries was about 2 milli-amps, and the average battery input was then 1.2 watts. The back current (flowing against the direction of battery current) was about -55 milli-amps, for an average charging power of -32 watts. The forward and reverse current were clearly observable on the oscilloscope. It was noted that when the reverse current flowed, the battery voltage rose above its ambient value, varifying that the batteries were charging. The magnitude of the charging current was verified by heating water with a resistor connected in series with the batteries. A net charging power was the primary evidence used to show that the motor was generating energy internally, however output power was also observed. The 55 m-amp current flowing in the 770 ohm coil generates 2.3 watts of heat, which is in excess of the input power. In addition, the lights were blinking brightly as the coil was switched. The back current from the coil switched from zero to negative several amps in about 1 milli-second, and then decayed to zero in about 0.1 second. Given the coil inductance of 1100 henries, the switching voltages were several million volts. Curiously, the back current did not switch on smoothly, but increased in a staircase. Each step in the staircase corresponded to an extremely fast switching of current, with each increase in the current larger than the previous increase. The width of the stairs was about 100 micro-seconds, which for reference is about one third of the travel time of light through the 55 mile coil. Mechanical losses in the rotor were measured as follows: The rotor was spun up by hand with the coil open circuited. An inductive pick-up loop was attached to a chart recorder to measure the rate of decay of the rotor. The energy stored in the Page 3 rotor (one half the moment of inertia times the square of the angular velocity) was plotted as a function of time. The slope of this curve was measured at various times and gave the power loss in the rotor as a function of rotor speed. The result of these measurements is given in the following table: Rotor Speed Power Dissipation Power/(Speed Squared) radian/sec watts watts/(rad/sec)^2 4.0 6.3 0.39 3.7 5.8 0.42 3.3 5.0 0.46 3.0 3.5 0.39 2.1 2.0 0.45 1.7 1.2 0.42 1.2 0.7 0.47 The data is consistant with power loss proportional to the square of the angular speed, as would be expected at low speeds. When the rotor moves fast enough so that air resistance is important, the losses would begin to increase as the cube of the angular speed. Using power = 0.43 times the square of the angular speed will give a lower bound on mechanical power dissipation at all speeds. When the rotor is moving at 12 rpm, or 1.3 rad/sec, the mechanical loss is 0.7 watts. When the rotor was sped up to 120 rpm by allowing the commutator to fire on all segments, the results were quite dramatic. The lights were blinking rapidly and brightly, and the fan was turning rapidly. The back current spikes were about ten amps, and still increased in a staircase, with the width of the stairs still about 100 micro-seconds. Accurate measurements of the input current were not obtained at that time, however I will report measurements communicated to me by Mr. Newman. At a rotation rate of 200 rpm (corresponding to mechanical losses of at least 190 watts), the input power was about 6 watts. The back current in this test was about 0.5 amps, corresponding to heating in the coil of 190 watts. As a final point of interest, note that the Q of his coil at 200 rpm is about 30. If his battery plus commutator is considered as an A.C. power source, then the impedance of the coil at 200 rpm is 23,000 henries, and the power factor is 0.03. In this light, the predicted input power at 700 volts is less than one watt! MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION OF NEWMAN'S MOTOR Since I am preparing this document on my home computer, it will be convenient to use the Basic computer language to write down formulas. The notation is * for multiply, / for divide, ^ for raising to a power, and I will use -dot to represent a derivative. Newton's second law of motion applied to Newman's rotor yields the following equation: MI*TH-dot-dot + G*TH-dot = K*I*SIN(TH) (1) where MI = rotor moment of inertia TH = rotor angular position (radians) G = rotor decay constant K = torque coupling constant I = coil current Page 4 In general the constant G may depend upon rotor speed, as when air resistance becomes important. The term on the right hand side of the equation represents the torque delivered to the rotor when current flows through the coil. A constant friction term was found through measurement to be small compared to the TH-dot term at reasonable speeds, but can be included in the "constant" G. The equation for the current in the coil is given by: L*I-dot + R*I = V(TH) - K*(TH-dot)*SIN(TH) (2) where L = coil inductance I = coil current R = coil resistance V(TH) = voltage applied to coil by the commutator which is a function of the angle TH K = rotor induction constant In general, the resistance R is a function of voltage, particularly during commutator switching when the air resistance breaks down creating a spark. Note that the constant K is the same in equations (1) and (2). This is required by energy conservation as discussed below. To examine energy considerations, multiply Equation (1) by TH-dot, and Equation (2) by I. Note that the last term in each equation is then identical if the K's are the same. Eliminating the last term between the two equations yields the instantaneous conservation law: I*V=R*I^2 + G*(TH-dot)^2 + .5*L*(I^2)-dot =.5*MI*((TH-dot)^2)-dot If this equation is averaged over one cycle of the rotor, then the last two terms vanish when steady state conditions are reached (i.e. when the current and speed repeat their values at angular positions which are separated by 360 degrees). Denoting averages by < >, the above equation becomes: = + (3) This result is entirely general, independent of any dependences of R and G on other quantities. The term on the left represents the input power. The first term on the right is the power dissipated in the coil, and the second term is the power delivered to the rotor. The efficiency, defined as power delivered to the rotor divided by input power is thus always less than one by Equation (3). This result does require, however, that the constants K in equation (1) and equation (2) are identical. If the constant K in equation (2) is smaller than the constant K appearing in equation (1), then it may be varified that the efficiency can mathmatecally be larger than unity. What do the constants, K, mean? In the first equation, we have the torque delivered to the magnet, while in the second equation we have the back inductance or reaction of the magnet upon the coil. The equality of the constants is an expression of Newton's third law. How could the constants be unequal? Consider the sequence of events which occur during the firing of the commutator. First the contact breaks, and the magnetic field in the coil collapses, creating a huge forward spike of current through the coil and battery. This current spike provides an Page 5 impulsive torque to the rotor. The rotor accelerates, and the acceleration produces a changing magnetic field which propagates through the coil, creating the back emf. Suppose that the commutator contacts have separated sufficiently when the last event occurs to prevent the back current from flowing to the battery. Then the back reaction is effectively smaller than the forward impulsive torque on the rotor. This suggestion invokes the finite propagation time of the electromagnetic fields, which has not been included in Equations (1) and (2). A continued mathmatical modeling of the Newman motor should include the effects of finite propagation time, particularly in his extraordinary long coil of wire. I have solved Equations (1) and (2) numerically, and note that the solutions require finer and finer step size as the inductance, moment of inertia, and magnet strength are increased to large values. The solutions break down such that the motor "takes off" in the computer, and this may indicate instabilities, which could be mediated in practise by external pertubations. I am confident that Maxwell's equations , with the proper electro-mechanical coupling, can provide an explanation to the phenomena observed in the Newman device. The electro-mechanical coupling may be embedded in the Maxwell equations if a unified picture (such as Newman's picture of gyroscopic particles) is adopted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have comments or other information relating to such topics as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page. Thank you for your consideration, interest and support. Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet -------------------------------------------------------------------- If we can be of service, you may contact Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 6 -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 10 23:51:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA26089; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Clarification of battery results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rshannon has indicated that he has not read Joseph Newman's book and hence has no specific understanding of the technology as presented by the author. Regarding Dr. Hasting's Report: the Report stands on its own....Dr. Hastings has no interest in engaging in a discussion of its merits with rshannon....rshannon is welcome to agree with the Report or disagree with the Report....I should add that Dr. Hasting's Report is presented in the context of Joseph Newman's book with a complete discussion of the technology and why certain test results would be expected within the context of the general technology (as presented by the author) with which rshannon is not familiar. As to rshannon's statement: "Why then to the batteries run down? Clearly this last statement is in error where the facts are concerned, as described by the same test results. Anybody else find this significant?" If you had read the book, rshannon, you would perhaps realize the context in which Dr. Hasting's reported these results. In the larger prototypes, the back-charging effect of the system would typically overcharge a certain percentage of the new batteries. This fact was verified by Ray-O-Vac when the batteries in question were sent to them for analysis. Consequently, when such batteries were overcharged and internally damaged, their voltage dropped....the remaining batteries held up to the back-charging effect and have been utilized for YEARS throughout the operation of various-sized prototypes. In addition, Dr. Hastings specifically reports on batteries being recharged by the Newman Motor/Generator system: "Consulting the battery charts we find that a fresh battery with a starting drain of 150 m amps. (100 m amps. when V equals 2/3 starting voltage) will drop from 2/3 to 1/2 of its starting voltage in a few hours. If the batteries began at 2/3 of their fresh voltage under a drain of 250 m amps. they would be very dead in two hours. The Newman Motor has been run for between one and four hours per day for a total of ten hours. The batteries began at 2/3 of their fresh voltage, and after the ten hours the voltage had not dropped perceptibly. Joseph Newman intends to continue running the motor a few hours per day to test the limits of his motor. Here again, the mechanical energy consumed by the spinning rotor is far in excess of the maximum possible electrical energy which could be supplied by the batteries (according to the charts). An efficiency near 1000 percent is indicated by the experiment to date. THREE WEEKS LATER: On this date the old batteries have worn down to a point at which they will not even run a one and one-half V. small (conventional) toy motor. Yet when they are connected to the Newman motor, the 90 lb. rotor is spun up to 4.5 Hz in about 20 seconds!" Evan Soule _______________________________ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Wed Apr 10 23:48:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA27272; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: fnrg: superconducting motor? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >--- FORWARDED --- > >from: THEYWOOD@MINNIE.NIC.KINGSTON.IBM.COM > >Doesn't this sound suspiciously like an approaching overunity >engine development? The key here is "high temperature >superconductivity", effects of which are sometimes linked >to overunity and antigravity phenomena. > >If anyone finds out more, please post it here. > >Todd Heywood > >======================== > > From http://www.calstart.org/news/newsnotes/96031904.html > >Rockwell International Corp.'s Reliance Electric subsidiary and >American Superconductor Corp. have developed and demonstrated a >super-efficient 200-horsepower "high-temperature superconducting"(HTS) >electric motor, reports Reuters. The breakthrough is significant >because the efficiency of the motors could drastically cut the amount >of energy currently used by electric motors, which now consume about 58 >percent of all electrical energy generated in the United States. Nearly >half of the motors currently in use are ideal for conversion to HTS >motors for, among others, pumps and fans in utilities, oil and gas >pumping and compressors. The Electric Power Research Institute says the >motors, half the size and weight of conventional motors, will result in >much lower electricity costs for utilities and industry. The team >expects to commercialize a large industrial-sized motor in f >our to five years. _____________________ Dear Todd: Thank you for submitting the above information to the Forum. Evan Soule I've faxed a copy of the above to Joseph Newman. His response.... "(Conventional) electric motors are already scientifically noted to be 90% efficient...and some approach 100% efficiency. The above statement '...have developed and demonstrated a super-efficient 200-horsepower...' implies that this new electric motor is over 100% efficiency! If this be the case, then this is definitely, once again, theft of my work. In addition, superconductivity (as it relates to my technology) is covered in my book and patents. Reliance Electric knows all about my work and has spoken against it in the past. Joseph Newman ______________________ Thanks again, Todd. The above information will prove useful. Sincerely, Evan Soule P.S. It is possible that these companies are using the words "high-temperature superconducting (HTS) electric motor" as a euphemism for the technology Joseph Newman has developed over the past 30 years. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Thu Apr 11 03:23:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA25296; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 03:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 03:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316CC612.61F6@mail.enternet.com.au> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Greg Watson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor test results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A Reality time, After reading and watching the debate on Mr. Newman's motor here is my input and feelings. I am a electronics design engineer with 25 years of practical experience. The Hasting's report doesn't stand on its own! There are several incorrect statements which without question would NOT have been made by a physicist. Here are just a few. 1) In the first tests the Newman motor and a 80% efficiency motor both drove a oil pump. To calculate the work required by the pump, the 80% motor was driven at 60 rpm and the current drawn measured. The work done by the pump was calculated as E x I and divided by the motors stated 80% efficiency. NO physicist would ever measure the work done by the oil pump this way! Could be OK if the efficiency was 80%. In my experience, driving any conventional DC motor at 60 rpm is asking for problems. Most DC motors will NOT provide good efficiency at such a low rpm. The type/model/manuf of the oil pump was not stated. Not good science. The type/model/manuf of the DC motor was not stated. Makes it difficult to check the 80% figure, its load/rpm range, etc. The effect of this is to make the pump look like it needs more power to drive it than it really does and therefore make the Newman motor look more efficient. A much better way is to calculate the work done on the oil. All that's needed is the mass of the oil, liters/minute of delivery and the pressure of delivery. I recently submitted another observation on a demo where a water pump was used, the Newman motor was run from the mains and it would not cause a household watt/hour meter to move. In that case the power drawn was around 5 watts based on the volume of water pumped and I stated that my own watt/hour meter also would't turn with such a low load. Hope the oil pump data wasn't left off for my benefit. Also notice that at this demo the motor WAS powered by the good old mains. 2) The second point of concern is the calculation as to the power needed to drive the Newman motor at a constant 60 rpm. What is calculated is the work done to ACCELERATE the rotor to 60 rpm and NOT the work/energy needed to maintain the rotor at speed. At speed, the only energy needed is to overcome losses (friction, electrical, flux, heat, etc.). This would be much...much lower than the energy needed to accelerate the very heavy rotor to speed. Again NO physicist would ever have made this error! Again the effect of this error is to make it look like the Newman motor needs a higher amount of energy when running at speed than it really does. 3) Mr. Newman I believe has stated that his motor can't turn a generator and feed the electricity back to drive the motor because of some effect. Convenient, but to be more exact, if this is true Mr. Newman you have discovered a new form of electricity. If I were you, I would chuck the motor in the nearest dump and work on the patent on this new form of electricity. 4) It is my belief that the first part of the Hasting's report is at the very least bad science and at the worst has been designed to misled. 5) The talk about the battery voltage is also being used to lead the discussion away from the main points (power in versus power out). 6)This may be a bit heavy but here it goes. Mr. Newman, are you a fraud or do you have another agenda? 7)Cut the crap, feed the output back to the input. The world's waiting for the result with open check books for over unity that works. Stop selling expensive books to people who want to believe in your motor. FEED THE OUTPUT BACK INTO THE INPUT OR GET OFF THE WEB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Greg Watson, The buck stops here. PS. Will wait for the feedback with interest. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 07:37:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA28191; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:21:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:21:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604120203.WAA17530@zork.tiac.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: superconducting motor? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Thank you for submitting the above information to the Forum. >Evan Soule >I've faxed a copy of the above to Joseph Newman. His response.... >"(Conventional) electric motors are already scientifically noted to >be 90% efficient...and some approach 100% efficiency. The above >statement '...have developed and demonstrated a super-efficient >200-horsepower...' implies that this new electric motor is over 100% >efficiency! If this be the case, then this is definitely, once >again, theft of my work. In addition, superconductivity (as it >relates to my technology) is covered in my book and patents. >Reliance Electric knows all about my work and has spoken against it >in the past. A superconducting electrical motor would have high currents, and low voltage, as is not possible to have a high voltage across a zero resistance. We can however have a large magnetic field which takes no input power to maintain, unlike the Newman technology. This is the diametrical opposite of Mr. Newman's work, and hence, I cannot see how this claim can be made in good faith by Mr. Newman. Also, as Mr. Newman holds no US patent, and his Mexican patent is not enforceable under NAFTA, he cannot claim this work as his own in court within the context of any infringements of his intellectual property by Reliance Electric, even if the device was similar. Mr. Newman has no valid claim to any electrical motor design of high efficiency as he seems to believe. Is Mr. Newman going to ask his investors to bare the costs of another round of lawsuits to try and gain validation of his claims? Evan Soule added: >P.S. It is possible that these companies are using the words "high- >temperature superconducting (HTS) electric motor" as a euphemism for >the technology Joseph Newman has developed over the past 30 years. No sir, I cannot see that being the case due to the diametrical technical philosophies between a zero voltage, zero resistance superconductor, and Mr. Newman's high voltage, low current, high reactance coils. Such a claim would appear to be unfounded. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 11:47:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA29495; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:28:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:28:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604120203.WAA17510@zork.tiac.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Clarification of battery results. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Stephen wrote: >the best and most realistic test to prove, if the Newman machines >deliver "greater external energy out than energy put into the system" >(to say it with Newman's own words) would be to: >Put the Newman motor into a Calorimeter and measure the totall heat >output versus the DC-Wattage input. >Do do this test, one could use the Newman FAN motor and let it run >inside the Calorimeter. With using the fan, the air inside the >Calorimeter will be circulated the right way, so there will be >everywhere the same temperature inside the Calorimeter. So it is easy >to measure the raised temperature inside the Calorimeter just with >using a thermometer. For the input into the Newman motor one could >use a battery pack or a AC/DC converter delivering e.g. 1000 Volts DC >and use T-filters to block the RF coming from the Motor. This way, >there will be only DC going into the motor without any RF-spikes >superimposed. This amounts to placing a filter component across the coil circuit, and the Newman motor is said not to operate if the coil is shunted with a capacitor. This test would be unfair to Mr. Newman's claims for his motor. What would be better, is to allow the RF mess (which effectively prevents any commercial applications for the device, due to EMI and RFI regulations, etc.) and digitize the current and voltage waveforms, and then calculate the energy under the curves, allowing for the phase angles between current and voltage. As the RF energy is critical to the operation of the Newman device, any filtering is unfair to Mr. Newman. This makes proper measurements quite difficult, but a Calorimeter can deal with this quite easily. >Then you can place a DC amperemeter directly at the voltage source to >monitor the DC ampere input and multiply this with the DC Voltage to >get the DC-power input. This may still not generate a correct value, as the filtering does not fully correct the power factor, or phase error between current and voltage. The Newman motor might well pass this test as appearing over unity, incorrectly. >Then let the motor run for a few hours and monitor the raised >temperature inside the calorimeter. Then using the difference >temperature and the heat capacity of the media inside the >calorimeter, it will be pretty easy to measure the whole power output >(as heat) versus the DC-power input. Now this can work perfectly well, if we measure the power factors as well. >I would like to hear comments. >Regards, Stefan. Excellent points! Unfortunately, it's unlikely we will find such anyone willing to do this right away. Another poster wrote: >After reading and watching the debate on Mr. Newman's motor here is >my input and feelings. >I am a electronics design engineer with 25 years of practical >experience. >The Hasting's report doesn't stand on its own! There are several >incorrect statements which without question would NOT have been made >by a physicist. Here are just a few. >1) In the first tests the Newman motor and a 80% efficiency motor >both drove a oil pump. To calculate the work required by the pump, >the 80% motor was driven at 60 rpm and the current drawn measured. >The work done by the pump was calculated as E x I and divided by the >motors stated 80% efficiency. Excellent point, I missed this one while being hung up on the others! >NO physicist would ever measure the work done by the oil pump this >way! No reputable experimental physicist that is. Another recent posting claims Dr. Hastings has changed his opinions after that report. People make mistakes, if Dr. Hastings had publicly recanted this report, then that's fine. We should forgive simple error, we all do it, especially if we want to believe. Dr. Hastings might be a theoretical physist for all we know, and not well versed in AC power measurments. >Could be OK if the efficiency was 80%. In my experience, driving any >conventional DC motor at 60 rpm is asking for problems. Most DC >motors will NOT provide good efficiency at such a low rpm. >The type/model/manuf of the oil pump was not stated. Not good >science. The type/model/manuf of the DC motor was not stated. Makes >it difficult to check the 80% figure, its load/rpm range, etc. Agreed, but we do not know if this was a gear head motor, we can give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Newman, and still easily show that his theory and claims do not stand close examination. >I recently submitted another observation on a demo where a water pump >was used, the Newman motor was run from the mains and it would not >cause a household watt/hour meter to move. In that case the power >drawn was around 5 watts based on the volume of water pumped and I >stated that my own watt/hour meter also wouldn't turn with such a low >load. Also, watt meters are easily fooled by high power factors present in the Newman motor even at moderate demand levels. >3) Mr. Newman I believe has stated that his motor can't turn a >generator and feed the electricity back to drive the motor because of >some effect. Convenient, but to be more exact, if this is true >Mr. Newman you have discovered a new form of electricity. If I were >you, I would chuck the motor in the nearest dump and work on the patent >on this new form of electricity. If we were to assume that some hypothetical device extracted energy from the vacuum, then feeding it's output back into it's input might possibly do something odd to the vacuum polarization and quench the energy extraction process, who knows? As this is outside conventional theory, we cannot say if this is, or is not reasonable. My point being, we can allow the claim that the machine cannot operate in closed loop mode, and still show if it does, or does not meet Mr. Newman's claims. Lets be fair here, Mr. Newman has done a lot of work, and deserves to have it reviewed objectively. It has been stated that there is no difference between the types of power input and output, but that's it's a matter similar to meshing gears. We might then think of something like, say phase being different? The Newman motor, like the MRA, should be studied to show how easy it is to get the wrong conclusions from less than proper testing methods, as an important lesson to us all. Mr. Newman's motor has merit even if it does not have over 100% efficiency. It probably deserves a patent, if reasonable claims were supported by conventional testing methods. >4) It is my belief that the first part of the Hasting's report is at >the very least bad science and at the worst has been designed to >misled. The claim that the "dead" batteries are in fact overcharged has the same effect. If it's a matter of overcharge, then use capacitors rather than batteries! Overcharge simply states that the charge current reached excessive levels, not that the net charge energy is larger than the net discharge energy. It's an issue of rate of charging and how close to full capacity the cell is. Most newer battery technologies such as Ni-MHD and Li-ion are VERY sensitive to this effect, so much so that special electronic protection devices are used to prevent this effect with inductive loads. For this reason, Mr. Soule's rebuttal based on the overcharge condition described by Ray-O-Vac also does not prove the claims made to date. I am directly envolved with testing these battery systems daily. Notice that most new laptop computers will not begin recharging if the battery is above some preset capacity? Guess why? Need the spec sheets to back it up? Mr. Newman's vision of our energy future may be free of telephone poles, but the battery electrolyte delivery truck makes regular stops. The production of batteries is environmentally harmful, and uses more energy than is delivered by the batteries. Why start off whith this inefficiencies by producing batteries to run Newman motors? Surely we cannot be expected to replace the current grid system with a battery based distribution system on a large scale. Use a Newman motor driver from the AC line to drive a generator that runs your house, and then let the power company come in to see why your bill is low. Let them measure the AC power factor and hand you a far larger bill than you would have had before you started out. Think this is just my opinion? ask the power company, or try it and see. Mr. Soule has stated that Mr. Newman is still using huge batteries that are years old. I'm sure this is true, but do these batteries allow for the electrolyte to be replaced, and if so, now many times has he actually changed batteries by adding or replacing electrolyte? And how long should these industrial batteries be expected to last? Also, a battery allowed to "rest" between periods of load will deliver far more total power than the same battery under a constant load condition. >6)This may be a bit heavy but here it goes. >Mr. Newman, are you a fraud or do you have another agenda? Ok, this in my opinion does go too far! I've spoken to Mr. Soule, and I do believe him when he told me he honestly has no issues with the Hastings report. A good many people do not understand how power factors work according to conventional theory, and I do not think that it's Mr. Soule's job to second guess Mr. Newman on these matters. Mr. Soule in my opinion is a good soldier doing his job to the best of his abilities. I'm quite sure that Mr. Newman does believe that his video taped two coil demonstration shows something outside the realm of conventional theory, in that the larger coil reached full field strength in less time than the smaller coil, and this can easily confuse. Sadly, I have shown that this effect has nothing to do with the coils at all, but is due to the current demand placed on the battery by the smaller coil. Mr. Newman failed to measure the simple fact that the magnetic field level is at all times directly related to the current delivered by the battery. Mr. Newman's theory is blown clear out of the water by this one simple measurement. Mr. Newman has been quoted as stating words to the effect that "this is 10,000 times more important than the motor itself". This observation is at the very heart of Mr. Newman's theory. As this demonstration in reality proves that nothing other than conventional effects are present, where is the evidence for Mr. Newman's theory now? Simple, in the Hastings report, which leave Newman Energy Products apparently empty handed. >7)Cut the crap, feed the output back to the input. The world's >waiting for the result with open check books for over unity that >works. Stop selling expensive books to people who want to believe in >your motor. Remember that quite a few checkbooks have already been opened to get Newman Energy Products where it is today. What do the investors have to show for their investments? If the theory is proven wrong by the very experiment used to support it, what have the customers who bought the book gotten for their money? A valuable lesson in objectivity and scientific method? Now place yourself in Mr. Newman's shoes. How easily could you or I accept that all these years of effort were based on misinterpretations and experimental error alone? Would each of us be willing to come to this conclusion and face the investors? Remember, Mr. Newman is self educated in these matters, and should take great pride in this. It will be a real test of intellectual honesty to see if Mr. Newman will stand behind his products and address the problems pointed out in this forum. Mr. Soule drew a line in the sand by bringing up the subject of intellectual honesty. I have "called Mr. Newman out" by pointing out that his theory is disproved by his very own experiments. All my cards are on the table, face up. We will see who is on which side of Mr. Soule's line in the sand. >FEED THE OUTPUT BACK INTO THE INPUT OR GET OFF THE WEB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >Greg Watson, >The buck stops here. >PS. Will wait for the feedback with interest. Closed loop operation should not be mandatory in my opinion, for reasons which may not yet be clear as I have explained. We do not need to ask Mr. Newman to do something he claims not to be able to do to show what he thinks is happening in his tests and videos is not proof of unusual or unconventional theory. To demand this is unfair! Mr. Newman has done a lot of work and fought a hell of a fight. We may think he's got it all wrong, but he deserves to be treated fairly, and with due respect. We can in fact disprove Mr. Newman's basic theory with his very own video taped two coil demonstration. We need not even see his motor to do this. I suggest anyone who bought that video tape to conduct the experiment themselves, and watch the current and voltage delivered to each coil as the magnetic fields reach full strength. Now tell me if you still accept Mr. Newman's word and theory? The believers have grown silent lately. Mr. Newman has apparently not done this, and based his theory on an incorrect assumption of what he thought he saw. I showed this effect to several good engineers who were stumped initially, until I showed the currents delivered over time. Only then did the truth show itself. This is a very misleading test, and can cause a good deal of head scratching unless the currents are watched as the magnetic fields reach full strength. As for the motor, run it off AC power, and measure the phase angle. End of mystery. This should stand as an important lesson to all over unity researchers, as should the MRA. The important issue to me, is that "true believers" must also maintain their scientific objectivity at all times. False claims must be weeded out to establish any credibility for the field as a whole. Unless we do this ourselves, how could we ask any investor to support a similar invention or research in the future? This effects us all, and the field as a whole. This is then a matter of establishing credibility for over unity researchers, and not an attack on Mr. Newman personally. It's got nothing to do with right or wrong, but everything to do with looking for what is true. So far, only two sets of conventional phenomena have fully described all of Mr. Newman's results. Battery electrodynamics explains the "overcharge depletion" and two coil video tape, while phase angles between current and voltage (AC power factors)can explain all the electrical measurments and demonstrations. As far as we can tell, neither of these have been eliminated by Mr. Newman's testing. Occam's razor states we must eliminate any possible known cause before we accept an unknown cause. Has this been done? Not that we can see. Objectivity is not skepticism. Refusal to consider the very real possibility that grave experimental errors and misconceptions have been made is less than intellectually honest, and totally unobjective. If I am in error here, I stand ready to be shown where. Is Mr. Newman so willing? To uphold the concept of intellectual honesty, Mr. Newman and Mr. Soule should stand behind their two coil demonstration, one of their products, for which they have been paid by their customers. An honest revisiting of this fundamental experiment will show that indeed, the king has no clothes. If we simply receive more of the same from Newman Energy Products, and no attempt to address the issues raised here is made, we may then conclude that their presence here is for reasons other than objective science. If that becomes the case, I expect a change in venue would then be in order. The web site mentioned in my earlier post requests submissions of more current materials on Mr. Newman's invention. I think several postings from our archive would make important additions to that site. What will it be Mr. Newman? Mr. Soule? Will you stand behind the product you have already sold or not? Will you objectively consider the possibility of grave errors having been made? Bob Shannon. (On the question of fraud, it would be mandatory to prove that Mr. Newman had "prior knowledge" that his device, testing, or video demonstrations were improper for there to have been fraud as I understand the law. Asking this question is improper and objectionable. If Mr. Newman believes his testing, he is guilty of nothing illegal to my knowledge. We should constrain this exchange to the technical matters at hand alone. The discussion of Mr. Newman's patent application is a different matter, as this is of direct interest to all inventors in this field, IMHO.) From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 10:16:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA13085; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604120417.VAA19211@big.aa.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Clarification of battery results. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 08:26 PM 4/11/96 -0700, you wrote: >It's got nothing to do with right or wrong, but everything to do with >looking for what is true. So far, only two sets of conventional phenomena >have fully described all of Mr. Newman's results. Battery electrodynamics >explains the "overcharge depletion" and two coil video tape, while phase >angles between current and voltage (AC power factors)can explain all the >electrical measurments and demonstrations. As far as we can tell, neither >of these have been eliminated by Mr. Newman's testing. > >Occam's razor states we must eliminate any possible known cause before we >accept an unknown cause. Has this been done? Not that we can see. > >Objectivity is not skepticism. Refusal to consider the very real possibility >that grave experimental errors and misconceptions have been made is less >than intellectually honest, and totally unobjective. If I am in error here, >I stand ready to be shown where. Is Mr. Newman so willing? > >To uphold the concept of intellectual honesty, Mr. Newman and Mr. Soule >should stand behind their two coil demonstration, one of their products, >for which they have been paid by their customers. An honest revisiting of >this fundamental experiment will show that indeed, the king has no clothes. > >If we simply receive more of the same from Newman Energy Products, and >no attempt to address the issues raised here is made, we may then >conclude that their presence here is for reasons other than objective science. >If that becomes the case, I expect a change in venue would then be in order. >The web site mentioned in my earlier post requests submissions of more >current materials on Mr. Newman's invention. I think several postings >from our archive would make important additions to that site. > excellent!!! >What will it be Mr. Newman? Mr. Soule? Will you stand behind the >product you have already sold or not? Will you objectively consider the >possibility of grave errors having been made? > >Bob Shannon. > >(On the question of fraud, it would be mandatory to prove that Mr. Newman >had "prior knowledge" that his device, testing, or video demonstrations were >improper for there to have been fraud as I understand the law. Asking this >question is improper and objectionable. If Mr. Newman believes his testing, he >is guilty of nothing illegal to my knowledge. We should constrain this exchange >to the technical matters at hand alone. The discussion of Mr. Newman's >patent application is a different matter, as this is of direct interest to >all inventors in this field, IMHO.) > Bob: my hat is off to you for an excellent job of analysis committed in the highest manner for a purely community value of honest deliberation and cooperation. There is shortly coming out the woodwork some other highly interesting stuff which I hope you will enjoin. BTW: have you read the "battery doubler" article in the latest Infinite Energy Magazine, the article about Takahashi and his discovery, among others, that a nicad recharged in a strong magnetic field will charge much higher (up to 2.5 times higher), partly because the magnetic field eliminates the "memory" problem? If you haven't you should do so IMMEDIATELY, like drop this email stuff and go do it as it has very important implications to your daily work. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 06:42:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA13722; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604120417.VAA19244@big.aa.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor test results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 03:09 AM 4/11/96 -0700, you wrote: >Reality time, > >After reading and watching the debate on Mr. Newman's motor here is my >input and feelings. > >I am a electronics design engineer with 25 years of practical >experience. > >The Hasting's report doesn't stand on its own! There are several >incorrect statements which without question would NOT have been made by >a physicist. Here are just a few. > snip >5) The talk about the battery voltage is also being used to lead the >discussion away from the main points (power in versus power out). > >6)This may be a bit heavy but here it goes. > >Mr. Newman, are you a fraud or do you have another agenda? > >7)Cut the crap, feed the output back to the input. The world's waiting >for the result with open check books for over unity that works. Stop >selling expensive books to people who want to believe in your motor. > >FEED THE OUTPUT BACK INTO THE INPUT OR GET OFF THE WEB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >Greg Watson, >The buck stops here. > thanks for your commentary...and thanks for your challenge. I suspect you will find yourself in the same impasse with Evan Soule as I did a couple of weeks back...namely, a $10,000 challange in a test of dubious value. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 10:41:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA28731; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316E5455.33EC@UTM.Edu> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mark Mansfield To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [Fwd: Challange and counter challange.] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------342639257FA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr. Shannon is having problems mailing to the freenrg listserver and ask me to forward these messages. --------------342639257FA0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from maildeliver1.tiac.net by unix1.utm.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA45494; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:33:09 -0500 Received: from zork.tiac.net (zork.tiac.net [199.0.65.2]) by maildeliver1.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with ESMTP id WAA10010 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:34:18 -0400 Received: from bshannon.tiac.net (bshannon.tiac.net [206.119.135.211]) by zork.tiac.net (8.6.9/8.6.6.Beta9) with SMTP id WAA18175 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:34:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:34:05 -0400 Message-Id: <199604120234.WAA18175@zork.tiac.net> X-Sender: bshannon@tiac.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: markman@UTM.Edu From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) Subject: Challange and counter challange. X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 >To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com >From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) >Subject: Challange and counter challange. >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >I had challenged Mr. Newman and Mr. Soule to stand behind the two >coils experiment shown on the video tape which has been used as >evidence for the claims for the Newman Energy Machine. > >I received a counter challenge, asking that I arrange for a University >physics department to test Mr. Newman's new, portable demonstration >unit. > >As I am not connected to a university physics department, this is not >practical. Were I a director of such a department, I would test Mr. >Newman's new demonstration unit as there is nothing to fear in >performing reasonable testing. Such a series of tests would be an >invaluable learning experience for students in my opinion. > >Especially if the device works as claimed! If not, finding why not is >an equally valid learning experience. I strongly recommend anyone in >such a position accept Mr. Newman's offer. > >A claim had been made that "The externally applied high voltage is not >"consumed" by the system". > >I had made a critical comment on this: > >>Why then to the batteries run down? Clearly this last statement is >>in error where the facts are concerned, as described by the same test >>results. Anybody else find this significant? > >To which the reply came: > >>To rshannon: > >>The only thing "flawed" is the above writer's ability to understand >>what Joseph Newman has accomplished: namely, an energy technology >>which generates greater external energy (output) than external energy >>(input) in accordance with E=mc(squared). Throughout his book --- >>The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman --- the author has been >>completely intellectually-honest and has demonstrated thirty(+) years >>of "good science." > >>Your statement above: "Why then do(sic) the batteries run down?" is >>typical of one who has NO comprehension of the technical processes >>involved in Joseph Newman's system. Quite the opposite, rshannon: >>his batteries --- when connected to his system DO NOT RUN DOWN! When >>the batteries are connected to a conventional motor they DO INDEED >>run down! Since you have initiated the questioning of my >>intellectual honesty, I also question your level of intellectual >>honesty since it is obvious to me that this level prevents you from >>understanding that, in principle, the system is NO different from >>that of a conventional nuclear reactor. > >This is interesting, as in the Hastings report, we find: > >>The batteries were drained to about 60% of their starting voltage >>after seven (7) hours! Although the input current to the Newman >>Motor follows a complicated waveform, we may estimate the initial >>average input current from the performance curve (fig. 1). >>Using 0.2 amps at 12 volts we find: > >>Initial Newman Motor Input equals 2.4 Watts. > >Clearly in this case, Dr. Hastings is attempting to measure the energy >delivered from the batteries to the Newman device, and the batteries >are being discharged in the process. Voltage is being "consumed" by >the very test reports used to support the claims. > >From a web site: > >>I have done about 3 to 4 years of studying the Newman machines at our >>University and rebuilded 2 different Newman machines myself and got >>simular results as Newman described in his book. > >>But the Battery pack every time discharged after a while... > >>Mine did discharge after a few hours of running time ! > >Clearly there is a difference of opinion here, and there has also been >University testing performed already, as well as NBS and other testing >which is disputed by Mr. Newman, much as Dr. Hastings supportive >report has drawn critical reviews. > >I personally have no direct experience with a Newman machine, but I do >have experience as a test engineer. I cannot fairly say Mr. Newman's >machine works as claimed or does not, but I can say that the >measurement methods used are improper in my opinion. As these results >are inconclusive, they do not prove the truth to be one way or the >other in all fairness. > >I have personally tested a version of Mr. Newman's two coil >demonstration both with batteries and a regulated power supply, and a >commercial Gaussmeter. > >No effects other than the conventional ampere turns law presented >itself. The video taped test as described is misleading, and >apparently does not support Mr. Newman's theory or claims. > >Rather than muddy the waters with additional testing by a University >physics department (which I just don't happen to have handy), why not >stand by the video taped demonstration? People have paid money for >this video tape. What did they get for that price? > >Let me assure Mr. Newman and Mr. Soule that I do understand the >difference in production efficiency and conversion efficiency, and >that the theory is that copper atoms are consumed, and account for >the claimed excess energy. > >Fine, a compelling theory. It's the evidence for this production >efficiency, and the evidence being sold used to support Mr. Newman's >theory that is in question. > >Clearly, I do not stand alone in pointing out problems with the >testing so far. Convince me that the two coil video demonstration >is proper, and I'll stand by it 'till doomsday, and this goes for the >rest of the claims and theories. > >On the other hand, if you do not stand by your product, don't expect >me to accept what it shows as being proven. > --------------342639257FA0-- From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 10:42:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA29298; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:53:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:53:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316E5495.1428@UTM.Edu> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mark Mansfield To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [Fwd: Newman's two coil test, and measurment methods.] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------6BB4C066A02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr. Shannon is having problems posting to the freenrg listserver and asked me to forward these. --------------6BB4C066A02 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mailserver3.tiac.net by unix1.utm.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA45025; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:34:02 -0500 Received: from zork.tiac.net (zork.tiac.net [199.0.65.2]) by mailserver3.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with ESMTP id WAA01743 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:35:11 -0400 Received: from bshannon.tiac.net (bshannon.tiac.net [206.119.135.211]) by zork.tiac.net (8.6.9/8.6.6.Beta9) with SMTP id WAA18198 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:34:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:34:57 -0400 Message-Id: <199604120234.WAA18198@zork.tiac.net> X-Sender: bshannon@tiac.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: markman@UTM.Edu From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) Subject: Newman's two coil test, and measurment methods. X-Mozilla-Status: 0000 >To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com >From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) >Subject: Newman's two coil test, and measurment methods. >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >Mr. Soule, > >Thank you for your time Tuesday evening. I found our conversation to >be very productive. > >On the subject of the "two coil" videotaped demonstration: > >I claimed that this test does not support Mr. Newman's theory, and >that nothing other than the conventional ampere turns law is shown. > >You responded with the observation that the time to reach maximum >magnetic field strength was shorter for the larger coil than it was >for the smaller one. > >Unfortunately this effect has nothing to do with the coils. I was >able to reproduce this effect using purely resistive loads. >I conducted a few basic tests with the following results: > >The smaller coil draws a higher current than the batteries used can >easily supply. In this case, the voltage delivered drops, and >maximum current is not delivered until several seconds have passed. > >This is the normal performance of the batteries used. This effect can >be observed with resistors alone, as it is greater than the effects of >the higher inductance of the larger coil. If Mr.. Newman repeats this >same test with several pairs of batteries in parallel, to supply a >higher initial current to the larger coil, he will find that the time >to maximum magnetic field levels is much shorter. > >With the larger coil, the maximum delivered power is reached sooner >than it is in the case of the smaller coil. > >The differences in the magnitude of the magnetic fields at full >strength is due only to the ampere turns law alone. > >If both current and voltage are measured while the fields reach their >maximum values, it is clear that Mr. Newman's claimed effect does not >exist. Nothing beyond the bounds of conventional theory are shown in >this demonstration, and the support for Mr. Newman's theory is not >present. > >The time to maximum delivered power from the batteries fully accounts >for the difference in time to maximum magnetic field strength. The >fact that two inductors of differing masses exhibit identical >electrical performance also is at direct odds with Mr. Newman's >theory. > >I hope this underlines the concerns many have with the testing methods >used to support the claims of over 100% efficiency for the Newman >invention. It should also serve to show why batteries can make >accurate measurements much harder to make. > >In cases where AC power is used to drive the Newman motor, no >measurements of AC power factors have been made. It is known from >other University testing that the power factor, or phase angle between >current and voltage is very high in the Newman device. > >AC power meters will not read the true wattage used under these >conditions. With the power factor of the Newman motor, the watt meter >will read artificially low. > >RF wattmeters also will give incorrect readings where high power >factors are involved. Current transformers will incorrectly measure >current if the waveform is not a sine wave, again as in the case of >the Newman device. > >Tests such as those at the Lucedale park cannot be taken to show that >the power delivered by the Newman device is larger than that consumed >due to these factors. > >This issue had been raised before, but apparently never addressed. > >As an example, a accurate measurement of 100 volts at 10 amps might >actually represent a true wattage of anywhere between 10 and 1,000 >watts depending on the phase angle between current and voltage. > >By design, the Newman motor renders most power measurements invalid. > >This power factor effect is also present when the Newman device is >powered by batteries. for this reason, the testing by Dr. Hastings >is incorrectly done. The power factors were not addressed, and the >wattage calculations do not reflect the true performance of the Newman >device. > >In out phone conversation, I made reference to the MRA, another >claimed over 100% efficient machine. When the power factors of the >MRA are accounted form the claimed efficiency drops to well under >100%. If these are not accounted for, the MRA can appear to have >nearly the same levels of efficiency as the Newman device claims. > >In no case does the power factor represent excess power we can deliver >to a load. > >The similarities between the claims for the MRA and the Newman motor, >and the common error of not addressing the actual power factors in >each case strongly suggest that the Newman motor does not in reality >deliver higher output power than is input. > >Every effort should be made to eliminate both AC power factors and the >at times odd behaviors of batteries from Mr. Newman's claims. > >I understand you have no issues with the testing performed by Dr. >Hastings, and accept it as evidence that the Newman invention does >deliver higher output power than is input. > >Your recent post on what defines over unity operation sheds light on >an issue that may be more than only semantic: > >I described a nuclear plant as not being over unity in that we can >account for the output power levels with the mass lost in the nuclear >fuel. I understand the theory that copper atoms are converted into >electrical power, and the confusion created when the Newman device is >"attacked" as not being over unity. > >As a critical comment, "over unity" describes concerns that the >measured output power level is not in fact greater than the input >power due to measurement errors such as are described above. > >It's not that we do not understand Mr. Newman's theory of converting >copper to electricity, it's a matter of the evidence used to support >that claim, and the demonstrations of the effect Mr. Newman describes >as in the two coils video tape demonstration. > >Again, if I may be of any service in helping to eliminate the >perception that the Newman device shares the same faults as the MRA, >(oddly enough, the MRA also could not run itself, just as is the case >for the Newman device) please do not hesitate to ask. I hope you now >can see the nature of the concerns rasied by the tests results posted >to date, and why these tests cannot be claimed as conclusive proof of >Mr. Newman's claims, yet. > --------------6BB4C066A02-- From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Fri Apr 12 08:09:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA29788; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316E54D1.2A26@UTM.Edu> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mark Mansfield To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [Fwd: Re: superconducting motor?] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------5F53B94A4D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr. Shannon is having problems posting to the freenrg listserver and asked me to post these for him. --------------5F53B94A4D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mailserver3.tiac.net by unix1.utm.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA40709; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:34:45 -0500 Received: from zork.tiac.net (zork.tiac.net [199.0.65.2]) by mailserver3.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with ESMTP id WAA01829 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:35:56 -0400 Received: from bshannon.tiac.net (bshannon.tiac.net [206.119.135.211]) by zork.tiac.net (8.6.9/8.6.6.Beta9) with SMTP id WAA18215 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:35:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:35:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199604120235.WAA18215@zork.tiac.net> X-Sender: bshannon@tiac.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: markman@UTM.Edu From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) Subject: Re: superconducting motor? X-Mozilla-Status: 0000 >To: freenrg-l@mail.eskimo.com >From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) >Subject: Re: superconducting motor? >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >>Thank you for submitting the above information to the Forum. >>Evan Soule > >>I've faxed a copy of the above to Joseph Newman. His response.... > >>"(Conventional) electric motors are already scientifically noted to >>be 90% efficient...and some approach 100% efficiency. The above >>statement '...have developed and demonstrated a super-efficient >>200-horsepower...' implies that this new electric motor is over 100% >>efficiency! If this be the case, then this is definitely, once >>again, theft of my work. In addition, superconductivity (as it >>relates to my technology) is covered in my book and patents. > >>Reliance Electric knows all about my work and has spoken against it >>in the past. > >A superconducting electrical motor would have high currents, and low >voltage, as is not possible to have a high voltage across a zero >resistance. > >We can however have a large magnetic field which takes no input power >to maintain, unlike the Newman technology. > >This is the diametrical opposite of Mr. Newman's work, and hence, I >cannot see how this claim can be made in good faith by Mr. Newman. > >Also, as Mr. Newman holds no US patent, and his Mexican patent is not >enforceable under NAFTA, he cannot claim this work as his own in court >within the context of any infringements of his intellectual property >by Reliance Electric, even if the device was similar. > >Mr. Newman has no valid claim to any electrical motor design of high >efficiency as he seems to believe. > >Is Mr. Newman going to ask his investors to bare the costs of another >round of lawsuits to try and gain validation of his claims? > >Evan Soule added: > >>P.S. It is possible that these companies are using the words "high- >>temperature superconducting (HTS) electric motor" as a euphemism for >>the technology Joseph Newman has developed over the past 30 years. > >No sir, I cannot see that being the case due to the diametrical technical >philosophies between a zero voltage, zero resistance superconductor, and >Mr. Newman's high voltage, low current, high reactance coils. Such a claim >would appear to be unfounded. > > > --------------5F53B94A4D-- From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 10:15:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA00887; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316E555F.3034@UTM.Edu> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mark Mansfield To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [Fwd: Web site for Newman info.] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------DBBA68487F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr. Shannon is having problems posting to the freenrg listserver and asked me to post these for him. --------------DBBA68487F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from maildeliver1.tiac.net by unix1.utm.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA21203; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:33:45 -0500 Received: from zork.tiac.net (zork.tiac.net [199.0.65.2]) by maildeliver1.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with ESMTP id WAA10096 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:34:51 -0400 Received: from bshannon.tiac.net (bshannon.tiac.net [206.119.135.211]) by zork.tiac.net (8.6.9/8.6.6.Beta9) with SMTP id WAA18191 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:34:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:34:39 -0400 Message-Id: <199604120234.WAA18191@zork.tiac.net> X-Sender: bshannon@tiac.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: markman@UTM.Edu From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) Subject: Web site for Newman info. X-Mozilla-Status: 0000 >To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com >From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) >Subject: Web site for Newman info. >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >A wealth of good information on Mr. Newman's invention can be >found at: > >http://www.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum/web/physics/JosephNewman/ >newman.start.html > >This web site has statements both for and against Mr. Newman's >claims. Anyone interested in Mr. Newman's device, or the free >energy field in general should visit this site. Specifically >interesting to the recent exchange here is: > >http://www.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum/web/physics/JosephNewman/ >newman.court.file > >In this document it is entered into evidence that power is >in fact consumed in the input circuit of the Newman device. > >I do not see how to easily reconcile this with Mr. Soule's >recent statements on this matter. The recent statement that the >batteries driving the Newman machine do not run down is at >direct odds with the statements entered into evidence. > >Another interesting similarity to the MRA is also found here, >in that one objection to the NBS testing procedures is that >the device was grounded. Mr. Bearden makes a similar claim >with respect to the MRA in "Chasing the Wild Dragon". > >Does anyone have a theory as to why grounding a claimed over >unity device will prevent over unity operation, or effect >the measured efficiency? Why is this missing from Mr. Newman's >patent application? > >There are a number of reasons for such grounding in conventional >measurements, but what special effects preclude such grounding in >the case of the Newman device? > >I've already been branded as a being a skeptic just for taking >issue with the test methods used to measure the 800% efficiency >claim. For a "skeptic", I'm oddly willing to be convinced that >these measurements are valid, while those made by the NBS were >not if presented with a reasonable theory as to why this might >be the case. > >I'd love to be wrong here. Can someone please clear this up? > > > > > > --------------DBBA68487F-- From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 07:24:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA02603; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Dr. Hasting's Newman test reports X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >To clear up the debate I post this very interesting Test report of >Dr. Hasting. >I would like to know, if Dr. Hasting still nowadays stand behind >Mr. Newman and if he still stands behind this text he has written a few years >ago. Reply to Stefan: I recently spoke with Dr. Hastings and forwarded to him via FAX news and reports about Joe's most recent developments and improvements concerning his energy machine technology. Dr. Hastings was very interested in knowing of such developments. Dr. Hastings conducted extensive testing of the earlier and especially larger Newman Motor/Generator prototypes during the early 1980s. In earlier years, Dr. Hastings' address and telephone number was published EVERYWHERE...in all news releases, distributed data, everywhere....Roger really "put his reputation on the line" when he went public with his support of Joe...and Joe really respects and admires Roger for so doing. Two things happened to Dr. Hastings as a result of the publicity: 1) He was literally DELUGED with constant telephone calls, faxes, letters, even telegrams! This began to interfer with his ability to do his work to earn a living to support his family. 2) In addition, he began to get "subtle hints" that the people at his company were either a) not too pleased with all the attention he was getting and/or b) really wanted him to "cool it" if he was going to continue as a Principal Research Physicist with the Corporation. I have been keeping Roger up-to-date with occasional faxes re developments with the technology and interesting news, etc. Beyond this, Joe (and Roger) wishes to protect the privacy of Dr. Hastings until such time (and I hope it is not too far in the future) when Joe may be in a position to "bring Dr. Hastings on board" in a Consultant-to-Production mode. Sincerely, Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70130 Joseph Newman's telephone/address: (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 06:55:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA03052; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor test results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The following was posted by Greg Watson on freenrg-leskimo.com: >Mr. Newman, are you a fraud or do you have another agenda? > >7)Cut the crap, feed the output back to the input. The world's waiting >for the result with open check books for over unity that works. Stop >selling expensive books to people who want to believe in your motor. > >FEED THE OUTPUT BACK INTO THE INPUT OR GET OFF THE WEB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >Greg Watson, >The buck stops here. > >PS. Will wait for the feedback with interest. _________________________________________________ This is my feedback on the above posting by Greg Watson: I am sincerely asking William Beaty to request an apology from Greg Watson for the above contentious statements. I don't appreciate Joseph Newman being questioned as a "fraud" or as having "another agenda." I don't appreciate Greg Watson referring to the information I have presented on this Forum as "crap." I don't appreciate Greg Watson telling me to "get off the web." Note: To you, Greg Watson, Joseph Newman's book may seem expensive. Many others have stated that is "underpriced" for the knowledge it contains. The price of the book is a purely subjective opinion either way and has no applicability to the discussion. I believe that Greg Watson's above post has violated Rule One of this Forum and I hope that the host will request an apology from Mr. Watson. Very sincerely, Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70130 Joseph Newman's telephone/address: (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 08:10:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA10368; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "Over-Unity": What is it? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:42:06 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 From: pgb@padrak.com (Patrick Bailey) Subject: Re: "Over-Unity": What is it? My contribution: The definition of "over-unity" depends entirely on where you draw the circle around the device that you are considering. If the circle is small enough, the device is obviously and without question "over-unity", and energy may appear to not be conserved. Actually, it is. When you draw the circle large enough, then energy is seen to be obviously conserved. A good example is that of putting new batteries into a flashlight. To someone in the 17th Century, this would be an "over-unity" device and a "perpetual motion" machine! Light comes from nothing!!! Energy from nothing!!! It lasts for days and days, etc. By drawing the circle around the flashlight and the batteries, we see that energy is NOT conserved, and that the flashlight is a "free-energy" machine (just like a car) - until it runs down. Then it needs to be recharged. Ah hah! Drawing a circle around the formation of the flashlight and of the batteries, we see that energy IS conserved, and that the potential energy generated by putting dissimilar metals together causes the voltage potential that creates the energy to power the light bulb. The whole process, is actually way "under-unity", as it takes energy to create the batteries and the flashlight. "God" or some other force was responsible for making those chemicals first. The same argument applies to Hoover Dam, where we are obviously getting more energy out than any humans put in, due to the weather patterns and rain and snow filling Lake Mead. Draw a circle around the Dam itself, and you have a free-energy device and a perpetual motion machine. No question on that! Draw a circle around the Earth and Sun and you have conservation of energy. Where the energy of the Sun came from is quite another question... There are LOTS of potential energy sources around here on the Earth's physical plane. The process occurring in "cold fusion" is the latest new one that is investigated right now. Let's uncover some other ones as well. Stop bickering about things and DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE! BE RESPONSIBLE! GOETH FOR IT!!! Dr. Patrick Bailey President, Institute for New Energy www.padrak.com/ine/ April 1996. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 06:16:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA11154; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316E13B9.7AEE@introtech.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Henry Eisenson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor test results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I've been lurking for some time, following this issue. Simply put, I have or can assemble all the necessary resources to do a complete and impartial test (though my emotional bias is toward success just as I'd love to believe in life after death). My background or immediate resources include skills and apparatus in electronics (RF but not digital), physics, cryo (nmr spectroscopy, at least), mechanical engineering, instrumentation... There must, however, be at least hundreds of people with similar arrays of skills and facilities -- many more qualified than I am. Why not submit this whole argument to such a facility? The evaluation would be underwritten by contribution (me, for one) and the facility selected by an agreed-upon committee picked from this list. Henry Eisenson Introtech San Diego, CA (619) 453-7600 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 10:10:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA21215; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604122214.PAA04418@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor test results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 4/12/96 Dear Mr. Soule and Mr. Newman, I rise to Mr. Watson's defense. While Mr. Watson's comments may be a little inartfully worded, never the less, his sentiments are well taken. Multiple posters have questioned your test results and the appropriateness of your testing. There have been many generous offers to assist you in genuine testing and the errors in your current testing have been pointed out. To this date you have evaded all reasonable requests and offers to do genuine meaningful testing. At this point, you are publicly on notice that your devices may not function as claimed. Whether this was pointed out to you and you had prior knowledge is open to debate. If you did have prior knowledge that your machines may not function as claimed and you intentionally sold them or part of your company, then fraud may indeed be an issue. To his credit Mr. Watson had the fortitude to broach the subject. It will be to your credit to end any unfounded speculation. I suggest that you step forward, in the light of day, and answer all questions about you claims and devices in a straight forward and intellectually honest manner (you raised this issue). Unfortunately for this list, until you do the specter of hidden agendas and even fraud exists. Nature makes all the rules. No one on this list, including you, does. But, we must all inexorably follow them. Newman's rules included. Do not allow this to become another round of pathologic science. If I may do any reasonable thing for you, please let me know. There are multiple friends on this list that will voluntarily assist you. The offers are here. We are all anxious to see you succeed. Sincerely, RWW You wrote: >Mr. Newman, are you a fraud or do you have another agenda? > >7)Cut the crap, feed the output back to the input. The world's waiting >for the result with open check books for over unity that works. Stop >selling expensive books to people who want to believe in your motor. > >FEED THE OUTPUT BACK INTO THE INPUT OR GET OFF THE WEB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >Greg Watson, >The buck stops here. > >PS. Will wait for the feedback with interest. _________________________________________________ This is my feedback on the above posting by Greg Watson: I am sincerely asking William Beaty to request an apology from Greg Watson for the above contentious statements. I don't appreciate Joseph Newman being questioned as a "fraud" or as having "another agenda." I don't appreciate Greg Watson referring to the information I have presented on this Forum as "crap." I don't appreciate Greg Watson telling me to "get off the web." Note: To you, Greg Watson, Joseph Newman's book may seem expensive. Many others have stated that is "underpriced" for the knowledge it contains. The price of the book is a purely subjective opinion either way and has no applicability to the discussion. I believe that Greg Watson's above post has violated Rule One of this Forum and I hope that the host will request an apology from Mr. Watson. Very sincerely, Evan Soule From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 06:41:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA09931; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316ECEB8.1282@bigbear.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Doyle P. Henderson" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "Over-Unity": What is it? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > > Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:42:06 -0700 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > From: pgb@padrak.com (Patrick Bailey) > Subject: Re: "Over-Unity": What is it? > > My contribution: > > The definition of "over-unity" depends entirely on where you draw the > circle around the device that you are considering. If the circle is small > enough, the device is obviously and without question "over-unity", and > energy may appear to not be conserved. Actually, it is. When you draw the > circle large enough, then energy is seen to be obviously conserved. > > Dr. Patrick Bailey > President, Institute for New Energy > www.padrak.com/ine/ > April 1996. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ One bystander's reply Thank you Dr. Bailey.... Your analogies helped clear up some of my confusion about such concepts. And, while I'm sending, and it's only my opinion, I thank Mr. Neuman for his innovative ideas and all the effort he's put forth to do something really interesting instead of closing his mind to what most people think is impossible. Hey, maybe he's got something! Those of you who can do it, help him prove he's right-- if you can! There are already enough skeptics ready to shoot him and every other innovator in the world down in flames. Isn't this list supposed to be devoted to the support of ideas which conflict with current knowledge? Most sincerely, Doyle Henderson. E-mail: panacea@bigbear.net ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 06:20:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA19609; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316f0aa1.11013835@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor/Generator X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:13:06 -0700 (PDT), Evan Soule wrote: [snip] >As to "CLOSING THE LOOP" -- this statement demonstrates how some do not >understand the nature of this technology. Joseph Newman explicitly >describes why one cannot "simply feed the generated, outpu current back >into itself, eliminating the need for an input battery" on pages 58-59 of >his book. > >Sincerely, > >Evan Soule >josephnewman@earthlink.net >__________________________________ Evan, Speaking only for myself, I might be much more inclined to buy this book, if at least some form of explanation were published on this forum. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 06:42:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA20244; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316f0b79.11229526@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Regarding Tesla X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 10 Apr 1996 02:31:10 -0700 (PDT), Doyle P. Henderson wrote: [snip] >1. In Australia there is a very deep vertical hole that the > National Security Admin. has funded and which has equipment > allegedly for the transmission of electrical energy... not > communications... to power non-nuclear military submarines > trailing long "antennae." It is alleged that nuclear > reactors are now detectable from space satellites. There > has also been speculation that the ozone layer depletions > over Antarctica are related to the use of this Australian > hole/equipment. Pretty wild, eh? [snip] For you, Australia may be comfortably far away, and "foreign", therefore one might easily assume that anything can happen there. However I live in Australia, and this is the first I have heard of anything even remotely resembling the above. There are however a number of installations used to communicate with submarines via long wave radio. Please find out more if possible. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 05:51:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA28957; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 22:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 22:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <316EC86A.37E7@introtech.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Henry Eisenson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor test results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: If Mr. Newman's Soule objective is to sell the book, then the current strategy is perfect. If, on the other hand, Newman's technology can actually be made to work as described here, then the optimum strategy is total disclosure. Just as the absence of barking solved one of Mr. Holmes' interesting cases, the absence of data solves this one. Henry Eisenson San Diego From harti@bbtt.de Sat Apr 13 02:27:10 1996 Received: from ns.bbtt.com (ns.bbtt.com [194.77.35.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA00684 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 02:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (harti.bbtt.com [194.77.35.75]) by ns.bbtt.com (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA06140; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 11:26:13 +0200 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 11:26:13 +0200 Message-Id: <199604130926.LAA06140@ns.bbtt.com> X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Why it is hard to close the loop ! Cc: bshannon@tiac.net, josephnewman@earthlink.com, ralph.hartwell@emachine.com Status: RO X-Status: >>As seen above, a number of properties of the Newman Motor follow=20 >>conventional theory. In specific, the input power is as expected. =20 >>The output power (in excess of input) is the non-conventional result.=20 >>In my mind, the most interesting motor measurement is the=20 >>oscillograph photos taken around the coil showing very high voltages.=20 >>This photo also shows the (to me amazing) fact that the coil current=20 >>is over three times the current at the battery when the voltage is=20 >>applied. > =20 >While no mention is made of how the signals observed on the=20 >oscilloscope were collected, we might conclude that the high voltages=20 >observed are due to the large inductance of the Newman coil, and=20 >changes in the current through that coil. Well, I have studied the Newman machines for a few years at our university and did build a few units myself. These high voltage spikes occur, when the coil=B4s polarity is switched by= =20 the commutator when the magnet rotor inside the coil reaches its top point. A Newman motor is wired and acts like a normal DC motor. The commutator just switches the current polarity inside the coil after 180 degrees of= rotation of the magnet. When this polarity switching occurrs, there is a huge back current spike going back to the battery and this lasts about a few milliseconds. This current also flows inside the coil, so it is heating the wire. At this time also candescent light bulbs blink bright, which are connected in series with the battery and the coil, so only at this moment the voltage of the= coil is much higher than the battery voltage and current is flowing back from the coil=20 to the battery and is recharging it. If you calculate the powerarea of this current spike via an integration of the area versus the area of the normal input current you will see, that the back current spike has a lot more energy over this short time span than the energy put into the coil over the remaining time span. At least this seem to happen in the very big first motor of Mr. Newman. In my small motors there have been some back current pulses, but they have= been much smaller and did not have these huge back power, so the electrical input into my motors was always bigger than the back pulse energy. I also believe, that only the bigger Newman motors might have an overunity effect, when you compare these output energies versus the electrical Input energy which is: Back pulse energy, plus heat energy generated inside the coil, plus=20 mechanical energy due to the rotating magnet, plus Light energy from neon tubes from the High Voltage RF spikes, when the commutator switches, plus arcing energy, due to the mechanical commutator versus electrical input energy If the partial energy outputs of the Newman motors are each only e.g. 60 %, so 6 x 60 % =3D 360 % total efficiency, it is still hard to build a CLOSED LOOP system, cause each useful output is only 60 %. So you could not just use the mechanical output to=20 power it itself and you also could not just use the electrical back current pulse to power it itself... But the whole system efficiency could be higher than 100 %, so only a calorimeter test could prove the total overunity effect or the mechanical plus the back pulse energy must be combined to get the loop closed and get it selfrunning ! If I ever will be again in Lucedale, Mississipi, I would like to test the first big machine of Mr. Newman to see these big back pulses myself. When I visited Mr. Newman in 1987 for only about 3 hours,=20 I only had the chance to look at his FAN motor. regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service =20 Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 06:03:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA26157; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 09:01:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 09:01:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604131430.HAA21955@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Why it is hard to close the loop ! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: . . . snip . . . >If you calculate the powerarea of this current spike via an >integration of the area versus the area of the normal input current >you will see, that the back current spike has a lot more energy over >this short time span than the energy put into the coil over the >remaining time span. . . . snip . . . >regards, Stefan. Please provide your calculations and results of this "powerarea" current spike. Did you take into account the power factor? Sincerely, RWW From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 09:19:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA11909; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 23:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 23:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604140458.XAA29160@firefly.prairienet.org> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Scalar detector X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi, Bill B. modified the WWW page so the graphics files for Bob Shannon's scalar detector article are downloadable for any of us who can't get graphics. (Prairienet, for one, uses LYNX as its web browser, which doesn't display graphics.) Thanks Bill! Zack w9sz@prairienet.org From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 14 15:03:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA20588; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 08:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 08:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604141511.KAA03037@mail.phoenix.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rumgod@phoenix.net (A J Interests, Inc) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: The Newman Machine... plans? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I agree with, I want to build "working" demo for myself, but I have been burned by others who just want to sell a book. If I could build a small working model then I wouldnt hesitate to buy the book. I did go to one of Newmans demos in New Orleans(at the superdome) back in '83 or '84 can remember exactly but I was turned off because he wasn't present and the working models were not the "big motor" I was led to believe would be there, also there was just a lot of photos and newspaper clips, alot of hype to get money. I really wanted to see a bit more but it was just a "seminar" to get up some money for Newman. So I'm still kind of apprehensive about buying anything from him yet. At the same time I really want to believe it could work and would like to be involved in working with it. Oh well, I'll keep lurking here until a plan or schematic for it shows up.... then I WILL know..... > >Are there any *free* plans for the Newman Machine? Seems like they'd lay >to rest alot of the debate... all I've seen so far are a bunch of >claims that seem to be aimed at selling a (fairly expensive) book. >How about the simplest possible circuit for a newman machine? > > --Zachary > > From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 03:21:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA28227; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604141939.VAA08493@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: The Newman Machine... plans? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 08:57 14.04.1996 -0700, A J Interests, Inc wrote: >I agree with, I want to build "working" demo for myself, but I have been burned >by others who just want to sell a book. If I could build a small working >model then I wouldnt hesitate to buy the book. I did go to one of Newmans >demos in New Orleans(at the superdome) back in '83 or '84 can remember exactly >but I was turned off because he wasn't present and the working models were not >the "big motor" I was led to believe would be there, also there was just a lot >of photos and newspaper clips, alot of hype to get money. I really wanted to >see >a bit more but it was just a "seminar" to get up some money for Newman. So I'm >still kind of apprehensive about buying anything from him yet. At the same >time I >really want to believe it could work and would like to be involved in >working with it. >Oh well, I'll keep lurking here until a plan or schematic for it shows up.... >then I WILL know..... > > >> >>Are there any *free* plans for the Newman Machine? Seems like they'd lay >>to rest alot of the debate... all I've seen so far are a bunch of >>claims that seem to be aimed at selling a (fairly expensive) book. >>How about the simplest possible circuit for a newman machine? >> >> --Zachary >> I will see, if I can already pot a GIF pic of the Newman machine circuit diagram which I have used in my study work at the university a few years ago. I still have to convert all the pics from my Atari ST disks to IBM type DOS format though, as this was written on the Atari ST computer a few years ago... Regards, Stefan. >> > > > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 03:23:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA28922; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: The Newman Machine... plans? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Are there any *free* plans for the Newman Machine? Seems like they'd lay >to rest alot of the debate... all I've seen so far are a bunch of >claims that seem to be aimed at selling a (fairly expensive) book. >How about the simplest possible circuit for a newman machine? > > --Zachary Dear Zachary: I know your question is an honest question so I am NOT "making fun" of you or your question. I guess that my initial response is somewhat rhetorical in nature: "If I were to be sarcastic I would say, 'sure, why not? Let's send the "free" plans. A human being spends thirty years of his life developing a new technology that will ultimately benefit everyone long after he (the inventor) is dead....certainly he should "give away" everything that he has worked for....this surely would help foster the incentive of the *next* inventor." But since I will not be sarcastic [although somewhat bitter (even though history shows that the historical expectation of something-for-nothing to be quite the normal treatment for innovators)].....I will state that we have just completed a Wiring/Construction Diagram for one of the most recent Commutator Designs for the Newman Motor/Generator. This Diagram is available to any truly curious/rational individual* wishing to send a SASE to: Evan Soule Post Office Box 57684 New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 *I say this because I honestly ask that only people --- who are truly curious about the technology and who may be sincerely interested in building a prototype for themselves --- should respond. Thanks! Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 03:11:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA29393; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Special Report, Part A. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A >You wrote: >> >>The Emerging Technology of Joseph Newman --- The SPECIAL REPORT, Part >>A. >> > >. . . large snip . . . > >This is indeed a fine article Mr. Newman. You may put an end to this >unending controversy very simply and quickly. CLOSE THE LOOP. Until >then your O/U claims will be suspect and considered invalid. > >Sincerely, > >Richard Wall Dear Richard: Joseph Newman has never claimed that his technology was either "free energy" or "over-unity" ...... whatever over-unity REALLY means, since there seems to be a wide variety of opinion on this subject. As to the question of "closing the loop,": To my knowledge (at this time in our understanding of the universe) to make the innovation "power itself" would represent "perpetual motion" --- and Joseph Newman has never claimed to have a device which is "perpetual motion." This should be clear from a reading of his book. And I quote from page 58, Section 21, of The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman: "There are those individuals who will ask the question: "Why can't one simply feed the generated, output current back into itself, eliminating the need for an input battery? The answer is simple: The energy involved in the system (consisting of gyroscopic particles) is composed of real, mechanical entities which will work against themselves [as would unaligned gears] just as readily as they will work together in utilizing or generating power." Sincerely Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 04:06:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA29784; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: The Newman Motor/Generator X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: from rshannon: > Fine, a compelling theory. It's the evidence for this production > efficiency, and the evidence being sold used to support Mr. Newman's > theory that is in question. > > Clearly, I do not stand alone in pointing out problems with the > testing so far. Convince me that the two coil video demonstration > is proper, and I'll stand by it 'till doomsday, and this goes for the > rest of the claims and theories. ____________________________________________ As Joseph Newman states: "I will now pressent an explanation for a working invention which utilizes the energy within magnetic fields and produces more energy than is introduced into the system from an external energy input. Do not at this point reflect poorly upon yourself and blindly state "perpetual motion." Simply put, the technological process which I will discuss converts mass into energy on a 100% conversion process via E=mc^2. I believe it is imperative to reiterate that the energy in any magnetic field is the energy which composes the elements of the atoms and is literally Einstein's Equation of E=mc^2. Such energy in the form of gyroscopic particles is the basic building block of all matter and provides the basis for the conceptual inferface between energy and matter. The following facts will clearly demonstrate a fundamental understanding which prepares the reader for a more thorough comprehension of how one technological embodiment of this Pioneering Invention can be build. The prior teachings indicate that copper is non-magnetic and that the resulting magnetic field associated with current flow in copper is the result of the current. Those teachings are totally wrong. Copper is extremely magnetic! It is so magnetic that it deceives the observer. See Figures 14-B1/14-B2. Turn the current on as in Figure 14-B1 and a magnetic field will occur very quickly. Then turn the current off as in Figure 14-B2 and the magnetic field very quickly disappears with no remnant of the magnetic field observed in the copper material. If one then places a magnet close to the copper, it is not observed to be noticeably magnetic. Therefore, one is easily deceived since conventional, so-called magnetic materials generate a different result. See Figures 14-B3/14-B4. By placing an iron core within a copper coil (as in Figure 14-B3) and turning the current on, a significantly stronger magnetic field will be generated than in Figure 14-B1 [for the same energy input]. Now, turn off the current as in Figure 14-B4 and there will be a small, remnant magnetic field surrounding the iron core. If a magnet is palced near the iron core, the magnet will be visibly affected. However, one is easily deceived by these tests and can be mislead into believeing that copper is non-magnetic. This is exactly what happened to Hans Christian Oersted in 1820 when he first discovered than an electric current produced a magnetic field which would cause a magnet to align at right angles to the conducting wire. Oersted noted that the deflection of the magnet lasted only as long as the current was flowing through the conducting wire and hence, such magnetic action could not be caused by the (copper) wire, but must be a result of the current itself. This same incorrect conclusion is still rigidly taught to this day. The following facts will clearly prove that copper is highly magnetic relative to the speed of atom alignment/unalignment as well as the action/reaction effect of the energy release (in the form of gyroscopic particles previously discussed) fromt he atoms comprising the copper wire! What the Prior Art teaches: Hypothetically, if one imposes current into a (copper*) conductor coil of pure inductasnce, the same current woudl be returned as that which was initially placed into the (copper*) conducting coil. See Figures 14-C1 and 14-C2. _____________________ *This process is in no way limited to copper. Actually, one can utilize any suitable materials for conducting, e.g., super-conducting materials such as niobium tin, etc. _____________________ Physically speaking, this simply means that the energy contained within the magnetic field --- when generated by positive ( + ) current flow in one direction --- is returned by the collapsing magnetic field as negative ( - ) current flow when the current reverses direction. The Prior Art also teaches Kirchhoff's Law which states: the same amount of current placed into a system (as a copper conductor) for a given instant of time has the same amount of current flowing from that system (copper conductor) for the same given-instant of time. (See Figure 14-D.) The above facts of 14C and 14D totally contradict the prior teaching that the magnetic field generated by the current flowing in a (copper) conductor is solely a result of the current itself and that copper is non-magnetic. The facts demonstrate the following: 14C above shows that if one inputs a given amount of current (X) into a copper coil during a given-instant of time then, as described in 14D above, the same amount of current (X) outputs from the copper coil during the same instant of time. In addition 14C above also shows that if the current is then cut off and the coil shorted with meters in the line, then the same amount of current (X) will now come from the copper coil. The facts therefore demonstrate: (X) current in and (X) current out PLUS (X) current out again when the (X) current input is stopped. These facts are therefore equivalent to 1 (X) amount of current into the coil (copper) and 2 (X) amount of current out of the (copper) coil. Question: From where did the extra (X) amount of current coming from the copper coil emanate? Answer: By analogy, the Prior Teachings indicate that current is equivalent to the volume of water and that voltage is equivalent to the pressure of water. Therefore, one should understand the essence of this analogy relative to the facts discussed above (See Figures 14-E1 and 14-E2.) The facts clearly demonstrate that in Figure 14-E1, one "gallon" of current came from the copper coil itself and most definitely NOT from the initial one "gallon" of current put into the copper coil. [This is an analogy only. The mass or volume of the electric current input or output cannot be seen or weighed because it is composed of gyroscopic particles and is the mechanical essence of E=mc^2.] The Prior Teachings distort the above facts and would indicate that the analogy of one "gallon" of current has no pressure when coming from the coil in Figure 14-E1, and that one "gallon" of current has a pressure which is thereby equivalent to one "gallon" of current with the input pressure. Furthermore, such teachings would indicate that because of the resistance within the coil and other losses, not even the latter pressure will occur in reality. Even I was mislead by these teachings for many years, and I finally came to the realizatin that copper was highly magnetic by a completely different means than outlined above. These means included: (1) my general comprehension which originated with my recognition that the basic building block of ALL matter was the GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE, and (2) a test I conducted using a single piece of copper wire 800 feet long, which was doubled-back 400 feet to the starting point and hooked to a meter and dry cell battery (See Figures 14-F1 and 14-F2.) The test shown in Figure 14-F1 has the parallel positions of the wire 10 feet apart, with no "Unobvious Force" between the parallel portions of the wire. The test shown in Figure 14-F2 has the parallel portions of the wire extremely close, with an "Unobvious Force" between the parallel part of the single wire. The results of these two tests demonstrated the SAME current input for both tests. Prior to these results I had recognized that the words "Work," "Force," and "Power" are implicit engineering statements and do not represent precise, scientific terms based upon observational reality. I conceptually altered such macroscopic, engineering statements to "Obvious Work," "Obvious Force," and "Obvious Power." I would microscopically describe what occurs internally, within matter as "Unobvious Work," "Unobvious Force," and "Unobvious Power." [These concepts are discussed at another point in greater detail.] Such semantic clarification enabled me to know --- upon completing the above tests in Figures 14-F1 and 14-F2 --- that copper is extremely magnetic. Returning to the above test of Figure 14-E1 and 14-E2: by my teaching, the facts clearly show that in the above analogy, one gallon of current "matter" (consisting of gyroscopic particles) was released from the atoms of the copper coil! This extra one gallon of current (gyroscopic particles) comes froj the component parts of the atoms comprising the copper coil and simply utilizes Einstein's Equation of E=mc^2. [I must stress that this is an analogy only. The volume or mass of matter via the gyroscopic particles represents the mechanics of E=mc^2 and such particles cannot be seen or weighed by conventional means. Their existence can be inferred, however, based on their mechanical behavior combined with known, observational facts.] Question: How can this EXTRA one gallon of current exist? Answer: The current input (gyroscopic particles) simply ACTS AS A CATALYST relative to the atoms comprising the copper coil --- atoms which align and unalign extremely fact compared to the atoms of conventional, magnetic materials --- thereby releasing virtually immeasurable portions of the gyroscopic particles comprising the atoms of the coil. This release generates the magnetic field. When the input current is turned off, the collapsing (gyroscopic particles of the) magnetic field within the coil results in the gyroscopic particles attempting to return to the atoms from which they initially emanated. SUch mechanical action results in the gyroscopic particles striking other atoms within the copper coil at some degree of a right angle and moving AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THAT FORCE. This gyroscopic motion explains the source for the additional "one gallon" of current (gyroscopic particles) discussed in the above water analogy. Because of the "conversion efficiency" of this process via E=mc^2, there will be NO observable change in the mass of copper even after decades of use. I should add that there is an important conceptual distinction between the two meanings of the word "efficiency." To state than a given invention is 8.2 efficient, i.e., it produces over eight times as much energy as it concumes, is different from stating that the invention is 100 percent efficient, i.e., it completely converts the gyroscopic particles within the magnet from "magnet mass" to electrical energy. The former process involves PRODUCTION efficiency and the latter process involves CONVERSION efficiency. Now to discuss the practical usage for this new understanding of the gyroscopic particles which are the mechanical essence of the equation E=mc^2 and comprise the component parts of the atoms within all matter, conductors, and copper. Take a 40-gauge copper wire which has a resistance of 1,049 Ohms for 1000 feet with a total weight (of atoms composed of gyroscopic particles) of a mere .02993 lbs, turning same into a coil with a 10-foot interior diameter and 8.32 feet in height. One woudl therefore have approximately a mere 31.8 turns of copper wire (copper atoms, i.e., gyroscopic particles). See Figure 15-A. If 100 volts is connected to coil 15-A, then a current flow of approximately 95MA would occur with total power input of 9.5 watts and a resulting weak, magnetic field of .012 Gauss or a mere .000014 Joules of energy stored in this weak, magnetic field. An insignificant current flow would now occur if the current input was stopped and coil 15-A was shorted-out to collapse a weak magnetic field and provide an inductance of only .003 Henries. Now, conduct another test with 5-gauge copper wire which has a resistance of .3133 Ohms for 1000 feet. However, to equal the same resistance as in 15-A above, one must now use 3,348,000 feet of 5-gauge wire with a massive, total weight (of atoms composed of gyroscopic particles moving and traveling at the speed of light, i.e., the mechanical essence of Einstein's Equation of E=mc^2) of 335,469.6 lbs. or 16.77 tons. Such wire is turned into a coil with a 10-foot interior diameter and 8.32-foot height. This structure would have approximately a phenomenal 90,000 turns of 5-gauge (copper atoms). If 100 volts were now connected to coil 15-B, then a current flow of approximately 95MA could occur with a total power input of 9.5 watts and a resulting, phenomenally larger magnetic field of 23.7 Gauss or 1,905 times larger for coil 15-B than for coil 15-A, and 116 Joules of energy stored in the magnetic field of Figure 15-B. This represents a phenomenal 8 millions times more energy than in the 40-gauge coil of 15-A. A phenomenally larger current flow would now occur if the current input was stopped and coil 15-B was shorted-out as a result of the collapsing, much greater magnetic field of the 5-gauge wire in coil 15-B. Such shorting would generate an inductance of 25,700 Henries, which is better than 8 millions times the inductance of the 40-gauge coil in Figure 15-A. Clearly these facts, combined with the earlier facts, prove beyond any doubt that Oersted's conclusion in 1820 (which is still taught to this day): "that the magnetic field came only from the current and not the conductor" to be totally false. [Although his conclusion is incorrent, I remain grateful to Hans Christian Oersted for being the first to notice and attempt to explain an observed connection between an electric current and a magnetic field.] The above clearly proves that the phenomenal difference in strength for the resulting magnetic fields (implying great differences in stored energy) and additional current flow when the input current was stopped (inductance), had to come from the gyroscopic particles comprising the component parts of the atoms within the copper coil. The current flow input was the SAME in both tests, but the number of atoms (lbs. of copper) varied considerably from test 15-A to 15-B correlating precisely with the phenomenal difference in the strength of magnetic fields produced, the extreme difference in the stored energy (gyroscopic particles), and the great difference (inductance) in the additional current flow produced when the input current was stopped in test 15-A and 15-B. These phenomenal differences represent the mechanical essence of E=mc^2: GYROSCOPIC PARTICLES. The above facts scientifically establish the position that the mathematical formulas employed in the calculation of the energy within a magnetic field (intended to represent the potential energy or stored energy of Joules in a magnetic field) are totally incorrect. The facts above clearly indicate that the magnetic field consists of gyroscopic-type particles which are the mechanical essence of E=mc^2 and represent an orderly flow of kinetic energy. I will go further and state that "potential" energy, as such, does not exist! ALL energy is KINETIC in nature, since the gyroscopic particles continue, under all conditions, to move and spin at the speed of light in accordance with E=mc^2. The above facts prove beyond question that the proper mathematical equation (concerning the "kinetic" energy which makes up a magnetic field) must be relative to E=mc^2. A proper mathematical equation would recognize that the "Unobvious Force" produced represents the Joules of the "Unobvious Power" activated at that instant-in-time and as so used woudl diminish the mass of the source of the magnetic field via a 100% utilization (conversion efficiency) of Einstein's Equation of E=mc^2, since the magnetic field consists of kinetic energy having a gyroscopic action which represents the mechanical essence of E=mc^2. I leave the task of determining the nature of such equations to a thinking, questioning mathematical mind, as I do not have the mathematical expertise. It should be noted, however, that the mechanical comprehension of a natural phenomenon has often historically preceded a mathematical model. James Clerk Maxwell acknowledged the importance of Michael Faraday's mechanical and experimental abilities. Maxwell also recognized that such mechanical aptitude constituted a major intellectual input to his later mathematical theories. Joseph Newman, copyright 1984-1996 ____________________________________ josephnewman@earthlink.net From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 02:40:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA00854; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604142305.TAA27890@zork.tiac.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Scalar detector. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: My apologies to everyone who has asked about the availability of detector core material for the Barkhausen effect detector design on Bill's site. I've been awaiting delivery of a number of precut strips of pre tested and precut silicon steel with the proper polycrystaline structure. This material is enroute to me now via Priority Mail, and is expected to arrive just after the holliday weekend. As soon as this package arrives, I'll post information on the pricing and availability. (costs of shipping, etc.) Those interested in Barkhausen effect batteries, and wanting more of this core material than a single strip precut for detector applications may also receive a full "E" core, as removed from the same transformer core as the detector stips. Laser printed hardcopies of the mechanical and schematics will also be included. Please direct all inquiries and requests to: bshannon@tiac.net Please feel free to extend this offer to other interested persons who may not have internet access. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 03:51:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA01559; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604142306.TAA27916@zork.tiac.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: How I tested the two coil effect. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In my recent postings, I made reference to several tests I performed to evaluate the effect Mr. Newman describes on his video demonstration. I have beenasked to provide additional details on this. I found that the shorter time to higher magnetic field phenomona described by Mr. Soule was due to the performance of the batteries rather than being due to any effects within the coil itself. This was due to the fact that the batteries take conciderable time to deliver maximum current in conditions of excessive current demand. This effect can be observed with purely resistive loads. Resistances between 5 and 12 ohms will draw excessive currents from two nine volt batteries connected in series, and closly match the video testing. This effect is also present at lower demand levels to some degree. At these current demand levels, the current delivered as the circuit is closed will not reach it's maximum for quite some time. This effect will cause the magnetic field of the smaller, lower resistance coil to slowly reach full strenght due to the battery performance dynamics at high demand. A simple series circuit was constructed with two nine volt batteries, a switch, a .1 ohm preceision resistor (used as a current shunt, with an oscilloscope connected across this resistor) and a load resistance of about 8.5 ohms, (noninductive). An oscilloscope was used to measure the current due to it's faster response time than analog or digital meters. A voltmeter is connected across the batteries. As the switch is closed, the battery voltage drops due to the excessive demand, and the oscilloscope trace starts upward, and slowly reaches it's maximum value. Note that no inductance is included in this circuit! The time delay to maximum current is longer than the inductive effects of larger coils. This effect causes it to appear that the larger coil reaches a higher magnetic field level in less time than the smaller coil. If this to be true due to the coils alone, the smaller coil would have to have a higher indutance than the larger coil. If Mr. Newman's theroy was valid, we would find differences in the electrical performance of inductors of different masses, but equal inductance. This is not the case. As the time to maximum current was not accounted for in the test, and this effect is larger than the time to maximum field strengh for far larger coils, the Newman video tape cannot be said to support Mr. Newman's claims. The video test shows only the conventional amper turns law, and an interesting bit of battery electrodynamics we can easily reproduce with resistive loads alone. A seperate series of tests was done with progressively larger and larger coils, and in all cases the magnetic field strengh was directly related to the current flow as described by conventional theory. The effect Mr. Newman is selling on this video tape does not exist. No evidence for anything outside of conventional theory is shown. Should Mr. Newman repeat this test and measure the current as the coil reaches full magnetic field strengh, he will discover, just as I did, that a retraction is in order. If the video taped test is repeated with a constant current power supply, again, Mr. Newman's effect disappears completely. Now, am I just another skeptic, or just objectivly looking for the truth? As the testing needed to establish the actual behavior is quite simple, I personally would concider any failure to revist this experiment, and address it's flaws in a timely manner to be less than "intellectually honest" on the part of Newman Energy Products. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 03:40:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA02239; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604150111.UAA04224@fastlane.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Bert Pool To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Taos Hum Technical Details (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:58 AM 4/7/96 -0800, you wrote: > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:45:16 -0800 (PST) >From: LGrant44@aol.com >Reply-To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com >To: taoshum-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Taos Hum Technical Details > >Now that the Taos Hum newsgroup is functioning again let me drop in some >technical details and suggestions for those of you who are trying to bring >the Taos Hum under electronic examination and for anyone interested in the >Hum in general, especially the last note at the bottom. > [mega snip] The latest Scientific American has an excellent article on building a low frequency magnetic detector for earthquake precursor detection which might serve well in detecting Taos hum. It is extremely sensitive, can pick up moving cars over 100 feet away.... Bert From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 03:58:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA02767; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604150125.DAA09169@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Newman linear machine schematics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --=====================_829559906==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, This is a pretty old file I found on my first Newman experiments back in 1986, almost 10 years ago. It shows the diagram of a Newman linear motor with a magnet going up and down inside a coil. The switch to toggle on and off the DC from the battery is=20 is located on the magnet, so when the magnet goes up the DC power is switched off and the magnet can fall back into the coil via the gravitational forces. The tube across the coil is a Neon bulb and no resistor ! It is there to reduce the arcing across the switch ! This is the design Newman seemed to use in his pump type modells of his motors. I still have much better pics sitting here on a few floppy disks, but as these are old Atari ST disks and "painted" with the old STAD painting program , I can=B4t it read nowadays with my PC over here, so I have to= locate an old Atari ST over here to get the pics converted to GIF format. Regards, Stefan. --=====================_829559906==_ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="NEWMAN1.GIF"; x-mac-type="42494E41"; x-mac-creator="6D646F73" Content-Transfer-Encoding: x-uuencode Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="NEWMAN1.GIF" begin 600 NEWMAN1.GIF M1TE&.#=AR`%,`?```````/___RP`````R`%,`0`"_XR/JM:K?<+C&+S5&O+K(W>DZKUT8@\VO&0GD_=#CLMAWJ#B??1_`<( M]O>V-R0HR`89^0&FDL):+;H67BYB'FGB0K*2LJ8>#HJ.4MK M$2>2AT:8:1JEB;?*J$N9,+J;:H@\[!N\7)QLIRQ=2UW=\%D)ZRP:R[P#_!VH M=\Q0='Q.C.X]E]7]')TK?6M-#_EX$K^)K:!::C/%+IP_==?2)4-E[J"A7_K( M"3L$$=V]>A0CR4*1#]J#?O_12`4,*$\C/X/.OHS<]C%DQVD1%59\6:V9B8PK MR[F$(^<008J M'@;%*G5HUJ1DO0`D-D.;SHE>P_XBLI;K39M@Y=9\:')H*W?BI-JY6#9PF[." MJ7W=5SBQX@EH%[,QQM:QY,G?*%N^C)EBX\R<.WM6LOFSZ-&D,98^C3KU$M6L M6[N.$/JU[-FC8].^C9NR[=R\>Y?=[3NX<&O`AQL_OJ8X\N7,03=_#MUL].G4 MI52_CKV%\NSA(41M$`C%@:( M876`_39AAR3!!F*(U(U(EH+[)+1?BBJ^=Z%F(GWB!WTRSAB=?"0"Y5=/&^W( M(W1$/K;@.)#%T5^1$@((99123DEEE596B1&.%6K))(M.;EA9F.WL0>8-98IY MYIAFKHDFFVJV">>;??/[I9Z"`#BIHH836:.>#<[J9 M9J.,/AJGHY%"NNBD="9J)T.&;GHHIYYV"NJG`F%**IZ42EIIJJBN>FJKEII* M:J:ASBHJK;;66NN1L:['ZJN]JNHJL+X&NZNLN-Z*[+'*_]JJ:[$B#@NML-+^ M2BVQS3I+X[+:)LOMMJ-B6^2TQ(X;;;7EN@JNBIIVRZZW[$8."X%Y,@!+GC@*?_;8]G(CVM^&^.+[ZUXWXMQ7@&71E:.>N"2 ME^X8Z3&2X:-OB7M..^ASKOZ=A/@HY_IIE%N>^LZ8@XG/YL;5GG;RG_--<][[=XKKZKUL"W-?KP@'1HZ,.HD\V]BOA`RMEEIIQX8,B/!,O8H:D<*+K+!6UTI2`*<8A$+*(1CXC$)"IQB41<61-[.+""(!$):DH$ MW\;P/RO_^H6&7&P?F;!8)BO2"8QK@M5\-#2Z%C+/)C[D!]NH>,4XCE&.9#2A M`^](-#'J,8M\Q,L3=D@B&/YP2&U<8-TB=R*3^$218NJB(SGU)C\"24@N_.,! M8W*!?>F0BC!:I"1U\L43BA*/MZODP#K)2%/FKG,C(%+TR%B9/8:QCUO4X".9 MY4=8ZI*.J41@^EHY"3B6L8_#G&4H23E*"#:.E\8LYC`#9,/'K":8UODD*JU9 MRUO:$I)A3"0V>P)-WNCJ2*_LY2F]^1=EJM..>2HC.L\)SL*)DYKT#$(5B1E+ M?-)+F_S4TYAV.<>`[C&<`'SC--O`3&?FTYCL;&@R@Z10@,JR_Y`;"0[T@(E( M2DYRD=G<9C^A9LIK;M20OI0=>^+U2I'"DZ/'7.=#O1?)D7XSAH\[WH=UR59M]65FA.5#7RJ6_,55HVJU2MEQ58YF:K377;T MJQ[]5COSFM!\$C1==P5L4QGZTJ@ZU$V&;6Q1&<.OE(IULFGB*UA#2EE/KM&H M=N5D9M=:2L4F%H(QG6M7!PNNPCKUL,7<:U\M&]2IXO6QUY/77:O*VJHN]JTO ME2UN!UI79]W6M,3MA&5?ZU>MC/5$J/_M;%J7*UZ["VA8ZFJR_,62[+1_:QKPVO+TD+WNO+= M%7WY:]^6[G;`&]/O9ZT9W/FF%[[D[2E^Q9O+!N?6==&4'7?+VV`"4Y>W&)ZP M5:466>YBM[[@16YXK0M:$H\0LK85\7Y3_.'VCA:NW50QC/L;J]MV&+#W-;&/ M]S1>#PO9C-IU[E+?.UL9;[BA2.[N)SF+WHP"V,8]?C#P#&QC!(.XQ5*&L9># MK.0PAP^S609*@OV[X"0GN* MAS9_%<6`GBG_GQ/EYP./M*UW;K2`3YO90V>*SD.V$0;U7/#,:UJ*5:9U`3&:V_?JZB;=WJ&1(:TO'T]7:M76NV M/MO9H8WEM3MY:B?I.-H\976Q/:KI]$"-K-;.^-\*[;4$Z8WCU)=Z$4/ M.]M7)C.LURKK.77RD>7M9'<3?'`1#G5$_3VC=7M< MM_J&>-KNW5V0J\O%YTZD3]\=O&V/N"@)[S/+P^URD^L\:+Q>J>:(]K>[%XHN4O^,J'K\^<8`CBW64KTC1=\URUWH[=7C&I:'WS5 M#M\YU.'$\+'6M<*S^;2:,S[PHG/QS2./[]H5O.RFZ_7L#Z\=RCE]=S2#>^R+ MUOKZ9-YSLGK[K.5)-,Z%Q&B^XQGQ70?["Z%D\[S7/8X:E_O6_XIQP/M2NJK\ M-],WO].G]SUF4H?.Q].\R(/T],T)WW#N;]_AB6=N\JV_?/_L>W^.MH>^JX\Y?>9U?]=P?>.' M>K(D?ZN'-0%X1>"'?^+7`XA1?Y7E?Q#&=>I'4K7U@.XW>S,G?#&6@,5W@?!G M#@/(0_EG@`R8>N?W>6Z@=PUH@NT7=IK'@"%H@P`8>M\7@UX'@3*@%N3GM1VA#T8 M`_N'@//7A%&7@_VV@S1%A?8T@5@7:%GX-+EW?%/(8ALX@\"'@7AQ:V0(<7)( M>Z47?E^XADEX@+2$A14(5-)WAC\(972H;I16@WQX@XPBAGQDA"<(AC#`B'_X M%W#X?^D'A=WFA9C_.(@^J(0'%WEE.']$&(J6)XBDB%5,)(N8MTJ5*&">"#=; MF'U-=8DR.#FS"(QH-#Z%B%BJ:(QYM(A3EX89>!S!Z(QJE!.M^(%OB(B99GR< MZ(JPZ(M^(P;!IX?#)XEGYX<>"(AVN(W<6'$J6$>X6#V*B'2NMXSEB(ZU:(5# MQX3W:"KJF(WGR(SSJ%UM6'OL&(=/>(J*U(N.Z(__Z(WI-(DB:&YYJ`OQN%F- M]XS-(P-*2?Z^&35]XKI,9(6LY"@ M]'P;23'72(X3&8C:6&\=")![>)+A.(Z)!Y)LQQINMXMC.)/5F(CP4)(K_YF3 M_+AR-)B,X/B35>F$Q/A,0UF`A(B-;$636DB0<[A^HPB50/=^!?F-*"F.8=F5 MV:6!+;F358B5[42-7XE^H.>17=B(:GB'*3B5SH>/X7:KEZCAEND)F)+V"+@&E^2FDR=!>`!\F7CRB5>68AF0H`EO;'F3J6""IW"888B6`F>9,L:*IVB$I$>4JA%T M?UF9C!DQNEB)(#0ENZF)3>F9JFF#*DE1+%F=?R*:R-D[C/^G'L<)G_:8GJLHG8(UGD9F M@&T)>?.Y+<$IEA?EG@/*G3G7GY=IFVVHH-\FEY&XF+0I.,Q9DA,JH(2HD@\Z M;M9)?778H9()D3)9EQBJ.N'YF$I7BF&8F.D$@M2YEB/8FR$)E[/&?/;I8"IZ M>.[(A3#HHGW)E9U9F31JE1I:B!P:9=C7H`7JHTOYD-)(5T-JFDX:HZ`$HNH9 MH97'I'A7H3PJGU%ZE_G(HW19<13JE_MIDJNYJ>%_GJ%S_^:0LM:6]U:5%V*B"%Z9L>HN).H0=::C`I:>FMZ.L M.IU)BJ01\9]QNJ!\>IX4N*G($JAIEZHZBH=4*J-'BJL_.:RG5:P*]YZQVJ;> MZ:JY`J1'25MO2:A%NJN2NJQX*:VS]*6JRJ!].J;!BJ!7-Z[&6JZ_.J/?"JBG MVHKK"JV/VJWG6JVXQ)IG.FUD2:X>RJ_PFJOU::LCJJVA:J+(BJ+4:J?-6ES/ M"IV<::X1)+#,RJ*9.:NP6:OAZIG!VIC7^G?T&K%E4+![5[&!2:EH"I(O&IV9 M6GCY^HE3ZJENZ:_L*JH3^Z[>ZE+I.G,B&YF8BJW-AJ@>2Y^P&K19F;%1&:U' M_^MT`TN=<.JSF_DV[MI(,)N+%\N>26N6/!E\/JFS)N2P:J>U57=ZK8>O#0NR M>A>U+,N9)9N:)WN#*=NO>UFO-TNU#&NUAL*S^[6V1&J*+AM_3JN*>QMI$/NS M+X(1JP3GFP_YJP,PNL>U MJ^NW,'JW0VN]PHJU@CJVBB)VG$N)WSNIZ4NLZVL@1O]IB]4[GP3+L08[C&K* MK:Y[NB+8FN([NG:+I^8KO,3IKK1+JUA:O@$,MO(JG`1',2EFZ=XC+PLT,=^+!HN2)B4 MS*"EH\'0*,I/J<>1;&&3W(WX60*`%+TS80NV7)I`R\B^G#F*_*G##,R^:LMM MLQW"N+VMJ\R?+!W'7,?R@T.2^7G@G`W-7,S%8TE)Y0$Y-\10J[=$&9!`N'50H#4YL1]!D2R!JT247CD0:5T%"((4??T9+8T--GV3/)V'XXW>M"S-&?\#W:OM>RC-:^Y- MI?"M&/--W]W-6?P]=@*.E@3N/$%M$?5-HBP1VSC1V.?$W++]X.2M!0B>X-UM MV=DM20SRS1K%X5==T?U-X4ZJT_:LWPRNT*T$2.J-3DIR1KC-W`-R$2F^!1T$ MXYIQ,QPM"V)AUMD9WY.AVW4M03K=B74!".`EW?H3<@K4WQ+]VW.A)9H=W$T, M=-"0)"]=V_O#Y!ON%D7AX^$R(4I2(3BNY=$=X8C@Y20,YG;-Y60.1!5]UITH MY2..-#\.Y"52:Z5=1&/=$A0-I>R=!$SM'2Z2V4*>0T;$YV&<(X8QP=!9#=%K$=J:[L\.;>IH_A\]#>JF_N1; ;0>HO;A>GWM"O3NNU;NNWCNNYKNN[W@,%```[ ` end --=====================_829559906==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti Check out our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site! --=====================_829559906==_-- From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 03:01:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA03689; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604150133.DAA09188@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Text I wrote 10 years ago on Newman X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi, this ia a note of mine I wrote almost 10 years ago, whicle studying the Newman machines. I just posted a schematics on this experiment in GIF format uuencoded called: newman1.gif Much more to come soon on my new energy server,,,, Stay tuned ! =========================================================== I own the mentioned book of Joe Newman 'The Energymachine' now for about 13 month's and in December 1986 I decided to make experiments with very large copper coils. I began measurements at our University with a 5 kg copper-coil of 0.17mm diameter copper wire and using rectified ac-to dc-voltage of 600 to 1200volt DC. This coil has had an inductance of 360 Henries and a dc resistence of 21 kOhms. Because of the capacitance between the windings the coil has a resonance frequency of 1400 Hertz. I used a electromagnetic switch relay, with was driven by a function generator, to switch on and off the the voltage across the coil. The current increased like theory predicts it with a '1-e^t/tau 'function and a cobalt-samarium magnet was pulled out of the coil because of the generated magnetic field. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti Check out our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 03:50:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA06374; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604150240.TAA28009@dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Why It Is Hard To Close The Loop ! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 4/14/96 Mr. Hartmann responded to my last post requesting information on calculations and results of his "powerarea" from the current spike as a private email to me. Mr. Hartmann initiated this current public freenrg thread. I no tified Mr. Hartman that I wished to continue this thread as public email on the freenrg list because I felt that the members would find his response interesting. I am responding as a public post and Mr. Hartmann has been informed prior to this post. Mr. Hartmann, I'm just an old saw bones and freely admit that I'm in way over my head when it comes to all this electronics stuff. So, I'm really glad that there are guys around that can really teach me something. I do have a few more questions though. Is this back current spike a sine wave? Did you also measure the back EMF associated with this back current spike that you measured and is it also a sine wave? Doesn't current flow require a potential of some sort? Are they in phase? Exactly how did you integrate the area of the current spike to calculate your "powerarea"? If the back current spike and back EMF are sine waves and are in phase then this is just a resistive circuit and power calculation is straight forward. Integration is unnessary. If back current spike and back EMF are sine waves and are out of phase then a power factor is mandatory to calculate power. This may occur in an inductive circuit. If either back current spike and/or back EMF are nonsine waves and out of phase then even a power factor will not give an accurate power rating. These are only my views and are not necessarily accurate. Perhaps you could help clarify if I've made any mistakes. Please provide Please provide your calculations and results of this "powerarea" current spike. Sincerely, RWW >. . . snip . . . > >>If you calculate the powerarea of this current spike via an >>integration of the area versus the area of the normal input current >>you will see, that the back current spike has a lot more energy over >>this short time span than the energy put into the coil over the >>remaining time span. > >. . . snip . . . > >>regards, Stefan. > > >Please provide your calculations and results of this "powerarea" >current spike. Did you take into account the power factor? > Well, this is directly at the supply voltage connector,so the voltage is pure DC ! It does not rise a lot due to the back pulse current spike, cause the battery in this moment acts likes a capacitor. So you could use pure DC voltage, so that there is no power factor to use ! I will display it all in depth on my upcoming WEB server. be still patient for a few days.. I will also have the circuit diagramm over there. Regards, Stefan. , > >RWW > >Sincerely> > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 03:22:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA07490; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604150258.VAA26828@firefly.prairienet.org> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: The Newman Machine... plans? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >I agree with, I want to build "working" demo for myself, but I have been burned >by others who just want to sell a book. If I could build a small working >model then I wouldnt hesitate to buy the book. I did go to one of Newmans >demos in New Orleans(at the superdome) back in '83 or '84 can remember exactly >but I was turned off because he wasn't present and the working models were not >the "big motor" I was led to believe would be there, also there was just a lot >of photos and newspaper clips, alot of hype to get money. I really wanted to >see >a bit more but it was just a "seminar" to get up some money for Newman. So I'm >still kind of apprehensive about buying anything from him yet. At the same >time I >really want to believe it could work and would like to be involved in >working with it. >Oh well, I'll keep lurking here until a plan or schematic for it shows up.... >then I WILL know..... I got Mr. Newman's book on interlibrary loan from the State of Illinois Library. It wasn't the newest version, but I did learn how to build one. Some day I'd like to give it a try. So much to do ... (don't we all say that?) It's fairly simple but uses a lot of copper wire. Zack w9sz@prairienet.org From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 15 03:41:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA08242; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3171818C.7BF2@introtech.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Henry Eisenson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: The Newman Machine... plans? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Evan Soule wrote: > "If I were to be sarcastic I would say, 'sure, why not? Let's send the > "free" plans. A human being spends thirty years of his life developing > a new technology that will ultimately benefit everyone long after he > (the inventor) is dead....certainly he should "give away" everything > that he has worked for.... *************************************************************** Sorry, Mr. Soule, but that's downright silly. Newman's "technology" either works or your claims are fraudulent. If it works, prove it and society will give you a blank check plus protection for Newman's intellectual property. If it doesn't, your strategy should be to dodge the proof issue and sell books/seminars. So far, you've chosen the latter option ---- and by itself that choice is a self-indictment. If Newman's design could demonstrably reduce the power dissipation of our economy's electric motors by even one percent, there would be little else on the front pages of every newspaper. There is no entity in science, economics, industry, or government that would not JUMP into this! > ...just completed a Wiring/Construction Diagram for one of the most > recent Commutator Designs for the Newman Motor/Generator. NO! No one cares about partial plans. To skeptics, your "most recent commutator" is as useless as a "new, improved, ON/OFF switch." Please provide a simple set of drawings that permit anyone "reasonably skilled in the art" to duplicate Newman's claimed results. Newman's technical claim remains unsubstantiated by independent experimenters, uses unproven assumptions with no basis in physics (i.e. "gyroscopic particles moving at the speed of light" but with less than infinite mass), won't be discussed openly and freely, is disclosed piecemeal through paid-admission "seminars" and privately-published books rather than peer-reviewed journals, and the "inventor" nurtures a paying cult around his ideas. If the goal of this forum is to help our civilization improve its energy equation, let's stop wasting bandwidth on pipe dreams and specious claims, and focus on identifying good science that needs funding and support. Henry Eisenson From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 00:07:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA20833; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor test results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >If Mr. Newman's Soule objective is to sell the book, then the current >strategy is perfect. > >If, on the other hand, Newman's technology can actually be made to work >as described here, then the optimum strategy is total disclosure. > >Just as the absence of barking solved one of Mr. Holmes' interesting >cases, the absence of data solves this one. > >Henry Eisenson >San Diego And what, may I rhetorically ask is wrong with Joseph Newman's wishing to sell his book? (as I would hope you would agree there is nothing wrong with this) He is free to ask whatever price he wishes, and anyone is free to buy it or not buy it.....this is still a benefit of living in the United States of America as opposed to Cuba, for instance. While I'm sure that your comments don't intend it, Henry, some might suggest that such comments are indicative of an Anti-Capitalistic Mentality. [And, speaking of books, there is an excellent book published by the great Austrian economist, Ludwig Von Mises, entitled: THE ANTI-CAPITALISTIC MENTALITY --- it may even still be in print! And yes, FOR SALE!] Per the concepts of astrophysicist Andrew J. Galambos, there are basically two types of "disclosure": 1) Contractual Disclosure or 2) Promiscuous Disclosure. But this would open another topic of discussion that could become quite extensive --- provided one were given to "promiscuous" disclosure. And the operational words above are "made to work".....Joseph Newman currently HAS operational prototypes --- he does not need to "make anything work" any longer --- they are already operational. Several options are: 1) read Joseph Newman's book and understand the technology for yourself, 2) don't read the book and don't understand the technology for yourself, 3) build your own unit, 4) don't build your own unit, 4) visit Joseph Newman and see his operational prototype, and/or 5) don't visit Joseph Newman and see his operational prototype. Since you mentioned Conan Doyle's "barking" (from Sherlock Holmes), I am reminded of another famous author who wrote a memorable quotation with respect to our canine friends: "If you give a starving dog a bone he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." --- Mark Twain Best regards, Evan josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 16:53:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA00251; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:27:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:27:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3171e0c4.5859453@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Clarification of battery results. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:28:02 -0700 (PDT), bshannon wrote: [snip] >If we were to assume that some hypothetical device extracted energy >from the vacuum, then feeding it's output back into it's input might >possibly do something odd to the vacuum polarization and quench the >energy extraction process, who knows? As this is outside conventional >theory, we cannot say if this is, or is not reasonable. > >My point being, we can allow the claim that the machine cannot operate >in closed loop mode, and still show if it does, or does not meet Mr. >Newman's claims. Lets be fair here, Mr. Newman has done a lot of work, >and deserves to have it reviewed objectively. It has been stated that >there is no difference between the types of power input and output, but >that's it's a matter similar to meshing gears. We might then think of >something like, say phase being different? Rectifying, the output into DC, and smoothing, before feeding back to the input, should eliminate this problem. Or to completely satisfy Mr. Newman, use the output to recharge one battery, while running from another, and doing extra work as well. By regularly exchanging batteries, it should be possible to run the motor indefinitely, and the skeptics would be satisfied, when the extra work done, exceeded the initial content of the two batteries, when new, by a large margin. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 04:14:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA17463; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <317341F3.4C5A@bigbear.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Doyle P. Henderson" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Regarding Tesla X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4E9B5FEFD71 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Mandeville wrote: > > At 02:29 AM 4/10/96 -0700, you wrote: > > This seems to be the place to report some activities > >and comments regarding Nikola Tesla's work in transmitting > >large amounts of electrical energy without use of wires, lasers, > >or plasma. I have no evidence whatsoever, only unsubstantiated > >reports... but some of you may find them interesting. > > > >1. In Australia there is a very deep vertical hole that the > > National Security Admin. has funded and which has equipment > > allegedly for the transmission of electrical energy... not > > communications... to power non-nuclear military submarines > > trailing long "antennae." It is alleged that nuclear > > reactors are now detectable from space satellites. There > > has also been speculation that the ozone layer depletions > > over Antarctica are related to the use of this Australian > > hole/equipment. Pretty wild, eh? > > > > yep > > >2. The same source also says that the government had N. Tesla > > murdered because he refused to keep secret certain inventions > > of his which the government (special interests affected by > > his invention) wanted classified and unpublicized. Then, > > virtually all of his files were confiscated and never found. > > > > NOTICE: The above is heresay and placed here without one > > shred of evidence or proof that it is true. > > > > > > grossly ignorant horseshit > > Tesla died as an old man of a broken heart during World War II...the > paralyzing realization that humanity was not worthy of the scientific > principles and techno power which he could see... > ____________________________________ > MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing > Michael Mandeville, publisher > mwm@aa.net > http://www.aa.net/~mwm ^^^^^^^ Doyle replies.... OK, that's what you read somewhere... and it may be right. But, I also read somewhere else that Roosevelt wanted to use his power transmission ideas and Tesla wouldn't go along with keeping it from the public. This story says he was actually tortured, beaten up, and in effect, murdered because he refused to agree to keep it secret. The story you have read was a cover-up. OK... OK.... relax... But, I thought someone out there might be interested because of hearing or knowing of some other shred of information that might fit. I didn't make up the murder story and neither did the guy who told it to me. Also, I got a reply to my message about the hole in the ground in Australia. The respondent lives in Australia and in effect said that it might be easy for us in the USA to think such things exist, but not for him... and that he'd never heard of such a deep hole anywhere. So, here is my reply to him, and please don't get upset, just enjoy this stuff. Incidentally, I'm not a sci-fi author--- just a semi-retired aerospace test equipment engineer and come-lately computer programmer. Best regards to you all.... I'm enjoying the exchanges. Doyle Henderson, panacea@bigbear.net --------------4E9B5FEFD71 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BOREHOLE.TXT" I received your message regarding how easy it might be for an American to envision super-secret facilities way off in Australia. While that might often be the case, it was not what prompted me to post the brief mention of the deep hole installation believed to be located somewhere in Australia. Wanting to make a brief inquiry, I purposedly omitted its alleged location at Pine Gap, which is about 10 miles from the dead center of Australia. As you asked for more detail, perhaps you can use the following more specific information to check with your sources. My understanding is that there is a high-technology installation located in a shallow valley at the southern foot of a range of mountains (Macdonnell Range) in the center of Australia. Another way to locate this installation is with a portable GPS device (a satellite navigation system now selling for as little as $600 US) or a good old aeronautical map looking for 23 degrees 47 minutes South, and 133 degrees 42 minutes East where the surface entrances to the secured facility should be found. As I indicated in my e-mail message, the facility is alleged to be a U.S. funded base. The Pine Gap facility also has been called the Joint Defense Space Research Facility and is said to have several other functions. It has been said that it has a rather deep and straight water bore hole. The bore was drilled to at least 28,000 feet depth. Thats 5.2 miles! . If it exists, it might be used as an underground antenna for very low frequency radio or electrical power broadcasts. Or, the bore antenna might be used to tune a gigantic "standing wave" electromagnetic field around the entire planet. The system might be tuned to say, 10 to 15 kilohertz. (I have learned that EMF energy (radio) from lightning flashes around the world are commonly detected in this frequency range [as well as much higher frequencies] and is known to travel over great distances. I experimented with lightning receivers years ago which could locate and display the presence of thunderstorms in light aircraft. Sperry later placed such a product on the market.) An electric field, tuned to resonance, might be extended as high as 200 miles above the earth. Sub-surface wave propagation to underwater vehicles also may be enhanced by such ultra-low frequencies permitted by a 5-mile long radiating element. Some rumors suggested that a very large nuclear reactor was built at Pine Gap. It was suggested that it supplied power to a very enormous electromagnetic wave or particle transmitter. Other rumored projects supposedly included a high-energy pulsating plasma generator-- shades of death rays, plasma cannons, or beam generators-- capable of sending low frequency engery vertically-- out of the bore hole out into space where collectors, mirrors, or electromagnetic reflectors-- beamed or perhap,s broadcast, the energy-- possibly at very long wavelengths. Some individuals speculate the transmission of power sufficient to charge electric battery-powered submarines submerged at a distance. You might also check out an earlier location of a station used to transmit very powerful very-low-frequency undersea signals (if not electrical current). You may find it at the North West Cape near Exmouth Bay in Australia. It may still be used to transmit to U.S. submarines which would trail long antennae behind them. These systems supposedly can recharge special on-board batteries named: "plasma-dynamic storage cells" that have high voltage capabilies.. The existence of such a facility may not have been known to you before now; but, your own "The Nation Review" which is a national Australian newspaper-- printed in its May 17-23, 1974 issue some rather remarkable words: Quote: "The Pine Gap research facility near Alice Springs has managed to keep secret, until now, one of the most unbelievable research projects in the world." " "The United States has been carrying out continuous research into electromagnetic propulsion (EMP for short) at Pine Gap since it was established in 1966." "...Nixon (former U.S. President) last year announced 1975 as a target date for the completion of the project. At that time it was to relieve the petrol crisis". Unquote. Plans to use post-hypnotic suggestions to implant memory loss in certain personnel at Pine Gap were replaced when it was discovered that LSD and certain other hallucinogens sometimes removed such hypnotic effects. Pine Gap projects: Noah's Arc, and The Bolt Hole. There also are alleged sister facilities elsewhere-- at least one in the Pacific (Guam?) and one at Transvaal, South Africa. There, more than 1,100 employees are said to be members of the U.S. consular staff. (Absurd?) Rumors connect it with another VLF station at the South Pole... 'Operation Deep Freeze'? Shortly after these operations began, ozone layer depletions were detected--- coincidence, or not? So, you see-- many pieces of information about secret projects may leak out-- but, what it's all about may never come out or only get figured out many years after they are implemented. The Manhattan Project at Oak Ridge, which employed over 100,000 people in unprencedented, new gigantic facilities, managed to keep the Japanese from knowing we were refining uraniam there to build an atomic bomb at Los Alamos. Apparently, the trick is to keep people from knowing anything about what is going on or about the purpose of the facility-- telling them only what they need to know to do their own small part-- and also giving them false information--- disinformation to mislead them. We can speculate that Pine Gap is just one grid pole in a secret planetary electric power broadcasting program. And, to confuse people, several other activities may also be going on out there. Certainly, this message does NOT purport to be accurate, authenticated, validated, or anything but information of possible interest to certain people who know OTHER things and may be able to put something together that makes sense to them. It is interesting when thinking about radiated grids-- with voltage and current nodes extending multiple wavelengths, to center a draftsman's compass on Pine Gap-- using a map of Australia. Extend its movable arm out to Perth. Then, note when you scribe a circle around Pine Gap-- one that intersects Perth, you also intersect the VLF transciever (that's what it's called) at Perth, and those also alleged to be located at: Exmouth, Brisbane, Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne (along the Mornington Peninsula,... and an area just off Cape Otway between the Cape and King Island! Is this a field line-- of cities all equidistant from Pine Gap for some reason? While Pine Gap is not supposedly of military significance, please note that for a five-nautical mile radius around it, the area is listed as "R233" on aircraft navigation maps. That means it's restricted air space and aircraft are advised not to fly over the area. Why is it special? Or, is it dangerous to do so. I hope this helps fulfill your request for some more information. Again, I say that this is still heresay, and that I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything presented here is true and valid. I cannot provide you with other sources or testimony. In fact, hHaving never been there, I am unsure if Australia actually exists. Most sincerely and a friendly guuddye, Doyle ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --------------4E9B5FEFD71-- From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 00:54:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA19244; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604160858.KAA12433@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Why it is hard to close the loop ! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >If you calculate the powerarea of this current spike via an integration of >the area >versus the area of the normal input current you will see, that the back >current spike >has a lot more energy over this short time span than the energy put into the >coil >over the remaining time span. > >At least this seem to happen in the very big first motor of Mr. Newman. > >In my small motors there have been some back current pulses, but they have= > been >much smaller and did not have these huge back power, so the electrical input >into my motors was always bigger than the back pulse energy. > >I also believe, that only the bigger Newman motors might have an overunity >effect, >when you compare these output energies versus the electrical Input energy >which is: > >Back pulse energy, plus >heat energy generated inside the coil, plus >mechanical energy due to the rotating magnet, plus >Light energy from neon tubes from the High Voltage RF spikes, when the >commutator switches, plus >arcing energy, due to the mechanical commutator > >versus > >electrical input energy > >If the partial energy outputs of the Newman motors >are each only e.g. 60 %, so 6 x 60 % = 360 % >total efficiency, it is still >hard to build a CLOSED LOOP system, cause each >useful output is only 60 %. >So you could not just use the mechanical output to >power it itself and you also could not just use >the electrical back current pulse to power it itself... > Sorry, this should have meant: 5 x 60 % equals 300 %. I did not count the lines right in this example. Also 60 % was a little overestimated. In my best experiments I got 135 %, so each component was also different in power and I got about 65 % mechanical, 30 % heat and the rest til 135 % via the other output energies... Sorry for this bad calculation.... Regards, Stefan. >But the whole system efficiency could be higher than >100 %, so only a calorimeter test could prove the total overunity effect >or the mechanical plus the back pulse energy must be combined >to get the loop closed and get it selfrunning ! > > >If I ever will be again in Lucedale, Mississipi, I would like to test the >first big machine >of Mr. Newman to see these big back pulses myself. >When I visited Mr. Newman in 1987 for only about 3 hours, >I only had the chance to look at his FAN motor. > >regards, Stefan. >-- >Hartmann Multimedia Service >Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann >Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany >Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 >email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de >Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti > _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ > > > > > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti Check out our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 03:05:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA19289; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604160858.KAA12438@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Why It Is Hard To Close The Loop ! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Is this back current spike a sine wave? Did you also measure the back=20 >EMF associated with this back current spike that you measured and is it=20 >also a sine wave? Doesn't current flow require a potential of some=20 >sort? Are they in phase? Exactly how did you integrate the area of=20 >the current spike to calculate your "powerarea"? If the back current=20 >spike and back EMF are sine waves and are in phase then this is just a=20 >resistive circuit and power calculation is straight forward. =20 >Integration is unnessary. If back current spike and back EMF are sine=20 >waves and are out of phase then a power factor is mandatory to=20 >calculate power. This may occur in an inductive circuit. If either=20 >back current spike and/or back EMF are nonsine waves and out of phase=20 >then even a power factor will not give an accurate power rating. > >These are only my views and are not necessarily accurate. Perhaps you=20 >could help clarify if I've made any mistakes. =20 > >Please provide Please provide your calculations and results of this=20 >"powerarea" current spike. Well, okay, I just posted a GIF pic (monochrome 640x400) to this list called=20 newman1.gif I hope everybody did get it. I attached it in uuencoded format, so the newer email reader programs like Eudora can decode it automatically. This Linear type Newman motor was used in the Newman pump and in a few demos Newman gave at the New Orleans Superdome. He uses a high voltage DC battery with about 1000 to 10.000 volts with= different sized of coils, where a Permanent magnet can rise out of the coil, due to the switched on current going through the coil. Now, as the permanet magnet is pretty heavy and also might have a weight connected on the top and also drives a piston fro the water pump, the=20 rising current inside the coil is consuming power from the battery. Now, when the permanent magnet comes out of the coil too much so that the commutator (switch) switches off the battery voltage from the= coil, there apears a huge induction voltage spike and the permanent magnet falls down again into the coil. At this time the commutator connects the battery again with the coil. But now the permanent magnet still wants to go down, due to its big mass. Now this back current pulse appears, cause the still going down magnet still induces voltage into the coil which has the same polarity as the=20 battery, but is much higher and this way the battery is recharged ! Now look at the connections in my newman1.gif pic at OSZI1 and OSZI2. At OSZI1 I measure the voltage of the battery and at OSZI2 I measure the current to and from the battery via a shunt. (You still need a 2 channel oscilloskop for this purpose) Now the voltage remains always constant only varying maybe 1 % or so, so we can assume battery voltage =3D constant, pure DC ! Now, if we look at the current flowing from the battery to the coil and back, is is not constant, but rises like an e^x function and when the magnet comes down and reconnects to the battery, there are these negative current pulses, which go back to the battery. Well, my coils were way to small, so the back current pulses had no big power in it, but I have seen video tapes, where these current pulses did have so much electrical power in it, that it seemed higher than the electrical input energy. Well, as I can=B4t explain it well over here via words, wait, til you see it= soon on my WEB server, which I will announce over here. regards, Stefan. > >Sincerely, > >RWW > >>. . . snip . . .=20 >> >>>If you calculate the powerarea of this current spike via an=20 >>>integration of the area versus the area of the normal input current=20 >>>you will see, that the back current spike has a lot more energy over=20 >>>this short time span than the energy put into the coil over the=20 >>>remaining time span. >> >>. . . snip . . .=20 >> >>>regards, Stefan. >> >> >>Please provide your calculations and results of this "powerarea"=20 >>current spike. Did you take into account the power factor? >> >Well, this is directly at the supply voltage connector,so the voltage >is pure DC ! It does not rise a lot due to the back pulse current=20 >spike, cause the battery in this moment acts likes a capacitor. >So you could use pure DC voltage, so that there is no power factor >to use ! > > >I will display it all in depth on my upcoming WEB server. > >be still patient for a few days.. > >I will also have the circuit diagramm over there. > >Regards, Stefan. > >,=20 >> >>RWW >> > >>Sincerely> >> >-- >Hartmann Multimedia Service =20 >Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann >Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany >Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 >email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de >Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti > _Buy our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site!_ > > > > > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service =20 Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti Check out our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 02:56:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA19328; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604160858.KAA12447@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: How I tested the two coil effect. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 19:57 14.04.1996 -0700, bshannon wrote: >In my recent postings, I made reference to several tests I performed to >evaluate the effect Mr. Newman describes on his video demonstration. I have= =20 >beenasked to provide additional details on this. > >I found that the shorter time to higher magnetic field phenomona described >by Mr. Soule was due to the performance of the batteries rather than being >due to any effects within the coil itself. > >This was due to the fact that the batteries take conciderable time to= deliver >maximum current in conditions of excessive current demand. This effect can >be observed with purely resistive loads. > A few comments: You are right with your tests, that this probably is only a phenomen of the batteries. I already have since long time the feeling, that: Mr. Newman has only achieved his first big motor to be overunity by pure accidental chance. He had a theory with this gyroscopic particles and wanted to verify it and= did=20 build this huge DC type motor with the huge coil and the rotating permanent magnet in it. It seems, that he does not or does not want to understand the concept of the magnetic field building up inside a coil via an e-function and all about stored magnetic energy inside the coil. But now he has build this huge DC motor with the huge coil, that is not just a coil, but also a resonance circuit, due to the coil has also a capacity at this large number of windings. Also now a permanent magnet rotates inside this LC-circuit coil and the battery voltage to the coil is reversed mechanically at each 180 degrees of the rotor and also NOT at the right angle of the rotor ! A totally NONLINEAR circuit he has produced ! Bumms ! Huge back current pulses appear going back into the battery as the commutator is reversing the current inside the coil ! Now, this device is a hard task to measure for a Nobel price winner with all this nonlinearity going on there and now everybody expects a backyard inventor to explain all its details..... I think, Newman has taught himself some wrong conclusions from this first machine. He always wanted to build it smaller ! Wrong, you have to build it bigger to get the overunity effects ! And that is the problem.=20 Already his first machine was only in the 10 to max. 200 Watts output level (including all nonusable energies like heat energy generated in his coil) at this huge design. To get a few KWatts of power output it would require at least=20 about 200 KG of copper wire and a pretty expensive permanent magnet to get a powerful mechanical output to drive a generator. Also it needs very high DC supply input voltage, as high as 5000 to 10.000 Volts , which is pretty dangerous. So I suggest this Newman type motors only for bigger energy stations which produce energy in an utility, but not for a commercial mass market product. I think. Mr. Newman should first try to show a Calorimeter test of one of his units to be sure that the whole machine is indeed overunity and then proceed to develop bigger units, which show the overunity effects even more. But he has to hurry up. Latest development at Sciex Corp. London , UK, which showed a scouter bike with the Takahashi Permanent magnet motor show, that the Newman technology will have no future, when the Takahashi motor will really work as it was claimed. This motor seems to be a perpetual motion machine and has driven 120 Watts bulbs via a coupled DC generator=20 without any input power going into the Takahashi motor. It seems to be the perfect permanent magnet motor. It converts Zero Point Energy and the magnets only loose their strength by 3 % each year , so there comes=20 much more energy out, than is stored in the tiny amounts of the permanent magnet energy. so the only explanation can be, that the motor converts ZPE energy to useful mechanical=20 output energy, when the 1st law of thermodynamics is still valid with this motor. Conclusion: Newman only by chance got something overunity, did not understand it right and tried to develop it into the wrong direction, making it small instead of making it huge. He has spent too much time and energy fighting for a patent, instead of studying the effects right. Now somebody else comes up with a better idea which=20 also works much better at lower cost and now Newman of course sees his effort running away from him and now he wants to sue Takahashi, which is pretty ridicolous... Anyway, that he did not get a patent is also pretty wrong, I think, but things happen... We will see, what will come out of all of this during the next few years of it and which overunity "machine" will make it first to the mass market.. If it will be a CETI cold fusion device, a Takahashi motor or a Newman machine, only time will tell... and we are living in exiting times, don=B4t= we ? Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service =20 Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti Check out our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 19:04:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA19367; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604160858.KAA12455@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: The Newman Machine... plans? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 23:41 14.04.1996 -0700, Zack Widup wrote: > > >> >>I agree with, I want to build "working" demo for myself, but I have been burned=20 >>by others who just want to sell a book. If I could build a small working >>model then I wouldnt hesitate to buy the book. I did go to one of Newmans >>demos in New Orleans(at the superdome) back in '83 or '84 can remember exactly=20 >>but I was turned off because he wasn't present and the working models were not=20 >>the "big motor" I was led to believe would be there, also there was just a lot=20 >>of photos and newspaper clips, alot of hype to get money. I really wanted= to >>see=20 >>a bit more but it was just a "seminar" to get up some money for Newman. So I'm=20 >>still kind of apprehensive about buying anything from him yet. At the same >>time I=20 >>really want to believe it could work and would like to be involved in >>working with it. >>Oh well, I'll keep lurking here until a plan or schematic for it shows= up.... >>then I WILL know..... > >I got Mr. Newman's book on interlibrary loan from the State of Illinois=20 >Library. It wasn't the newest version, but I did learn how to build one.=20 >Some day I'd like to give it a try. So much to do ... (don't we all say=20 >that?) > >It's fairly simple but uses a lot of copper wire. Yes, that is the problem, it really needs more than I would=20 say 50 Kg copper wire to show these high back current pulses to recharge the battery effectively... Smaller Newman motors have a quite fair mechanical output but don=B4t show these huge current back pulses, which are said to recharge the battery. Regards, Stefan. >Zack >w9sz@prairienet.org > > > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service =20 Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti Check out our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 23:02:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA20012; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604160858.BAA24195@big.aa.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Verification of Newman X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 11:46 PM 4/14/96 -0700, you wrote: > snip >If Newman's design could demonstrably reduce the power dissipation of >our economy's electric motors by even one percent, there would be little >else on the front pages of every newspaper. There is no entity in >science, economics, industry, or government that would not JUMP into >this! > snip > >Newman's technical claim remains unsubstantiated by independent >experimenters, uses unproven assumptions with no basis in physics (i.e. >"gyroscopic particles moving at the speed of light" but with less than >infinite mass), won't be discussed openly and freely, is disclosed >piecemeal through paid-admission "seminars" and privately-published >books rather than peer-reviewed journals, and the "inventor" nurtures a >paying cult around his ideas. > >If the goal of this forum is to help our civilization improve its energy >equation, let's stop wasting bandwidth on pipe dreams and specious >claims, and focus on identifying good science that needs funding and >support. > >Henry Eisenson > Precisely. It would seem that after two weeks of discussions, you have captured the prevailing mood on Free Energy List concerning Newman's work. I would add the prevailing judgements as follows: (a) There are several analytic "heavies" here who would love to verify a Newman, or any other inventor with a new paradigm or theory with the demonstration of a useful result. (b) Newman is seemingly impossible to verify to substantiate useful results because of Newman's "politics" about his own work. (c) It is seemingly doubtful that Newman has anything useful, but nonetheless, the door has been opened. Robert Shannon's extensive commentary seems to be the "ogre" at the door for Newman and Shannon's observations are most likely the best point of departure for Newman to overcome the weakness of his position, if that is possible. Best wishes, ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 01:23:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA20047; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604160858.BAA24200@big.aa.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor test results X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:21 AM 4/15/96 -0700, you wrote: > >Since you mentioned Conan Doyle's "barking" (from Sherlock Holmes), I am >reminded of another famous author who wrote a memorable quotation with >respect to our canine friends: > >"If you give a starving dog a bone he will not bite you. This is the >principal difference between a dog and a man." --- Mark Twain > >Best regards, > >Evan >josephnewman@earthlink.net >(504) 524-3063 > > Evan, I still do not accept that Newman has proven anything much at all, but I do wish to express my admiration for your diligence on his behalf and to thank you for reminding me about Mark Twain's dog gone quote above. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 02:47:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA11860; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 08:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 08:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bouncing mail to freenrg-l X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:33:39 -0400 > From: bshannon > To: billb@eskimo.com > Subject: bouncing mail to freenrg-l > > Help! My messages keep bouncing off freenrg-l! Yes, this is a new listproc bug. If the bounce says "unknown mailer error 14", and down in the header it mentions "catmail," then try again. It seems to happen randomly, mostly when eskimo.com is heavily loaded. It affects everything here, and the staff has managed to partially fix it, but it still is not entirely gone. Keep re-sending when they bounce. ............................freenrg-list................................ William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-LIST VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 06:20:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA26243; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 15:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 15:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604161727.NAA10341@zork.tiac.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor / Generator, problems with the theory. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: In response to several critical flaws I have pointed out, we receive more of Mr. Newman's theory. Sadly, this is where it all falls down: >As Joseph Newman states: >The prior teachings indicate that copper is non-magnetic and that the >resulting magnetic field associated with current flow in copper is the >result of the current. >Those teachings are totally wrong. Copper is extremely magnetic! It is so >magnetic that it deceives the observer. See Figures 14-B1/14-B2. For a given coil, the magnetic field is due to the current alone, as is shown by a revisiting of your two coil test. Copper is magnetic? Lets look into this and see what we find... >Turn the current on as in Figure 14-B1 and a magnetic field will occur very >quickly. Then turn the current off as in Figure 14-B2 and the magnetic >field very quickly disappears with no remnant of the magnetic field >observed in the copper material. If one then places a magnet close to the >copper, it is not observed to be noticeably magnetic. Therefore, one is >easily deceived since conventional, so-called magnetic materials generate a >different result. See Figures 14-B3/14-B4. As Mr. Newman is using a small permanent magnet to test the coil, we must assume that Mr. Newman is refering to ferromagntisim being absent. Is is important to remenber that ferromagnetisim only applies to three elements, iron, nicklel, and cobalt. There are however two other, more common forms of magnetisim, diamagnetisim and paramagnetisim that Mr. Newman appears to be unaware of. >By placing an iron core within a copper coil (as in Figure 14-B3) and >turning the current on, a significantly stronger magnetic field will be >generated than in Figure 14-B1 [for the same energy input]. Now, turn off >the current as in Figure 14-B4 and there will be a small, remnant magnetic >field surrounding the iron core. If a magnet is palced near the iron core, >the magnet will be visibly affected. However, one is easily deceived by >these tests and can be mislead into believeing that copper is non-magnetic. >This is exactly what happened to Hans Christian Oersted in 1820 when he >first discovered than an electric current produced a magnetic field which >would cause a magnet to align at right angles to the conducting wire. >Oersted noted that the deflection of the magnet lasted only as long as the >current was flowing through the conducting wire and hence, such magnetic >action could not be caused by the (copper) wire, but must be a result of >the current itself. This same incorrect conclusion is still rigidly taught >to this day. Copper is known to be weakly diamagnetic. A fact that can be found in many good text books. Diamagnetisim is an interesting phenomema, as the repulsion of a bit of diamagnetic material from a region of higher magnetic intensity, reguardless of the magnetic polarity of the more intense field appears to indicate that the magnetic poles are notdifferent by handedness as a mechanical theory would suggest. Paramagnetisim and Diamagnetisim seem to suggest the gyroscopic theory is inaccurate at describing known magnetic interactions. >The following facts will clearly prove that copper is highly magnetic >relative to the speed of atom alignment/unalignment as well as the >action/reaction effect of the energy release (in the form of gyroscopic >particles previously discussed) fromt he atoms comprising the copper wire! (material deleted for lengh.) >Physically speaking, this simply means that the energy contained within the >magnetic field --- when generated by positive ( + ) current flow in one >direction --- is returned by the collapsing magnetic field as negative ( - >) current flow when the current reverses direction. >The Prior Art also teaches Kirchhoff's Law which states: the same amount >of current placed into a system (as a copper conductor) for a given instant >of time has the same amount of current flowing from that system (copper >conductor) for the same given-instant of time. (See Figure 14-D.) >The above facts of 14C and 14D totally contradict the prior teaching that >the magnetic field generated by the current flowing in a (copper) conductor >is solely a result of the current itself and that copper is non-magnetic. There is no contradiction here, even your two coil experiment proves that the magnetic field is proportional to the current. You appear to be operating under a sever misunderstanding of what conventional theory actualy states. >The facts demonstrate the following: 14C above shows that if one inputs a >given amount of current (X) into a copper coil during a given-instant of >time then, as described in 14D above, the same amount of current (X) >outputs from the copper coil during the same instant of time. In addition >14C above also shows that if the current is then cut off and the coil >shorted with meters in the line, then the same amount of current (X) will >now come from the copper coil. >The facts therefore demonstrate: (X) current in and (X) current out PLUS >(X) current out again when the (X) current input is stopped. These facts >are therefore equivalent to 1 (X) amount of current into the coil (copper) >and 2 (X) amount of current out of the (copper) coil. >Question: From where did the extra (X) amount of current coming from the >copper coil emanate? >From a total misunderstanding alone. The current drawn while building the magnetic field is not constant, but is proportional to the magnetic field itself. The current flowing out of the coil is the same current in, and cannot be counted twice, it's the same applied current while the field is static. When the magnetic field collapses, the energy returned is always less than the energy over time during the production of the magnetic field, due to the fact that the inductor is imperfect, having resistance as well as inductance. This is where Mr. Newman's theory is disproven by the actual facts! >The facts clearly demonstrate that in Figure 14-E1, one "gallon" of current >came from the copper coil itself and most definitely NOT from the initial >one "gallon" of current put into the copper coil. Incorrect. Again, your two coil test disproves this if you make proper measurments. >The Prior Teachings distort the above facts and would indicate that the >analogy of one "gallon" of current has no pressure when coming from the >coil in Figure 14-E1, and that one "gallon" of current has a pressure which >is thereby equivalent to one "gallon" of current with the input pressure. >Furthermore, such teachings would indicate that because of the resistance >within the coil and other losses, not even the latter pressure will occur >in reality. If pressure is equated to voltage, this shows the degree of Mr. Newman's confusion. If we open the circuit of an inductor with a large magnetic field, we get a high voltage (pressure) arc as we open the circuit. What Mr. Newman is describing is not conventional theory, but his mistaken interpretations of it. Check a good text book first, then re-read MR. Newman's words here. >Even I was mislead by these teachings for many years, and I finally came to >the realizatin that copper was highly magnetic by a completely different >means than outlined above. These means included: (1) my general >comprehension which originated with my recognition that the basic building >block of ALL matter was the GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE, and (2) a test I conducted >using a single piece of copper wire 800 feet long, which was doubled-back >400 feet to the starting point and hooked to a meter and dry cell battery >(See Figures 14-F1 and 14-F2.) >The test shown in Figure 14-F1 has the parallel positions of the wire 10 >feet apart, with no "Unobvious Force" between the parallel portions of the >wire. The test shown in Figure 14-F2 has the parallel portions of the wire >extremely close, with an "Unobvious Force" between the parallel part of the >single wire. >The results of these two tests demonstrated the SAME current input for both >tests. What from conventional theory lead you to think this would not be the case? >Returning to the above test of Figure 14-E1 and 14-E2: by my teaching, the >facts clearly show that in the above analogy, one gallon of current >"matter" (consisting of gyroscopic particles) was released from the atoms >of the copper coil! This is incorrect Mr. Newman, and easily proven to be false. >Question: How can this EXTRA one gallon of current exist? To date, you have not shown this extra gallon to exist in any way. >Answer: The current input (gyroscopic particles) simply ACTS AS A CATALYST >relative to the atoms comprising the copper coil --- atoms which align and >unalign extremely fact compared to the atoms of conventional, magnetic >materials --- thereby releasing virtually immeasurable portions of the >gyroscopic particles comprising the atoms of the coil. This release >generates the magnetic field. When the input current is turned off, the >collapsing (gyroscopic particles of the) magnetic field within the coil >results in the gyroscopic particles attempting to return to the atoms from >which they initially emanated. SUch mechanical action results in the >gyroscopic particles striking other atoms within the copper coil at some >degree of a right angle and moving AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THAT FORCE. This >gyroscopic motion explains the source for the additional "one gallon" of >current (gyroscopic particles) discussed in the above water analogy. >Because of the "conversion efficiency" of this process via E=mc^2, there >will be NO observable change in the mass of copper even after decades of >use. The energy returned by the coil as teh field collapses is always less than that used to produce the field, while it is buillding to full intensity. As you do not measure this in the testing performed, you have been mislead, and this can easily be proven to be the case, if indeed you are intellectually honest, and willing to admit the possibility of error. Base on the responses of Newman Energy Products to date, I do not expect this to be the case. >Take a 40-gauge copper wire which has a resistance of 1,049 Ohms for 1000 >feet with a total weight (of atoms composed of gyroscopic particles) of a >mere .02993 lbs, turning same into a coil with a 10-foot interior diameter >and 8.32 feet in height. One woudl therefore have approximately a mere >31.8 turns of copper wire (copper atoms, i.e., gyroscopic particles). See >Figure 15-A. >If 100 volts is connected to coil 15-A, then a current flow of >approximately 95MA would occur with total power input of 9.5 watts and a >resulting weak, magnetic field of .012 Gauss or a mere .000014 Joules of >energy stored in this weak, magnetic field. Here's the problem Mr. Newman, The current will not reach 95 ma. as soon as the circuit is completed, but will build to the value over time. You must measure this power over time to correctly state how much energy is stored in the magnetic field. This you never do, and therefore assign incorrect power levels, and draw incorrect conclusions. >An insignificant current flow would now occur if the current input was >stopped and coil 15-A was shorted-out to collapse a weak magnetic field and >provide an inductance of only .003 Henries. >Now, conduct another test with 5-gauge copper wire which has a resistance >of .3133 Ohms for 1000 feet. However, to equal the same resistance as in >15-A above, one must now use 3,348,000 feet of 5-gauge wire with a massive, >total weight (of atoms composed of gyroscopic particles moving and >traveling at the speed of light, i.e., the mechanical essence of Einstein's >Equation of E=mc^2) of 335,469.6 lbs. or 16.77 tons. Such wire is turned >into a coil with a 10-foot interior diameter and 8.32-foot height. This >structure would have approximately a phenomenal 90,000 turns of 5-gauge >(copper atoms). If 100 volts were now connected to coil 15-B, then a >current flow of approximately 95MA could occur with a total power input of >9.5 watts and a resulting, phenomenally larger magnetic field of 23.7 Gauss >or 1,905 times larger for coil 15-B than for coil 15-A, and 116 Joules of >energy stored in the magnetic field of Figure 15-B. This represents a >phenomenal 8 millions times more energy than in the 40-gauge coil of 15-A. Completely wrong. In this case, the time to full magnetic field strengh is far far longer, and so, much much more power is stored in the magnetic field, not the same 9.5 watts claimed. This error is indefensible. >A phenomenally larger current flow would now occur if the current input was >stopped and coil 15-B was shorted-out as a result of the collapsing, much >greater magnetic field of the 5-gauge wire in coil 15-B. Such shorting >would generate an inductance of 25,700 Henries, which is better than 8 >millions times the inductance of the 40-gauge coil in Figure 15-A. Actually, a higer voltage is induced, as in a standard induction coil. The energy in this discharge is still less than that energy lost while the field reaches full strengh. So much for the evidence for gyroscopic particles. >Clearly these facts, combined with the earlier facts, prove beyond any >doubt that Oersted's conclusion in 1820 (which is still taught to this >day): "that the magnetic field came only from the current and not the >conductor" to be totally false. [Although his conclusion is incorrent, I >remain grateful to Hans Christian Oersted for being the first to notice and >attempt to explain an observed connection between an electric current and a >magnetic field.] Clearly these facts show where the error lies in the formulation of your theory. You have provided no evidence against standard theory, but have set forth a good deal of evidence against yours. >The above clearly proves that the phenomenal difference in strength for the >resulting magnetic fields (implying great differences in stored energy) and >additional current flow when the input current was stopped (inductance), >had to come from the gyroscopic particles comprising the component parts of >the atoms within the copper coil. No such evidence is given, due to the errors made. >The current flow input was the SAME in both tests, but the number of atoms >(lbs. of copper) varied considerably from test 15-A to 15-B correlating >precisely with the phenomenal difference in the strength of magnetic fields >produced, the extreme difference in the stored energy (gyroscopic >particles), and the great difference (inductance) in the additional current >flow produced when the input current was stopped in test 15-A and 15-B. >These phenomenal differences represent the mechanical essence of E=mc^2: >GYROSCOPIC PARTICLES. False, the magnetic field levels are at all times proportional to the net power over time as the field builds, and at all times the magnetic field is proportional to the applied current as predicted by conventional theory. I hope you agree that the total power over time is much larger for the larger coil, hence the larger magnetic field. In your two coil demonstration, the appearance that the larger coil reaches full strengh in less time has been shown to be due to the excessive current demand placed on the batteries by the smaller coil, artificially increasing the time to full magnetic field strenght. I have made the test methods used to prove this effect available to all on this forum. As Mr. Wall has also pointed out, you are given oublic notice that your tests shows nothing like what is claimed. Your product is apparently quite deffective. >The above facts scientifically establish the position that the mathematical >formulas employed in the calculation of the energy within a magnetic field >(intended to represent the potential energy or stored energy of Joules in a >magnetic field) are totally incorrect. The facts above clearly indicate >that the magnetic field consists of gyroscopic-type particles which are the >mechanical essence of E=mc^2 and represent an orderly flow of kinetic >energy. This is untrue, and shows your lack of understanding of the conventional theory. >I will go further and state that "potential" energy, as such, does not >exist! ALL energy is KINETIC in nature, since the gyroscopic particles >continue, under all conditions, to move and spin at the speed of light in >accordance with E=mc^2. I'll guess that Mr. Newman is not aware that the magnetic field is now known not to be primary, but a compsite of two more basic fields. One of these fields, the A field, is a potential field, yet is observably real. >I leave the task of determining the nature of such equations to a thinking, >questioning mathematical mind, as I do not have the mathematical expertise. >It should be noted, however, that the mechanical comprehension of a >natural phenomenon has often historically preceded a mathematical model. >James Clerk Maxwell acknowledged the importance of Michael Faraday's >mechanical and experimental abilities. Maxwell also recognized that such >mechanical aptitude constituted a major intellectual input to his later >mathematical theories. >Joseph Newman, >copyright 1984-1996 >____________________________________ >josephnewman@earthlink.net I strongly suggest you revisit the conventiona theory as reguards the total power in an inductor while charging. You have apparently made a grave error here, and with this resolved, the support for your theory disappears. I also ask again, will Newman Energy Products stand behind it's product? The two coil test has been shown to be fully understood by conventional theory alone, and the effect Mr. Newman used to build his theory has been shown not to exist. Rather than simply posting additional theory by Mr. Newman, will you admit the possibilty of a grave theoretical error, and objectivly concider that possibility under the terms of intellectual honesty as set forth by Mr. Soule? I've not known Mr. Newman to back away from a fight, but this is one he cannot win. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 16 15:31:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA27544; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 15:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 15:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <18640@oroboros.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: CRSM@oroboros.demon.co.uk (Chris Morriss) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: The Newman Motor/Generator X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Joe Newman, Evan Soule or whatever your name is, please stop talking about CURRENT spikes as the input is switched. You are only talking of the steady-state condition of the field in the coil. At switch-on, the current in the coil rises at a rate di/dt = V/L. During this phase, the current is a linear ramp if the coil resistance is low enough to be ignored. At the switching off of the input, the SAME amount of current attempts to keep flowing but now decreases back to zero. The large majority of switch-mode power supplies all over the world demonstrate this fact thousand of times every second. The VOLTAGE spike upon breaking the current can be up to many thousands of volts, but the CURRENT does not exceed the value flowing at the time of interuption. (This is true for a perfect inductor with no inter-winding or lattice capacitance. Real inductors can show a current increase into a load during the voltage transient but this is due to well-understood charge storage in the interwinding capacitance. Very high resistance windings of many turns such as those in the Newman machines can have very high distributed capacitance.) I'm afraid I have to agree with Mr Shannon's comments on this saga so far. Joe Newman is no nearer to proving his machine now than he was ten years ago. (Real soon now eh Joe?) The problem with this is that Joe Newman may really have stumbled across something real, but the half-baked attempts that he and his hangers-on make to try to convince people are simply making him look extremely foolish. -- Chris Morriss From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 05:44:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29749; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 15:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 15:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR ROTATING MAGNET NEWMAN MOTOR/GENERATORS X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: ralph.hartwell@emachine.com (Ralph Hartwell) Organization: The Energy Machine Information System 504-733-8380 To: josephnewman@earthlink.com _________________________________________ Note: The views expressed herein may or may not represent the position of Joseph Newman and, as informational material, are provided here from submissions by other individuals interested in the technology _________________________________________ DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR ROTATING MAGNET NEWMAN MOTORS (C)opyright 1991 by - Ralph M. Hartwell II 715 Jefferson Heights Avenue Jefferson, Louisiana 70121-1110 * * * * * * * * * * The motors demonstrated by inventor Joseph Newman to date have been of two types. The rotating magnet armature version, similar in appearance to a conventional DC electric motor, and the reciprocating or "vertical" design, which resembles a giant solenoid magnet. This discussion will concern itself with the first type of motor, the rotary Newman machine. * * * * * * * * * * OVERVIEW - The rotating magnet Newman motor is deceptivly simple, apparently consisting of nothing more than a large coil of wire, a rotating magnet armature, and a commutator. Unlike a conventional DC electric motor, however, the Newman motor has no iron or other ferromagnetic materials in the magnetic circuit. In fact, the presence of any ferromagnetic materials except for the magnetic armature severly degrades the performance of the machine. A Newman motor is assembled sort of "inside out" when compared to a regular DC electric motor; that is, the coil is wound around the magnet, and the magnet rotates, while the coil remains stationary. A commutator is necessary to perform the dual function of reversing the polarity of the voltage applied to the coil as the magnet reverses position twice per revolution, and to interrupt the current flow through the motor coil many times poer revolution according to Newman's theory. The design of this commutator is quite critical to the proper operation of the motor, and is covered in a seperate paper written by this author. * * * * * * * * * * THE COIL - OPERATING VOLTAGES - The coil is usually a simple solenoid design, with multiple layers of wire wound on it. Depending on the applied voltage, the wire gauge will vary from 8 gauge to about 32 gauge. Thge lower voltages use the larger diameter wire, and the high voltage machines will use the finer wire. Newman has used both extremes on his various designs. Note that while Newman prefers the high voltage designs (he feels the high voltage devices have less loss because of the lower current in the windings) he has successfully demonstrated a machine operating on 12 volts DC power input. My suggestion is to use a voltage no higher than 300, due to the problems with the very high back voltage generated by the device. Output voltages of 50 times the input voltage are not uncommon with the larger units. These great voltage spikes are difficult to control, and tend to destroy test equipment connect- ed to the Newman motor*. Also, high voltage machines require many more turns of fine wire, with a rather rapid increase in construction effort and cost. _________________ *Note: the voltage spiking problem has been solved with the latest commutator designs. This permits the utilization of higher voltages without the earlier back-emf problems. _________________ * * * * * * * * * * THE MAGNET - I have been asked many times about sources for magnets for Mewman motors. My recommendation is to try surplus houses, such as Fair Radio, Jerryco, or suppliers such as Edmund Scientific Co. These folks usually have surplus magnets in various sizes at reasonable prices - at least when compared to new magnets. What is the best type of magnet*? Well, for the experimenter, it's most probably whatever you can get at a good price. Newman motors have been built with everything from Alnico (C) magnets to the latest super-powered rare-earth magnets. A popular material is ferrite composition, of the kind commonly used in loudspeakers. These magnets are usually readily available in surplus catalogues, and are not too unreasonably priced. They also are usually made available in large quantities on the surplus market, which is a good thing, since you will probably need quite a few of them, depending on the size of the motor you are building. [Note: neodymium magnets have been used] If you use magnets such as ferrite loudspeaker magnets, they are usually stacked end to end and covered with something such as epoxy or fibreglas to prevent the assembly from flying apart due to centrifugal force while in high-spoeed operation. If a single stack is not as powerful as you would like, you can place several stacks side-by-side to increase the magnetic field. The magnets may also be placed inside a non-metallic tube to hold them in place. How large should the magnet be? I suggest that the weight of the magnetic material in the rotor be made about 1/4 the weight of the wire used in the coil of the motor. This is not an absolute rule, just a first approximation for testing, but it has worked well in previous designs. * * * * * * * * * * THE COIL - What about the coil size? Remember that as the machine grows bigger, everything interacts to cause the price of the parts needed to increase! Design the coil so that it's axis is about 3/4 to 4/5 as long as the rotating magnet assembly. The coiul should be close in dimensions to a so-called "square" coil design; that is, a coil which is as wide across its diameter as it is long. This design comes close to giving the greatest inductance with the smallest mass of wire, and also keeps as much of the wire as close to the magnet as possible. Since the magnet rotates end-over-end inside the coil, the length of the assembled magnetic rotor determines the inside diameter of the coil. Let's take a few figures as an example. The following is not necessarily a recommendation, but just serves as an example... _________________________________________ Note: in the newest designs, the magnetic rotor configuration is designed differently. _________________________________________ Suppose the magnet when assembled is 11 inches long. If we allow 1/2 inch clearance between the ends of the magnet and the inside of the coil form, that will make the coil form inside diameter about 12 inches. Allowing 3/4 of that size, the coil would be about 8 inches long. Since this is a small motor, we might want to make the coil a bit longer, perhaps a full 12 inches. This will allow us to have a bit more copper wire in the magnetic field of the magnet. The extra wire won't be as effective as the wire near the center of the coil, but every bit helps. * * * * * * * * * * WINDING THE COIL - The thickness of the wire wound on the coil ,depends on the size of the motor, and the strength of the magnets. The bigger the motor, naturally, the bigger the magnet, so the more wire is required. I suggest making the wire thickness about 1.4 to 1/3 the inside diameter of the coil. In this example, this would make the winding thickness about 3 to 4 inches. This makes the outer diameter of the coil about 16 to 18 inches in diameter, with a winding thickness on each side of the form. You can calculate the amount of wire needed by computing the area which will be occupied by the windings. To do this, take the length of the coil, in this case, 12 inches, and multiply it by the winding thickness, which is 4 inches in this example. So, 12 X 4 = 48 Square inches. The wire will not occupy the entire volume, since the wire is round, and when wound on the form, will not fill the entire volume. About 70% of the space will be filled by the wire. A table of wire data, such as the one found in the Radio Amateur's Handbook, will allow you to figure how many turns of wire will be required. Then, you can calculate the length of an "average" turn on the coil by figuring the length around the coil when the coil form is half full, which, in the case of our example here, will be about 16 inches. (12 inches for the inside of the form, plus 2 inches of wire on each side of the form when it is half full). So, 3.1415926 X 16 = 50.26 inches per turn. Let's suppose the wire we have chosen measures 0.05 inches in diameter. If we were able to wind it evenly so that each turn were side by side, we could get 1 inch / 0.05 inches per turn = 20 turns per inch. So, 20 TPI X 48 square inches = 960 turns on the coil. Since we won't be able to get all those turns on the coil so neatly, we can assume between 70-80% of them will fit. Therefoire, 960 turns X .75 = 720 turns expected. Always buy a bit more wire than you figure you'll need, just in case your calculations are a bit off, or in case you really can wind the wire really neatly! Figure how much wire is needed - 720 turns needed; lets allow an extra 15%, so 720 X 1.15 = 828 turns. 828 turns X 50.25 inchges per turn = 41615 inches, or 3468 feet of wire required. The wire table will tell you how many feet of wire are in a pound for the size wire you have chosen. A suggestion at this point - It will probably be cheaper to buy a 50 pound spool of wire then to buy only a couple of smaller spools of wire if you need only 25 pounds or so.. check with several wire suppliers before buying!! * * * * * * * * * * INSULATION CONSIDERATIONS - Beware of winding a coil for a motor which will operate on high voltage without using insulation between layers of wire in the coil. It is entirely possible to have a flashover between windings when the motor runs, due to the very high pulse produced by the motor. This is the reason I suggest starting with relatively low voltages. It also makes the commutator design easier.* Copyright 1991-1996, Ralph M. Hartwell, II _________________________________________ *The latest commutator design enables higher voltages to be utilized. Note: The above article was written several years ago. The principles described above are generally applicable "across the breadth of the technology." However, considerable improvements to the commutator design have been made in the recent past. These improvements are intended to actually reduce the intensity of the sparking by distributing the physical connections over a wider area. The reader should bear in mind that there are TWO totally different design systems (but many sub-configurations within each basic design): there is one commutator design when the energy machine is intended to function as a GENERATOR and a totally different commutator design when the energy machine is intended to function as a MOTOR. The latest design improvements to the commutator system apply to the machine operating as a MOTOR. Subsequent torque can be utilized for mechanical systems or can be used in conjunction with a conventional generator. Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 The latest Wiring/Construction Diagram is available to any truly curious/rational individual* wishing to send a SASE to: Evan Soule Post Office Box 57684 New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 *I say this because I honestly ask that only people --- who are truly curious about the technology and who may be sincerely interested in building a prototype for themselves --- should respond. Thanks! _________________________________________ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 23:30:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA15316; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <317410AD.6157@mail.enternet.com.au> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Greg Watson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [Fwd: An Apology Needed] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Received: from norway.it.earthlink.net (norway-f.it.earthlink.net [206.85.92.49]) by bukula.enternet.com.au with SMTP id DAA25989 (8.6.11/IDA-1.6 for ); Wed, 17 Apr 1996 03:52:04 +1000 Received: from [153.37.129.32] (pool032.Max1.New-Orleans.LA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET [153.37.129.32]) by norway.it.earthlink.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA06139 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:50:21 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:50:21 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: An Apology Needed Status: X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 The following was posted by Greg Watson on freenrg-leskimo.com: >Mr. Newman, are you a fraud or do you have another agenda? > >7)Cut the crap, feed the output back to the input. The world's waiting >for the result with open check books for over unity that works. Stop >selling expensive books to people who want to believe in your motor. > >FEED THE OUTPUT BACK INTO THE INPUT OR GET OFF THE WEB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >Greg Watson >The buck stops here. > >PS. Will wait for the feedback with interest. _________________________________________________ This is my feedback to your posting: I request an apology from you for the above contentious statements. I don't appreciate Joseph Newman being questioned as a "fraud" or as having "another agenda." I don't appreciate you referring to the information I have presented on this Forum as "crap." I don't appreciate you telling me to "get off the web." Note: To you, Joseph Newman's book may seem expensive. Many others have stated that is "underpriced" for the knowledge it contains. The price of the book is a purely subjective opinion either way and has no applicability to the discussion. I believe that your post has violated Rule One of this Forum and I request an apology. Very sincerely, Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70130 Joseph Newman's telephone/address: (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 02:33:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA15937; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <317410CD.4CB5@mail.enternet.com.au> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Greg Watson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [Fwd: Re: What is Fraud?] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Received: from e2a116.enternet.com.au (sladl1p50.ozemail.com.au [203.7.185.66]) by bukula.enternet.com.au with SMTP id IAA29811 (8.6.11/IDA-1.6); Wed, 17 Apr 1996 08:23:25 +1000 Message-ID: <31740F96.4DDD@mail.enternet.com.au> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 07:52:30 +1030 From: Greg Watson Organization: BMS Technology P/L X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Evan Soule CC: gwatson@mail.enternet.com.au Subject: Re: What is Fraud? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Evan Soule wrote: > > The following was posted by Greg Watson > on freenrg-leskimo.com: > > >Mr. Newman, are you a fraud or do you have another agenda? > > > >7)Cut the crap, feed the output back to the input. The world's waiting > >for the result with open check books for over unity that works. Stop > >selling expensive books to people who want to believe in your motor. > > > >FEED THE OUTPUT BACK INTO THE INPUT OR GET OFF THE WEB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > >Greg Watson > >The buck stops here. > > > >PS. Will wait for the feedback with interest. > _________________________________________________ > > This is my feedback to your posting: > > I request an apology from you for the above contentious statements. > > I don't appreciate Joseph Newman being questioned as a "fraud" or as having > "another agenda." > > I don't appreciate you referring to the information I have presented on > this Forum as "crap." > > I don't appreciate you telling me to "get off the web." > > Note: To you, Joseph Newman's book may seem expensive. Many others have > stated that is "underpriced" for the knowledge it contains. The price of > the book is a purely subjective opinion either way and has no applicability > to the discussion. > > I believe that your post has violated Rule One of this Forum and I request > an apology. > > Very sincerely, > > Evan Soule > josephnewman@earthlink.net > (504) 524-3063 > P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70130 > > Joseph Newman's telephone/address: > (601) 947-7147 > Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 Dear Mr. Evan Soule. You seem to be very good at taking items out of context. I will of course issue a apology once you have ANSWERED the other points in my statement. DON'T make the mistake of trying to isolate selected bits of my text. It is my copyright and I NOW request that you ALWAYS use the FULL version whenever you or anyone else refers to it. You and your organization are not a single isolated individual. You represent a corporate entity which is offering services and products for sale. If you misrepresent, mislead, or in anyway do not use your best intent to FULLY inform, ANSWER questions and fully back your product/services you personally and the organization you represent are guilty of civil and possibily criminal offences. This is not a game. You are engaged in a business, MAKE NO MISTAKE of this. You have offered to sell me and many others a book explaining the "Newman Technology". You have offered many reports as to the performance of that technology. I take it as FACT that you stand behind those reports? I have some questions relating to the product you have offered to me for sale. I REQUEST YOU TO ANSWER THE POINTS OF MY STATEMENT FULLY AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR AND YOUR ORGANIZATIONS ABILITY. IF YOU DO NOT OR CAN NOT, I THEN YOU WILL HAVE SHOWN YOUR RODUCT / SERVICE IS NOT FIT FOR THE PURPOSE INTENDED. YOU OF COURSE KNOW IT IS ILLEGAL TO SELL / OFFER FOR SALE A PRODUCT WHICH IS NOT FIT FOR THE PURPOSE INTENDED. IF YOU CONTINUE TO SELL YOUR SERVICES/PRODUCTS YOU WILL VOILATE SEVERAL LAWS IN MANY COUNTRIES. I state again, THIS IS NOT A GAME. YOU ARE IN BUSINESS TO SELL. I WISH TO ACCEPT YOUR OFFER FOR A BOOK SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE CONDITIONS. DO WE HAVE A DEAL (CONTRACT)? Greg Watson PS, I think YOU own bshannon@tiac.net an apology. He asked a question and all you did was attack him! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 04:35:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA12036; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604170528.AA05889@cms.uncwil.edu> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Eddie Dunn To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Depalma experiment clarification requested X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi there, I have recently subscribed to this list so I hope that I am not asking about a subject very wel covered in the group already. anyway back to my point. I have read most of Bruce DePalma's work and thought extensively thereof. I have just now begun to sift through the vast amount of papers availible through BBS's and the internet. I have a paper by Dr. DePalma dated, 17 March 1974 titled Gravity and the Spinning Ball Experiment, In it it describes a phenomena of a spinning ball in that it falls faster in gravity than a corresponding non-spining ball. He atributes this to a previously unknown physical laws. This experimentation eventually led him to apply the same principles to electricity to derieve his generators. again I digress. The question I have is: Is this phenomena well documented and if so could anyone kindly offer any sources, preferibly ones with data sets. Further, I would also be appreciative if someone could offer a "conventional" explaination of this phenomena. Until then, -- Eddie Dunn dunn@sol.cms.uncwil.edu "Once in awhile you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right" -Robert Hunter From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 02:00:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA18040; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 01:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 01:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31749C48.28FE@mail.enternet.com.au> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Greg Watson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [Fwd: You want to Dance!] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------77934BDF2C7C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Above received from Evan Soule. Mr. Soule, I didn't ask for a fight, I just asked a few questions. Seems you don't like questions. 1)Why do the first two statements in the Hasting's report of the Newman's motors efficiency use measurements which would NEVER have been made by a physicist? IE the oil pump load calculation and the running losses when the motor is up to speed. 2)Do you and your organization stand behind the Hasting's report as a true and accurate report? If not why not? 3)Are you and your organization using this and other mail groups to conduct business and sell your products / services? I don't want a fight, Mr. Soule, only THE TRUTH. Greg Watson, --------------77934BDF2C7C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from iceland.it.earthlink.net (iceland-c.it.earthlink.net [206.85.92.28]) by bukula.enternet.com.au with SMTP id NAA05787 (8.6.11/IDA-1.6 for ); Wed, 17 Apr 1996 13:06:56 +1000 Received: from [153.37.144.31] (pool031.Max6.New-Orleans.LA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET [153.37.144.31]) by iceland.it.earthlink.net (8.6.11/8.6.4) with SMTP id UAA10508 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:06:00 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:06:00 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Greg Watson From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: You want to Dance! Status: X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 >> The following was posted by Greg Watson >> on freenrg-leskimo.com: >> >> >Mr. Newman, are you a fraud or do you have another agenda? >> > >> >7)Cut the crap, feed the output back to the input. The world's waiting >> >for the result with open check books for over unity that works. Stop >> >selling expensive books to people who want to believe in your motor. >> > >> >FEED THE OUTPUT BACK INTO THE INPUT OR GET OFF THE WEB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> > >> >Greg Watson >> >The buck stops here. >> > >> >PS. Will wait for the feedback with interest. >> _________________________________________________ >> >> This is my feedback to your posting: First of all, Greg Watson: Your above words stand on their own. You say they are taken out of context. I say this is bullshit. Your contentious remarks speak for themselves and STAND ON THEIR OWN! Secondly, Greg Watson, don't threaten me....I'm not impressed. Thirdly, Greg Watson, I wouldn't so much as "give you the time of day" since your attitude sucks. Up to now, I have tried to be polite with you. I have tried to politely request an apology to your contentious remarks indicated above. You have responded with more contentious statements. Well, you've blown it with me, sucker. As a result of your insulting, contentious attitude, you can stick your buck where the sun generally does not shine. As a result of your insulting, contentious attitude, you can take the "crap" which you mention above and shove it up your feedback. In terms of a rational discussion: because of your insulting and contentious attitude, you get nothing from me. Your contentiousness indicates you want to fight. Well, if you want to fight, bud, you got the right guy. SIC ITUR AD ASTRA Evan Soule --------------77934BDF2C7C-- From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 01:36:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA19496; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 07:02:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 07:02:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960417094646_515805135@emout08.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Ideaman7@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Depalma experiment clarification requested X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I am also a recent subscriber to this list and read with interest your mention of Bruce DePalma and his work with spinning objects and gravity. I have been a friend of Bruce for nearly twenty years. I had hoped to see his work be accepted and become a part of our everyday lives long before now. When I first met him in Santa Barbara in 1979 he told me about his experimentation with spinning ball bearings at high speed (29,000 RPM?) and dropping them in a vacuum alongside non-rotating ball bearings. Using high speed stroboscopic photography (much of his higher education is in optics) he showed that the spinning ball bearing dropped at a higher rate of speed than the non-rotating ball bearing which of course fell at the normal rate of gravity. I have little scientific training but found this to be an interesting scientific phenomenon. Bruce mentioned that he took his findings to a noted physicist, Dr. Jerome Wheeler of Princeton (my recopllection of his name and university). According to Bruce, Dr. Wheeler, after listening to DePalma's findings, essentially threw Bruce out of his office, not wanting to hear of an anomaly such as this that did not fit into his paradigm of physics. This despite the fact that Bruce DePalma is not a backyard inventor without scientific credentials but rather is an M.I.T. graduate who taught courses at Harvard. Wheeler was simply a flat-earther who was being told that the world is round. I filed this information in the back of my mind for a few years while I waited for DePalma or someone else to make the big breakthrough to bring free energy to widespread acceptance and adoption. Then one day in around 1985 in The New York Times Science and Inventions page which runs on Saturdays I read a story about how Japanese researchers had "discovered" and proven that spinnning objects drop faster than non-spinning objects. I may have a copy of this article somewhere but it would take some hunting. I can't be sure of the date other than to say it was in the mid-eighties. I have followed Bruce DePalma and his work for a long time always expecting the big breakthrough to be just around the corner. I believe him to be sincere, highly intelligent, and a great thinker with academic credentials who understands the scientific method and its means of proof. Since I have little scientific background I have had to rely on his statements as to the validity of his work. For this reason it was an affirmation of his overall scientific prowess to see the same effect that he had described to me many years earlier written up in The New York Times. Sometime, hopefully soon, I would like to see The Times write a story about DePalma and his free energy device and its new acceptance as the method of energy production for the world. As an aside I asked Bruce what implications the spinning ball experiment's results could have. He replied that after he finished his work with free energy he would like to work on anti-gravity using the spinning ball bearing phenomenon as the basis for his exploration. I hope I have added a little to this topic. Regards, Ideaman7 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 03:12:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA14959; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604171752.KAA02217@big.aa.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Newman "Effect" Analysts: Shannon, Eisenson, & Morriss X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Gentlemen: I have greatly enjoyed your sincere efforts at dealing straightforwardly with the Newman stuff. I am especially appreciative of the great time which Shannon has carefully put into dissecting Newman's thought processes and stated claims. You have honored our listserv greatly. Thank you very much. I consider the Newman chapter decisively closed. All of the discussion posts related to Newman on Free Energy should be posted somewhere for web access and I hope it is. I have kept a complete archive, only because I am an incurable info junkie. I will transmit the entire archive to whomever wants to webbize it. Again, thank you very much for speeding us to the end of the chapter. Could you kindly introduce yourselves with some personal and profesional details? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 12:24:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA15831; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31755989.512D@mail.enternet.com.au> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Greg Watson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: You want to Dance!]]] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------77D3052223A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Following received from Mr. Soule, Following sent to Mr. Soule. Greg Watson, --------------77D3052223A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from germany.it.earthlink.net (germany-c.it.earthlink.net [206.85.92.123]) by bukula.enternet.com.au with SMTP id XAA21053 (8.6.11/IDA-1.6 for ); Wed, 17 Apr 1996 23:32:01 +1000 Received: from [153.37.129.27] (pool027.Max1.New-Orleans.LA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET [153.37.129.27]) by germany.it.earthlink.net (8.6.11/8.6.4) with SMTP id GAA03508 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:31:16 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:31:16 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Greg Watson From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: You want to Dance!]] Status: X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 To: Greg Watson Organization: BS Technology P/L Due to your previous, initiated, contentious and insulting statements to me --- (for which you have failed to apologize when respectfully asked for said apology) --- you have forfeited your claim to any type of rational discussion. Your attitude speaks for itself. I would suggest that you not email me again. SIC ITUR AD ASTRA Evan Soule --------------77D3052223A-- From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 04:06:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA15957; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31755AAA.2E19@mail.enternet.com.au> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Greg Watson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: You want to Dance!]] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Greg Watson wrote: > > Evan Soule wrote: > > > > To: Greg Watson > > Organization: BS Technology P/L > > > > Due to your previous, initiated, contentious and insulting statements to me > > --- (for which you have failed to apologize when respectfully asked for > > said apology) --- you have forfeited your claim to any type of rational > > discussion. Your attitude speaks for itself. I would suggest that you not > > email me again. > > > > SIC ITUR AD ASTRA > > > > Evan Soule > > Mr Soule, > > I have will issue you an apology on one condition, ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. > > 1)Do you and your organization stand behind the test data in the > Hasting's report? > > 2)Are you and your organization conducting a business, IE the book,video > and other items/services you offer? > > I only ask for definitive answers to my questions. If you have NOTHING > to hide, show me where I got it wrong. I will issue my apology. Stand > accused as charged if you don't. > > You issued the Hasting's report. DO YOU STAND BEHIND IT? WILL YOU > SUPPORT IT? > > Greg Watson Next chapter From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 02:23:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA24703; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 23:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 23:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604180421.AAA21264@zork.tiac.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Newman's technology. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Henry Eisenson wrote: >Why not submit this whole argument to such a facility? The evaluation >would be underwritten by contribution (me, for one) and the facility >selected by an agreed-upon committee picked from this list. > >Henry Eisenson >Introtech >San Diego, CA >(619) 453-7600 I second this proposal, and suggest that this forum be that facility. I further suggest that we begin with Mr. Newman's two coil tests as demonstrated in the commercial video presentation. As this demonstration has been claimed as support for Mr. Newman's fundemental theory. As I have directly challanged this demonstration, claiming that it shows no evidence for Mr. Newman's theory, I think this would be an excellent place to start. Evaluation of this test is far simpler and easier than full testing of the energy machine itself. If indeed this demonstration does show something beyond conventional explanation, proceed to evaluating Mr. Newman's energy machine. On the other hand, should an evaluation show only conventional phenomema, Newman Energy Products should then stop the sale and distribution of that video, unless thay have reasonable objections to the testing done. Doyle Henderson wrote: >Thank you Dr. Bailey.... Your analogies helped clear up some of my >confusion about such concepts. And, while I'm sending, and it's >only my opinion, I thank Mr. Neuman for his innovative ideas and all >the effort he's put forth to do something really interesting instead >of closing his mind to what most people think is impossible. Hey, >maybe he's got something! Those of you who can do it, help him prove >he's right-- if you can! There are already enough skeptics ready to >shoot him and every other innovator in the world down in flames. >Isn't this list supposed to be devoted to the support of ideas which >conflict with current knowledge? >Most sincerely, Doyle Henderson. E-mail: panacea@bigbear.net What is important here is proving truth, not right or wrong. Proving Mr. Newman wrong is just as important as proving him to be right, so long as we have proof of truth, whatever that may be. I find the truth to be more interesting than right and wrong. You can call this skepticisim if you like, but I don't see it that way. It looks more like objectivity to me, as I look for the truth even if it's not what I wish to believe. If an alternative theory comes along which is in conflict with "conventional wisdom", and is then shown to be wrong, should we still support it just because it is in conflict with current knowledge, or reject it as being untrue? Both the concept of objectivity and scientific inquiry demand that we reject any theory shown to be wrong, no matter how appealing we find it personally. If you still find support for Mr. Newman's theory or claims in the Hastings report or the two coil video demonstration, ask yourself "do I fully understand the nature of the objections being raised?" If you are less than sure, just ask here. I'm sure many will impartially explain the conventional theory of power factors and measurement methods. It's easy to dismiss my taking issue with Mr. Newman's claims as being due to closing one's mind to what most people think is impossible. I should point out that personally I do not find claims of over unity (Eout > Ein) impossible. In fact, you can find a description of a working device of my design on Bill's web page where Ein = 0, and Eout is > 0. Clearly I am not a simple disbeleiver. Yes, this list is devoted to ideas which conflict with current knowledge, but perhaps most importantly, it is dedicated to an objective, scientific study of ideas that are outside current knowledge, and this is what is at issue here. While maintaining an open "mind to what most people think is impossible", we must make sure that at all times, our eyes remain open. Far too often, they close just as the mind opens, and objectivity is lost in the darkness of wanting to believe. Bob Shannon. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 06:39:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA24964; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 23:14:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 23:14:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604180420.AAA21242@zork.tiac.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Errors in Newman's theroy. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mr. Soule posted the following theory from Mr. Newman, which contains grave errors. These errors shed a great deal of light on Mr. Newman's theory : >Physically speaking, this simply means that the energy contained within the >magnetic field --- when generated by positive ( + ) current flow in one >direction --- is returned by the collapsing magnetic field as negative ( - ) >current flow when the current reverses direction. >The Prior Art also teaches Kirchhoff's Law which states: the same amount >of current placed into a system (as a copper conductor) for a given instant >of time has the same amount of current flowing from that system (copper >conductor) for the same given-instant of time. (See Figure 14-D.) >The above facts of 14C and 14D totally contradict the prior teaching that >the magnetic field generated by the current flowing in a (copper) conductor >is solely a result of the current itself and that copper is non-magnetic. >The facts demonstrate the following: 14C above shows that if one inputs a >given amount of current (X) into a copper coil during a given-instant of >time then, as described in 14D above, the same amount of current (X) >outputs from the copper coil during the same instant of time. In addition >14C above also shows that if the current is then cut off and the coil >shorted with meters in the line, then the same amount of current (X) will >now come from the copper coil. >The facts therefore demonstrate: (X) current in and (X) current out PLUS >(X) current out again when the (X) current input is stopped. These facts >are therefore equivalent to 1 (X) amount of current into the coil (copper) >and 2 (X) amount of current out of the (copper) coil. This is incorrect. As current was first applied to the coil, the magnetic field began to expand in direct proportion to that applied current. This current (while the magnetic field is expanding) follows the time constant formula: I(t) = E/R (1 - e^(-t R/L)) Where I is the current in amperes, E the voltage, and R the resistance in ohms, e is the natural logarithmic base, ~2.718 At the instant the circuit is closed, current is zero, and increases to 63.2% of maximum (for the applied voltage) after 1 time contant, or (L/R) in seconds. As the power "stored" in the magnetic field does not flow out of the coil until the magnetic field collapses, we do not have 2 (X) coming out of the coil as Mr. Newman claims. >Question: From where did the extra (X) amount of current coming from the >copper coil emanate? The current that flows through the coil once the magnetic field has reached full strength maintains the magnetic field, and prevents its collpase. When the field does collapse, the same total energy that was stored in the magnetic field is returned, less any losses. Under no circumstances is 2 (X) ever delivered as is mistakenly claimed. >Even I was mislead by these teachings for many years, and I finally came to >the realizatin that copper was highly magnetic by a completely different >means than outlined above. These means included: (1) my general >comprehension which originated with my recognition that the basic building >block of ALL matter was the GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE, and (2) a test I conducted >using a single piece of copper wire 800 feet long, which was doubled-back >400 feet to the starting point and hooked to a meter and dry cell battery >(See Figures 14-F1 and 14-F2.) >The test shown in Figure 14-F1 has the parallel positions of the wire 10 >feet apart, with no "Unobvious Force" between the parallel portions of the >wire. The test shown in Figure 14-F2 has the parallel portions of the wire >extremely close, with an "Unobvious Force" between the parallel part of the >single wire. >The results of these two tests demonstrated the SAME current input for both >tests. Prior to these results I had recognized that the words "Work," >"Force," and "Power" are implicit engineering statements and do not >represent precise, scientific terms based upon observational reality. I >conceptually altered such macroscopic, engineering statements to "Obvious >Work," "Obvious Force," and "Obvious Power." I would microscopically >describe what occurs internally, within matter as "Unobvious Work," >"Unobvious Force," and "Unobvious Power." [These concepts are discussed at >another point in greater detail.] Such semantic clarification enabled me >to know --- upon completing the above tests in Figures 14-F1 and 14-F2 --- >that copper is extremely magnetic. Conventional theory predicts that the current will be the same in both cases. The current will only be different if work is being done, that is, while the two opposed conductors are in motion due to mutual repulsion. The repulsive force alone does not demand additional current until work is done. Mr. Newman appears to be confused in his understanding of conventional theory here as well. >Returning to the above test of Figure 14-E1 and 14-E2: by my teaching, the >facts clearly show that in the above analogy, one gallon of current >"matter" (consisting of gyroscopic particles) was released from the atoms >of the copper coil! This extra one gallon of current (gyroscopic >particles) comes from the component parts of the atoms comprising the >copper coil and simply utilizes Einstein's Equation of E=mc^2. [I must >stress that this is an analogy only. The volume or mass of matter via the >gyroscopic particles represents the mechanics of E=mc^2 and such particles >cannot be seen or weighed by conventional means. Their existence can be >inferred, however, based on their mechanical behavior combined with known, >observational facts.] >Question: How can this EXTRA one gallon of current exist? By simple error alone? >Answer: The current input (gyroscopic particles) simply ACTS AS A CATALYST >relative to the atoms comprising the copper coil --- atoms which align and >unalign extremely fast compared to the atoms of conventional, magnetic >materials --- thereby releasing virtually immeasurable portions of the >gyroscopic particles comprising the atoms of the coil. This release >generates the magnetic field. When the input current is turned off, the >collapsing (gyroscopic particles of the) magnetic field within the coil >results in the gyroscopic particles attempting to return to the atoms from >which they initially emanated. Such mechanical action results in the >gyroscopic particles striking other atoms within the copper coil at some >degree of a right angle and moving AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THAT FORCE. This >gyroscopic motion explains the source for the additional "one gallon" of >current (gyroscopic particles) discussed in the above water analogy. >Because of the "conversion efficiency" of this process via E=mc^2, there >will be NO observable change in the mass of copper even after decades of >use. There is no valid experimental evidence for this effect, as is shown by a detailed analysis of Mr. Newman's two coil demonstration. As Newman Energy Products is aware that such testing has been performed, I think thay are obligated to address this issue as a matter of intellectual honesty. To Mr. Newman's credit, he is correct that copper has a fairly small hysteresis and low retentivity, but this is not what "magnetic" means. >Take a 40-gauge copper wire which has a resistance of 1,049 Ohms for 1000 >feet with a total weight (of atoms composed of gyroscopic particles) of a >mere .02993 lbs, turning same into a coil with a 10-foot interior diameter >and 8.32 feet in height. One would therefore have approximately a mere >31.8 turns of copper wire (copper atoms, i.e., gyroscopic particles). See >Figure 15-A. >If 100 volts is connected to coil 15-A, then a current flow of >approximately 95MA would occur with total power input of 9.5 watts and a >resulting weak, magnetic field of .012 Gauss or a mere .000014 Joules of >energy stored in this weak, magnetic field. Here is Mr. Newman's major error. The phrase "total input power of 9.5 watts" is incorrect, and in complete error. The total power through the coil to produce the static state (magnetic field no longer expanding, and current constant) is not 9.5 watts. To calculate this figure, we must integrate the changing current as the magnetic field reaches its maximum, and then account for the phase between current and voltage, and only then can we compute the "total input power" used to produce the magnetic field stored by the inductor. Mr. Soule may counter that this is only my opinion, but this is not the case. This subject has been fully described in many basic text books, and proven experimentally countless times. Mr. Newman has no evidence that this is not the case, but appears to be unaware of this basic fact of electrical engineering. One may simply check any copy of "The Radio Amateur's Handbook" to verify these facts. (e.g. 1983 edition, page 2-16, fig. 30 & 31.) >An insignificant current flow would now occur if the current input was >stopped and coil 15-A was shorted-out to collapse a weak magnetic field and >provide an inductance of only .003 Henries. >Now, conduct another test with 5-gauge copper wire which has a resistance >of .3133 Ohms for 1000 feet. However, to equal the same resistance as in >15-A above, one must now use 3,348,000 feet of 5-gauge wire with a massive, >total weight (of atoms composed of gyroscopic particles moving and >traveling at the speed of light, i.e., the mechanical essence of Einstein's >Equation of E=mc^2) of 335,469.6 lbs. or 16.77 tons. Such wire is turned >into a coil with a 10-foot interior diameter and 8.32-foot height. This >structure would have approximately a phenomenal 90,000 turns of 5-gauge >(copper atoms). If 100 volts were now connected to coil 15-B, then a >current flow of approximately 95MA could occur with a total power input of >9.5 watts and a resulting, phenomenally larger magnetic field of 23.7 Gauss >or 1,905 times larger for coil 15-B than for coil 15-A, and 116 Joules of >energy stored in the magnetic field of Figure 15-B. This represents a >phenomenal 8 millions times more energy than in the 40-gauge coil of 15-A. An equally phenomenal ammount of input current is needed to reach full magnetic field strength. In fact, 8,566,666.667 times more energy is needed to bring the larger coil to maximum magnetic field strength. Mr. Newman is of the opinion that larger magnetic fields do not take longer to generate. This fact is demonstrated in the two coil video tape, but is disproven by a simple examination of this experiment, as well as by conventional theory. No evidence exists for anything outside conventional theory in Nr. Newman's demonstration. Just how long would it take to reach this 95 milliamperes of input current Mr. Newman? Any idea? The L/R time constant here is 25,700 Henries over 1,049 ohms, or about 24.5 (24.4995). This tells us that after 24.5 seconds, the current, and magnetic field level, will only be 63.2% of maximum. Only after 5 L/R time constants can we describe the inductor as fully "charged". The L/R time constant for the smaller coil is .003 (Henries) / 1,049 (ohms) which is only 2.859 microseconds. This is quite a difference in total power. The "total power" used in this (long) process is far greater than 9.5 watts. Mr. Newman has compounded his error in not accounting for the L/R time contant in calculating the input power of the small coil by repeating his mistake again with the larger coil. This clearly shows the level of Mr. Newman's confusion on this matter. I suggest Mr. Soule verify this independantly, and then ask Mr. Newman why the "total power" to maximum field strength (maximum stored energy) was computed as it was here. As Mr. Newman has been laboring under the assumption that the larger coil reaches full strength in less time (untrue, and disproven) this again compounds the error in not accounting for the L/R time constant, and leads Mr. Newman to the incorrect conclusion that more power is returned by the coil that was dissipated in generating that same field. >A phenomenally larger current flow would now occur if the current input was >stopped and coil 15-B was shorted-out as a result of the collapsing, much >greater magnetic field of the 5-gauge wire in coil 15-B. Such shorting >would generate an inductance of 25,700 Henries, which is better than 8 >millions times the inductance of the 40-gauge coil in Figure 15-A. >Clearly these facts, combined with the earlier facts, prove beyond any >doubt that Oersted's conclusion in 1820 (which is still taught to this >day): "that the magnetic field came only from the current and not the >conductor" to be totally false. [Although his conclusion is incorrent, I >remain grateful to Hans Christian Oersted for being the first to notice and >attempt to explain an observed connection between an electric current and a >magnetic field.] What Mr. Newman has proven here is his lack of understanding of conventional theory and how his particular misunderstanding has led him to his theory. This same lack of understanding has also caused Mr. Newman to misinterpret his experimental evidence, which in reality totally disproves his theory. >The above clearly proves that the phenomenal difference in strength for the >resulting magnetic fields (implying great differences in stored energy) and >additional current flow when the input current was stopped (inductance), >had to come from the gyroscopic particles comprising the component parts of >the atoms within the copper coil. >The current flow input was the SAME in both tests, but the number of atoms >(lbs. of copper) varied considerably from test 15-A to 15-B correlating >precisely with the phenomenal difference in the strength of magnetic fields >produced, the extreme difference in the stored energy (gyroscopic >particles), and the great difference (inductance) in the additional current >flow produced when the input current was stopped in test 15-A and 15-B. >These phenomenal differences represent the mechanical essence of E=mc^2: >GYROSCOPIC PARTICLES. Again, totally wrong. The statement "The current flow input was the SAME in both cases..." is incorrect by accepted conventional theory. The currents will only reach this same value after an ammount of time directly proportional to the amount of energy stored in the magnetic fields. Mr. Newman's experimental evidence that the larger magnetic field takes less time to generate than the smaller one is deeply flawed, and had been proven false by direct experimental evidence, and public notice of this has been given to Newman Energy Products. Nothing to refute the proof against Mr.Newman's experiment has been offered yet. To date, Newman Energy Products has not yet addressed this whole issue in a satisfactory manner. As more material is released on this forum, the magnitude of Mr. Newman's error has become clear, as well as some specifics of just what that error is. This message should stand as public notice to Mr. Newman of these errors, and the total lack of evidence to support Mr. Newman's theory. >The above facts scientifically establish the position that the mathematical >formulas employed in the calculation of the energy within a magnetic field >(intended to represent the potential energy or stored energy of Joules in a >magnetic field) are totally incorrect. The facts above clearly indicate >that the magnetic field consists of gyroscopic-type particles which are the >mechanical essence of E=mc^2 and represent an orderly flow of kinetic >energy. Mr. Newman has done nothing of the kind. By conventional theory, Mr. Newman's method of calculating the "total power" needed to bring the magnetic field of a coil to full strength is totally incorrect. It is not the power flowing through that coil in the static "charged" state. Mr. Newman has not shown the conventional formulas used to calculate the energy stored in the magnetic field to be incorrect, but he has proven that he does not understand the proper formula, as he failed to use it here. Mr. Newman has not demonstrated that the larger magnetic field takes less time to produce than the smaller as he believes is the case based on his two coil demonstration. These are facts supported by a preponderance of evidence. This paints a very grave picture for Mr. Newman's theroy. This also suggests that Newman Energy Products should immediately begin a major review of Mr. Newman's theory and claims. As Mr. Newman's theory is a product of Newman Energy Products in the form of the books and videos, the above facts would suggest that if Newman Energy Products is actually interested in intellectual honesty, they address these facts as soon as practical. Unless Newman Energy Products can address the issues raised against their video two coil demonstration, they should cease its sale and distrubution to uphold intellectual honesty, so highly prized by Mr. Soule. If the excerpt of Mr. Newman's theory addressed above is taken from Mr. Newman's book, some erratta are in order. Clearly, Mr. Newman did make a major error in the statement "The current flow input was the SAME in both tests, but the number of atoms (lbs. of copper) varied considerably...", as Mr. Newman did not calculate the true total energy input for both coils. The intellectual honesty of Newman Energy Products is clearly on the line here. Either this is their opportunity to stand by their products and prove their claims or to uphold intellectual honesty and admit to grave errors. Some may brand me as being part of some conspiracy against Mr. Newman for this. I suggest those who think that this might be the case check the refercence provided. If you conclude the forces of nature are now part of a conspiracy against Mr. Newman, you're getting a bit closer. The simple fact that inductors of vastly different masses, but equal inductance, each have identical electrical performance clearly disproves the concept that the number of atoms plays a direct role in the storage of energy in the magnetic field of an inductor. This also remains unaddressed by Mr. Newman. I, like many here, will eagerly await the response from Newman Energy Products on these matters. Respectfully, Bob Shannon From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 01:43:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA16890; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: UFO in Russia to : Bill Beaty . (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 20:11:26 +0600 (MSD) From: Valery Yakimov To: billb@eskimo.com Subject: UFO in Russia to : Bill Beaty . Hello Bill ! My name is Valery Yakimov, I'm 31. I live in Ekaterinburg in Russia . I study UFO and other anomalous phenomena. I and my group research the unique place ( Perm anomalous zone ) in our region ( Russia, the Urals ) where the appearence of different kinds of UFO can be constantly witnessed. We have UFO on photo and video. If this is interesting for you or your friends, please contact me . Regards, Director of Independent Research Association " Ural - UFO " Mr. Valery Yakimov e-mail: root@ufo.nu.x-atom.n From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 22:22:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA16948; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:37:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:37:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: F/E in Munchen DE? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 19:08:01 +0100 From: Nikolai Korschun To: billb@eskimo.com Subject: Anti-Gravity Device, Free eng. Mach. Dear Bill Beaty Do you know about any activities in free energy and related topics around my living area in Munich/Bavaria/Germany? Thanks a lot for any reply. Yours N.Korschunow From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 03:55:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA17026; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3175EBDC.7D5A@mail.enternet.com.au> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Greg Watson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: The Truth X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Greg Watson wrote: > > To all Freenrg-list members. > > You have seen the correspondence between myself and Mr. Soule. > > I will ask you to support me by e-mailing Mr Soule the 2 following > questions. > > 1)Do you and your organization stand behind the Hasting's report? > > 2)Are you and your organization conduction a business in the book, video > and other services / products which are offered for sale? > > I realize that this group is interested in free energy devices and it is > NOT my intention to engage in a "Flame War" with Mr. Soule. I only seek > what you seek, the truth and a better future for our children. > > I do believe that there may be some areas of the Newman motor which is > worthy of further study. I have for some years worked on the development > of a high performance induction generator. which has lead me to a very > good understanding of the interactions of coils, magnetic fields and > moving masses. There is much material for open discussion. > > Greg Watson Resent above, bounced (why?) first time. Greg Watson From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 00:39:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA05747; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 04:10:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 04:10:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604181106.NAA18209@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Announcing OVERUNITY WEB site ! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi, finally the first page of my new Free Energy WEB server called: OVERUNITY is up now ! Expect to come a lot more. You can have a look at it right now: http://www.overunity.de Point your WEB browser to it and let me know, if you have any difficulties. Thanks a lot. Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti Check out our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 02:04:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA06761; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 04:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 04:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604181112.NAA18221@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: F/E in Munchen DE? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 19:08:01 +0100 >From: Nikolai Korschun >To: billb@eskimo.com >Subject: Anti-Gravity Device, Free eng. Mach. > >Dear Bill Beaty > >Do you know about any activities in free energy and related topics >around my living area in Munich/Bavaria/Germany? > >Thanks a lot for any reply. > >Yours > >N.Korschunow > There are some guys in Munich I know of. I will look for the address and forward it. Regards, Stefan. > > > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti Check out our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 05:32:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA06814; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 04:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 04:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604181117.NAA18244@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Errors in Newman's theroy. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >>The facts therefore demonstrate: (X) current in and (X) current out PLUS >>(X) current out again when the (X) current input is stopped. These facts >>are therefore equivalent to 1 (X) amount of current into the coil (copper) >>and 2 (X) amount of current out of the (copper) coil. > >This is incorrect. As current was first applied to the coil, the magnetic >field began to expand in direct proportion to that applied current. This >current (while the magnetic field is expanding) follows the time constant >formula: > >I(t) = E/R (1 - e^(-t R/L)) > >Where I is the current in amperes, E the voltage, and R the resistance in ohms, >e is the natural logarithmic base, ~2.718 > >At the instant the circuit is closed, current is zero, and increases to 63.2% of >maximum (for the applied voltage) after 1 time contant, or (L/R) in seconds. > > A quick hint: The above formular is only true, if you use a static coil ! In the Newman case, where a permanent magnet rotates inside the coil, this formula is not true and has to be enhanced ! You will see it soon on my WEB site: http://www.overunity.de Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti Check out our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 23 06:59:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA05104; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: The Proof is in the "Pudding" X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear bshannon: Thank you for your post entitled "Errors in Newman's Theroy(sic)" --- As the title of this reply suggests, the operational prototypes speaking for themselves. Thirty scientists --- via their own expense and initiative --- have signed Affadivits attesting to the validity of the technology after having tested operational prototypes of the technology. Moreover, even a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office with "superb credentials" (according to a Federal Judge hearing Joseph Newman's suit against the Patent Office) wrote: "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; and Defendant (PTO) intentionally did not consider the formalities of Plaintiff's (J. Newman's) application or the patentability of Plaintiff's claims under 35 USC sec. 102/103." Going back to the original discussion of Professor Cremonini and Galileo: Professor Cremonini was very adept at proving to Galileo the precise "natural law" as formulated by Aristotle (for instance) which rendered Galileo's telescope "invalid." However, the final proof was in the "Pudding" --- the operational telescope spoke for itself. Galileo could discuss the issue with Professor Cremonini until both were "blue in the face" --- but the operational telescope (in this case an operational Newman Motor/Generator) was (is) the final "arbiter" of the discussion. I also refer the reader to the post entitled "Gyroscopic (mechanical) Gears" which discusses a number of subjects involved. Also, a number of people have stated that because of the double-lined spacing of the following article, I have re-posted this information for the benefit of those whose systems may have cut-off the later lines. [I am indebted to Stefan Hartmann for his original posting of the article and to Patrick Bailey for his kind effort in reformatting the original article. Thank you!] NEWMAN'S THEORY By Roger Hastings PhD I do not intend to recapitulate the theory presented in Newman's book, but rather to briefly provide my interpretation of his ideas. Newman began studying electricity and magnetism in the mid 1960's. He has a mechanical background, and was looking for a mechanical description of electromagnetic fields. That is, he assumed that there must be a mechanical interaction between, for example, two magnets. He could not find such a description in any book, and decided that he would have to provide his own explanation. He came to the conclusion that if electromagnetic fields consisted of tiny spinning particles moving at the speed of light along the field lines, then he could explain all standard electromagnetic phenomena through the interaction of spinning particles. Since the spinning particles interact in the same way as gyroscopes, he called the particles gyroscopic particles. In my opinion, such spinning particles do provide a qualitative description of electromagnetic phenomena, and his model is useful in understanding complex electrical situations (note that without a pictorial model one must rely solely upon mathematical equations which can become extremely complex). Given that electromagnetic fields consist of matter in motion, or kinetic energy, Joe decided that it should be possible to tap this kinetic energy. He likes to say: "How long did man sit next to a stream before he invented the paddle wheel?" Joe built a variety of unusual devices to tap the kinetic energy in electromagnetic fields before he arrived at his present motor design. He likes to point out that both Maxwell and Faraday, the pioneers of electromagnetism, believed that the fields consisted of matter in motion. This is stated in no uncertain terms in Maxwell's book "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field". In fact, Maxwell used a dynamical model to derive his famous equations. This fact has all but been lost in current books on electromagnetic theory. The quantity which Maxwell called "electromagnetic momentum" is now referred to as the "vector potential". Going further, Joe realized that when a magnetic field is created, its gyroscopic particles must come from the atoms of the materials which created the field. Thus he decided that all matter must consist of the same gyroscopic particles. For example, when a voltage is applied to a wire, Newman pictures gyroscopic particles (which I will call gyrotons for short) moving down the wire at the speed of light. These gyrotons line up the electrons in the wire. The electrons themselves consist of a swirling mass of gyrotrons, and their matter fields combine when lined up to form the magnetic lines of force circulating around the wire. In this process, the wire has literally lost some of its mass to the magnetic field, and this is accounted for by Einstein's equation of energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light. According to Einstein, every conversion of energy involves a corresponding conversion of matter. According to Newman, this may be interpreted as an exchange of gyrotrons. For example, if two atoms combine to give off light, the atoms would weight slightly less after the reaction than before. According to Newman, the atoms have combined and given off some of their gyrotrons in the form of light. Thus Einstein's equation is interpreted as a matter of counting gyrotrons. These particles cannot be created or destroyed in Newman's theory, and they always move at the speed of light. My interpretation of Newman's original idea for his motor is as follows. As a thought experiment, suppose one made a coil consisting of 186,000 miles of wire. An electrical field would require one second to travel the length of the wire, or in Newman's language, it would take one second for gyrotons inserted at one end of the wire to reach the other end. Now suppose that the polarity of the applied voltage was switched before the one second has elapsed, and this polarity switching was repeated with a period less than one second. Gyrotons would become trapped in the wire, as their number increased, so would the alignment of electrons and the number of gyrotons in the magnetic field increase. The intensified magnetic field could be used to do work on an external magnet, while the input current to the coil would be small or non-existent. Newman's motors contain up to 55 miles of wire, and the voltage is rapidly switched as the magnet rotates. He elaborates upon his theory in his book, and uses it to interpret a variety of physical phenomena. RECENT DATA ON THE NEWMAN MOTOR In May of 1985 Joe Newman demonstrated his most recent motor prototype in Washington, D.C.. The motor consisted of a large coil wound as a solenoid, with a large magnet rotating within the bore of the solenoid. Power was supplied by a bank of six volt lantern batteries. The battery voltage was switched to the coil through a commutator mounted on the shaft of the rotating magnet. The commutator switched the polarity of the voltage across the coil each half cycle to keep a positive torque on the rotating magnet. In addition, the commutator was designed to break and remake the voltage contact about 30 times per cycle. Thus the voltage to the coil was pulsed. The speed of the magnet rotation was adjusted by covering up portions of the commutator so that pulsed voltage was applied for a fraction of a cycle. Two speeds were demonstrated: 12 R.P.M. for which 12 pulses occurred each revolution; and 120 rpm for which all commutator segments were firing. The slower speed was used to provide clear oscilloscope pictures of currents and voltages. The fast speed was used to demonstrate the potential power of the motor. Energy outputs consisted of incandescent bulbs in series with the batteries, fluorescent tubes across the coil, and a fan powered by a belt attached to the shaft of the rotor. Relevant motor parameters are given below: Coil weight : 9000 lbs. Coil length : 55 miles of copper wire Coil Inductance: 1,100 Henries measured by observing the current rise time when a D.C. voltage was applied. Coil resistance: 770 Ohms Coil Height : about 4 ft. Coil Diameter : slightly over 4 ft. I.D. Magnet weight : 700 lbs. Magnet Radius : 2 feet Magnet geometry: cylinder rotating about its perpendicular axis Magnet Moment of Inertia: 40 kg-sq.m. (M.K.S.) computed as one third mass times radius squared Battery Voltage: 590 volts under load Battery Type : Six volt Ray-O-Vac lantern batteries connected in series A brief description of the measurements taken and distributed at the press conference follows. When the motor was rotating at 12 rpm, the average D.C. input current from the batteries was about 2 milli-amps, and the average battery input was then 1.2 watts. The back current (flowing against the direction of battery current) was about -55 milli-amps, for an average charging power of -32 watts. The forward and reverse current were clearly observable on the oscilloscope. It was noted that when the reverse current flowed, the battery voltage rose above its ambient value, verifying that the batteries were charging. The magnitude of the charging current was verified by heating water with a resistor connected in series with the batteries. A net charging power was the primary evidence used to show that the motor was generating energy internally, however output power was also observed. The 55 m-amp current flowing in the 770 ohm coil generates 2.3 watts of heat, which is in excess of the input power. In addition, the lights were blinking brightly as the coil was switched. The back current from the coil switched from zero to negative several amps in about 1 milli-second, and then decayed to zero in about 0.1 second. Given the coil inductance of 1100 henries, the switching voltages were several million volts. Curiously, the back current did not switch on smoothly, but increased in a staircase. Each step in the staircase corresponded to an extremely fast switching of current, with each increase in the current larger than the previous increase. The width of the stairs was about 100 micro-seconds, which for reference is about one third of the travel time of light through the 55 mile coil. Mechanical losses in the rotor were measured as follows: The rotor was spun up by hand with the coil open circuited. An inductive pick-up loop was attached to a chart recorder to measure the rate of decay of the rotor. The energy stored in the rotor (one half the moment of inertia times the square of the angular velocity) was plotted as a function of time. The slope of this curve was measured at various times and gave the power loss in the rotor as a function of rotor speed. The result of these measurements is given in the following table: Rotor Speed Power Dissipation Power/(Speed Squared) radian/sec watts watts/(rad/sec)^2 4.0 6.3 0.39 3.7 5.8 0.42 3.3 5.0 0.46 3.0 3.5 0.39 2.1 2.0 0.45 1.7 1.2 0.42 1.2 0.7 0.47 The data is consistent with power loss proportional to the square of the angular speed, as would be expected at low speeds. When the rotor moves fast enough so that air resistance is important, the losses would begin to increase as the cube of the angular speed. Using power = 0.43 times the square of the angular speed will give a lower bound on mechanical power dissipation at all speeds. When the rotor is moving at 12 rpm, or 1.3 rad/sec, the mechanical loss is 0.7 watts. When the rotor was sped up to 120 rpm by allowing the commutator to fire on all segments, the results were quite dramatic. The lights were blinking rapidly and brightly, and the fan was turning rapidly. The back current spikes were about ten amps, and still increased in a staircase, with the width of the stairs still about 100 micro-seconds. Accurate measurements of the input current were not obtained at that time, however I will report measurements communicated to me by Mr. Newman. At a rotation rate of 200 rpm (corresponding to mechanical losses of at least 190 watts), the input power was about 6 watts. The back current in this test was about 0.5 amps, corresponding to heating in the coil of 190 watts. As a final point of interest, note that the Q of his coil at 200 rpm is about 30. If his battery plus commutator is considered as an A.C. power source, then the impedance of the coil at 200 rpm is 23,000 henries, and the power factor is 0.03. In this light, the predicted input power at 700 volts is less than one watt! MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION OF NEWMAN'S MOTOR Since I am preparing this document on my home computer, it will be convenient to use the Basic computer language to write down formulas. The notation is * for multiply, / for divide, ^ for raising to a power, and I will use -dot to represent a derivative. Newton's second law of motion applied to Newman's rotor yields the following equation: MI*TH-dot-dot + G*TH-dot = K*I*SIN(TH) (1) where MI = rotor moment of inertia TH = rotor angular position (radians) G = rotor decay constant K = torque coupling constant I = coil current In general the constant G may depend upon rotor speed, as when air resistance becomes important. The term on the right hand side of the equation represents the torque delivered to the rotor when current flows through the coil. A constant friction term was found through measurement to be small compared to the TH-dot term at reasonable speeds, but can be included in the "constant" G. The equation for the current in the coil is given by: L*I-dot + R*I = V(TH) - K*(TH-dot)*SIN(TH) (2) where L = coil inductance I = coil current R = coil resistance V(TH) = voltage applied to coil by the commutator which is a function of the angle TH K = rotor induction constant In general, the resistance R is a function of voltage, particularly during commutator switching when the air resistance breaks down creating a spark. Note that the constant K is the same in equations (1) and (2). This is required by energy conservation as discussed below. To examine energy considerations, multiply Equation (1) by TH-dot, and Equation (2) by I. Note that the last term in each equation is then identical if the K's are the same. Eliminating the last term between the two equations yields the instantaneous conservation law: I*V=R*I^2 + G*(TH-dot)^2 + .5*L*(I^2)-dot =.5*MI*((TH-dot)^2)-dot If this equation is averaged over one cycle of the rotor, then the last two terms vanish when steady state conditions are reached (i.e. when the current and speed repeat their values at angular positions which are separated by 360 degrees). Denoting averages by < >, the above equation becomes: = + (3) This result is entirely general, independent of any dependencies of R and G on other quantities. The term on the left represents the input power. The first term on the right is the power dissipated in the coil, and the second term is the power delivered to the rotor. The efficiency, defined as power delivered to the rotor divided by input power is thus always less than one by Equation (3). This result does require, however, that the constants K in equation (1) and equation (2) are identical. If the constant K in equation (2) is smaller than the constant K appearing in equation (1), then it may be verified that the efficiency can mathematically be larger than unity. What do the constants, K, mean? In the first equation, we have the torque delivered to the magnet, while in the second equation we have the back inductance or reaction of the magnet upon the coil. The equality of the constants is an expression of Newton's third law. How could the constants be unequal? Consider the sequence of events which occur during the firing of the commutator. First the contact breaks, and the magnetic field in the coil collapses, creating a huge forward spike of current through the coil and battery. This current spike provides an impulsive torque to the rotor. The rotor accelerates, and the acceleration produces a changing magnetic field which propagates through the coil, creating the back EMF. Suppose that the commutator contacts have separated sufficiently when the last event occurs to prevent the back current from flowing to the battery. Then the back reaction is effectively smaller than the forward impulsive torque on the rotor. This suggestion invokes the finite propagation time of the electromagnetic fields, which has not been included in Equations (1) and (2). A continued mathematical modeling of the Newman motor should include the effects of finite propagation time, particularly in his extraordinary long coil of wire. I have solved Equations (1) and (2) numerically, and note that the solutions require finer and finer step size as the inductance, moment of inertia, and magnet strength are increased to large values. The solutions break down such that the motor "takes off" in the computer, and this may indicate instabilities, which could be mediated in practice by external perturbations. I am confident that Maxwell's equations , with the proper electro-mechanical coupling, can provide an explanation to the phenomena observed in the Newman device. The electro-mechanical coupling may be embedded in the Maxwell equations if a unified picture (such as Newman's picture of gyroscopic particles) is adopted. Roger Hastings, PhD __________________________________________________ Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net Address for Joseph Newman: Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452, (601) 947-7147 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 22 02:56:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA09188; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Scalar detector. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 14 Apr 1996, bshannon wrote: > My apologies to everyone who has asked about the availability of > detector core material for the Barkhausen effect detector design > on Bill's site. > > I've been awaiting delivery of a number of precut strips of pre > tested and precut silicon steel with the proper polycrystaline > structure. This material is enroute to me now via Priority Mail, > and is expected to arrive just after the holliday weekend. > A local Seattle guy, THE OLD TECHNOLOGY SHOP, might just have some 30s-era transformers. I'll check 'em out this weekend. .............................freenrg-list................................ William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-LIST VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 17:25:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA26371; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31770765.4CD8@bigbear.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Doyle P. Henderson" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman's technology. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Doyle P. Henderson wrote: > > Many of us, no doubt, agree with Bob Shannon's remarks that > who's right or wrong isn't as important (interesting) as finding > (proving) the truth. Bob, I agree with you about that. And, I > don't want to lose my objectivity from any desire I might have > to "believe it's all true." But, I do have a few comments about > the serious problems people have in determining scientific truth-- > and the use of the scientific method. If you're not interested, > or don't think they're right or applicable, that's OK, too. > > It seems to me that engineers and other technical people > usually welcome new ideas. Ideas are their business-- and they > routinely use their own imagination to design things that don't > currently exist. > > They constantly trade off what they imagine to be possible > with what they know to be true. They're not dreamers like many > people think, they're hard-core realists! They deal with things > that must work-- not just look or sound good. They commonly use > extrapolations of current technology and science to implement their > new ideas-- to do things that haven't been done before or to do > them better. > > And, they're generally receptive to any new idea-- as > long as the design (perhaps for some new very long suspension > bridge or a super fast microprocessor) is based on current beliefs, > sound technology, and recognized natural laws. > > Lay-people also will listen to new ideas-- if they don't > seem to contradict what they currently believe themselves or what > recognized experts and university professors know and teach. > > Most new products involve ideas which conform with existing > natural laws as known by specialists, professionals, and knowledgeable > people. [Consider electric motors, electronics, aircraft, satellites] > > But, when some (usually) unknown innovator has a new idea, one > that CONFLICTS with current beliefs and teachings of long-standing, > an entirely different situation occurs. > > If he reveals his ideas and states what he thinks is happening, > and if he is able to set forth his basic premise(s) hopefully in some > concise statements, and they CONFLICT with what is then believed, then > people respond most naturally with skepticism and doubt. > > The layperson, with much less vested in the current beliefs, > may be more apt than not to consider the new ideas with an open mind. > Surprisingly, the professional, or person with years of study, effort, > and a reputation/occupation in the field, may have far more to lose, > if the new idea(s) repudiate his important beliefs. If they're right, > then at some point, he must admit that he has been "all wrong" about > important principles in which he has believed, taught, and applied. > That's hard to do. The discovery diminishes him. > > So, while the layperson may defer evaluation of the new idea > either to others or the passing of time, the professional (whose > field of expertise is involved) is often forced to consider it-- as > soon as it is presented to him. He really only has two choices-- > unless he, too, defers. > > If he is truly open-minded, he must admit the possibility that > the new idea is valid and that what he (and others) currently believe > is seriously flawed or wrong. Or, he must evaluate the new idea and > declare it invalid. The latter result is based on the fact that on > its face, with its often incredulous claims, the new idea clearly > conflicts with current beliefs. And, if further evaluation is made, > generally, each statement is evaluated one by one-- by testing it > with what are current beliefs. Of course, if the idea admittedly > conflicts with current beliefs, then several key items-- as well as > the basic premise-- are readily found to conflict with well known, > currently accepted, well-established beliefs of long-standing. Then, > the new idea is rejected and current beliefs stand. > > In my opinion, here is where we (as a people) go wrong. We > claim to be open-minded, seekers of the truth; but, we evaluate the > things we confront with obvious closed-mindedness. We judge truth > based on what we currently know and believe-- without admitting the > possibility that we (or what is known) might be wrong. > > It seems that the more involved we are, the more difficult > it is for us to admit that that possibility is real. We evaluate > a new idea using the very beliefs and laws that are being repudiated > by the new idea. That's crazy! We end up defending the laws that > we are asked (sometimes quite arrogantly) to question. And, then > a lot of emotion gets into what are supposed to be absolutely > logical and reasonable analyses. At that point, we forget that > "garbage in = garbage out" and we may lose sight of the fact that > our own arguments (that the new idea is flawed) may be based on > our own flawed ideas. > > If everyone would stop and think about it for a moment, > they would have to agree that when there is a stated conflict of > principles, further discussions may be useless until one (or both) > parties acknowledge the possibility of being in error-- or that > they have a different understanding of the situation. > > From such a concilliatory posture, they can then go back > to certain basic fundamentals... way back, if necessary, until > they can agree on certain laws and principles. Then, they can > move forward slowly, presenting statements which are agreed upon > until they reach some issue which is clearly in conflict. Again, > one or both parties must agree to the possibility that their > belief or understanding might be flawed-- or there is no point > in continuing without some means of proving the point. The > use of authority, anecdotes, testimonials, or prevailing beliefs > may not be acceptable as proof. Again, one or the other, if not > both, must acknowledge the possibility of being wrong at each > point of contention. But, if they can continue, then the > entire concept, the entire approach, the idea of application, > and the demonstration of tests or feasibility may be achieved. > Otherwise, stalemate will probably occur. > > > Engineers and physicists aren't alone in dealing with this > problem. The MD psychiatrist who depends on chemicals to treat his > patients' illnesses, will not readily consider any idea that says > their emotional problems are learned-- and not due to some physical > malfunction. He cannot admit that his powerful pharmaceuticals are > no different than alcohol or illegal drugs which just alter normal > function in desired ways. That would be an admission that most > emotional abnormality is borne of natural causes-- not casued by > disease, genetic flaws, or subtle brain chemical unbalances. For > him, such ideas are out of the question. > > Yet, society allows psychologists, counselors, and other > recognized therapists to treat mental illnesses without the use of > chemicals-- by offering insight and countless other so-called > mental health therapies. These contradictions escape many people. > > In my view, all scientists, engineers, geologists, and other > technically-oriented people also must be most careful when evaluating > new ideas which conflict with their current beliefs, laws, equations, > and other knowledge. Their desire to reaffirm current beliefs may > get in the way of an impartial evaluation. And, while few people > expect it, current theory and beliefs just may be be flawed or wrong. > > This has happened again and again. When I was a boy, we all > knew that everything that goes up must come down. The natural laws > haven't changed, but our understanding of the situation certainly > has been affected by space technology. And back when I first went > to college, if someone had brought in (to one of my engineering > classes) a solar-powered digital calculator, a quartz watch, or, > especially, this notebook computer, no one at the university could > even wildly guess at how such devices might be mechanized-- let > alone explain how they work! Everyone would have concluded they > came from outer space-- or that they were dreaming. And that would > also include Doctors Einstein, Oppenheimer, Teller, Fermi, et al. > > A classical example which cannot be ignored is the case of > plate tectonics theory. A young geologist, (Weggoner) published in > geologic journals more than sixty years ago his ideas that the earth's > continents had been joined together-- and that they had "drifted" > thousands of miles to their current positions. Because his hypotheses > could not account for certain factors at that time, and, most certainly, > because his ideas completely overturned many current beliefs of long- > standing, his ideas were totally rejected by most member of his pro- > fession-- especially by its principal experts and professors. > > Long after his death, more than half-a-century later, every > geologist today enjoys the pleasure and excitment of teaching people > all about (and working with) his once-rejected contradictory concepts. > > There are others, too, though not so many, whose contrarian > ideas have been met with scorn, ridicule, and rejection. And, I > believe it all comes about because people quickly become skeptical > of the amazing claims, and because we then evaluate the new idea-- > one statement at a time, rejecting each one as soon as we find it > in contradiction with what we know and currently believe. When that > happens, the new idea hasn't a chance! > > Shouldn't a truly open-minded evaluator, at least temporarily, > consider the entire concept en toto, and also become a supportive > advocate, not the skeptical antagonist? If only the skeptic would > for a time, change his hat and argue the case in its favor. Perhaps > we should ban any participant evaluator who insists that it is his > job to shoot the idea down. I don't mean it, but do you get my point? > > Open-minded means: "I could be wrong about what I believe." > > Are these wondrous ideas (in our own fields) so numerous > that we cannot take the time to give them their due? Are we so > insecure (or so closed-minded certain) that we can't even consider > for awhile that what we're evaluating might be an important break- > through, might be valid... even though it may prove US to be wrong? > > Can't we put aside our "cock-sure" prideful certainty of > what is so-- at least for a little while-- and perhaps realize that > what we're reading or hearing needs a better explanation, some help > here and there, to make the case... instead of jumping on every > inaccuracy-- especially when the innovator is admittedly without > expertise in certain areas? > > We need our innovators! Protect them, nurture them. > Help them. Let that be the rule. Encourage them! Let them hope > to become rich and famous! They often stake their lives and all > their own money on their ideas. (Others who invest should weigh > the risks against the opportunities. Let each of us be wholly > responsible for our own acts. There are enough [far too many] laws > alleging to protect people from their own acts.) > > Be sorry for the innovator if his idea doesn't work out. > Don't embarrass him and laugh at him if it turns out he is wrong. > If you're glad it turned out that he was wrong, perhaps you > should question yourself as to why you feel as you do. > > Dear readers, please accept my comments without feelings > of resentment. And, please realize that I'm not a psychologist or > a philosopher-- just an old semi-retired engineer who still loves > the hardware, the smell of melting resin-core solder, and who is > still interested in the wonder of science, technical discovery, and > the possibility that something new and great is around the corner. > It's about time someone figured out what magnetism, gravity, and > electricity really are. Aren't we ready for anti-gravity and > over-unity devices? How are we going to develop them if someone > doesn't try? If they do, they sure better use some new ideas! > > There is no need to defend any position. As Bob Shannon > himself says, we are interested in the truth. Sure, winning and > being right may be great. Some people think that nothing else even > matters. But, I would prefer the excitement of learning something > really new and different and helping make it possible. Remember, > life is often most exciting when it holds the promise of change. > > That's why I read your postings--- not to see Mr. Neuman or > any other innovator win-- or get shot down! Again, I say, HELP him > with his theories and testing. Try to prove he's right, not wrong! > If you and he fail, it'll soon enough become apparent why. But, > for now, try to overcome your own arguments and explanations-- > against new ideas-- if you can! Like a college debater, who argues > BOTH sides-- one after another, try to present HIS case convincingly. > Don't be so quick to shoot him (or his advocates) down. > > Whether his ideas were borne of ignorance or inspiration, > and certainly, a lot of perspiration, just think of what he has > gone through trying to figure out, understand, and advance (for > whatever reasons he has) his own remarkable ideas. Wow! What > excitement he has brought to us all! Who knows what will come > from all of this? > > Doing what he has done is hard enough without having to > face closed-mindedness and rejection from those who might help > him. He can get rejection anywhere! Point out his errors, but > do so with some humility that comes from considering that maybe > it's you who don't correctly understand what's happening-- no > matter how sure you may feel. Wouldn't that be the way to go? > > Lastly, it also seems to me that this list/service is no > place to infer "intellectual dishonesty" or fraud, nor is it the > place to make demands of anyone to cease or desist their activities > except for conduct prohibited by this service. (And, please don't > construe this rambling message as a demand for doing or not doing > something.) The InterNet, though recently hampered by our hapless > government, still permits free expression of ideas and opinions-- > as well as the dissemination of information-- even that which may > conflict with current beliefs. So, please accept my comments as > my personal beliefs-- for today-- and if they conflict with yours, > just try to consider that maybe I'm right. But, then, I must > admit that maybe I'm wrong, too. > > Most sincerely, Doyle Henderson. E-mail: panacea@bigbear.net > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 14:56:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA22259; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 01:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 01:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604190724.JAA01752@ns.bbtt.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman Motor / Generator, problems with the theory. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >>gyroscopic motion explains the source for the additional "one gallon" of >>current (gyroscopic particles) discussed in the above water analogy. >>Because of the "conversion efficiency" of this process via E=mc^2, there >>will be NO observable change in the mass of copper even after decades of >>use. > >The energy returned by the coil as the field collapses is always less than >that used to produce the field, while it is buillding to full intensity. > >As you do not measure this in the testing performed, you have been mislead, and >this can easily be proven to be the case, if indeed you are intellectually >honest, >and willing to admit the possibility of error. Get yourself a videotape of the first huge Newman motor ! There you can see, that indeed, when the communitator switched, there flows indeed a big back current pulse to the battery, which also lights a few indescandent bulbs connected in series with the batteries and the coils. So when the magnet rotates inside the coil, there is indeed coming more energy out, when the field collapses, than is put in, when the field builds up. I quote Dr. Hastings findings over here, which you did not seem to have read carefully: >A brief description of the measurements taken and distributed at the press >conference follows. When the motor was rotating at 12 rpm, the average >D.C. input current from the batteries was about 2 milli-amps, and the >average battery input was then 1.2 watts. The back current (flowing >against the direction of battery current) was about -55 milli-amps, for an >average charging power of -32 watts. The forward and reverse current >were >clearly observable on the oscilloscope. It was noted that when the reverse >current flowed, the battery voltage rose above its ambient value, verifying >that the batteries were charging. The magnitude of the charging current >was verified by heating water with a resistor connected in series with the >batteries. A net charging power was the primary evidence used to show >that >the motor was generating energy internally, however output power was also >observed. The 55 m-amp current flowing in the 770 ohm coil generates 2.3 >watts of heat, which is in excess of the input power. In addition, the >lights were blinking brightly as the coil was switched. He meant the indescant bulbs connected in series with the battery, so they blinked, when the back current pulse appeared ! They did not blink during the input current of 2 ma ! >The back current from the coil switched from zero to negative several amps >in about 1 milli-second, and then decayed to zero in about 0.1 second. >Given the coil inductance of 1100 henries, the switching voltages were >several million volts. Curiously, the back current did not switch on >smoothly, but increased in a staircase. Each step in the staircase >corresponded to an extremely fast switching of current, with each increase >in the current larger than the previous increase. The width of the stairs >was about 100 micro-seconds, which for reference is about one third of the >travel time of light through the 55 mile coil. BTW, the current increase due to a staircase function comes from using a neon tube accross the coil, that has a negative resistance. If you disconnect the this neon bulb, the staircase function is gone, but also arcing is huge at the commutator, which will destroy the coil sooner or later... This I have found during my measurements with my Newman machines. Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti Check out our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 00:15:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA15309; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 04:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 04:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604191128.EAA17375@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "Effect" Analysts: Shannon, Eisenson, & Morriss X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 4/19/96 You wrote: Snip. . . I consider the Newman chapter decisively closed. All of the discussion posts related to Newman on Free Energy should be posted somewhere for web access and I hope it is. I have kept a complete archive, only because I am an incurable info junkie. I will transmit the entire archive to whomever wants to webbize it. Again, thank you very much for speeding us to the end of the chapter. snip . . . Dear Michael, Thank you for your thank you. I seriously doubt that the Newman chapter is decisively closed nor have we sped to the end of the chapter. This debate has smoldered for over ten years and it is not quenched. Bill Beaty, moderator and provider of this list, archives all posts including this debate. I'm confident that if he deems it worthy, he will place it on his web page. Sincerely, RWW From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 01:48:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA18512; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 05:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 05:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604191154.EAA03575@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Scalar detector. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 4/19/96 You wrote: > >A local Seattle guy, THE OLD TECHNOLOGY SHOP, might just have some 30s-era >transformers. I'll check 'em out this weekend. > >.............................freenrg-list.............................. . >William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com [Bill, feel free to post the following to your list services and your web advertising page.] I recently constructed the scalar gradiometer posted on Bill Beaty's web. The most difficult part to obtain was the 2.5-0-2.5 ma null meter. Recently, I had the good fortune at a Navy surplus auction to obtain about twenty 250-0-250 microamp null meters. They are military spec and rugged. They have precision d'Arsonal movements. The resistor connected to the meter in the gradiometer has to be increased a bit, but other than that they work great. I offer them free of charge to all list members who wish to build the gradiometer or any other device. A buck or so for shipping would be nice. To date, I have been unable to obtain steel core material for the Barkhausen scalar detector. Any sources would be most appreciated. Thanks, RWW From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 11:31:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA19588; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 05:13:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 05:13:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604191159.EAA08544@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: The proof is in the "Pudding" X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 4/19/96 Bounced and reposted. RWW 4/1/96 You wrote: . . . snip . . . >Moreover, even a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office with >"superb credentials" (according to a Federal Judge hearing Joseph >Newman's suit against the Patent Office) wrote: "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; and Defendant (PTO) intentionally did not >consider the formalities of Plaintiff's (J. Newman's) application or >the patentability of Plaintiff's claims under 35 USC sec. 102/103." . . . snip . . . Mr. Soule is this another example of your misdirection, obfuscation and an attempt to conceal facts and confuse the readers of this list? Since you wish to put forward "legal evidence" to prove what appear to be your bogus claims regarding Mr. Newman's technology, I make the following questions and demands. 1. Who was the "former U.S. former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office with "superb credentials"? 2. Who was the Federal judge mentioned above? 3. Did the judge or the Commissioner write the above quote? Your sentence is misleading. 4. What is the full legal citation of the case? 5. What was the courts holding in the above case? This means who won the suit, Newman or the PTO. 6. Are you quoting a judge in the minority opinion or the majority opinion? Since, you often very cleverly quote out of context to prove your point, I make demand that you post the whole legal case so that list members may decide for themselves what the legalities of this case prove or disprove. Mr. Soule your intellectual honesty is on the line. Do the right thing. And, most importantly Nature doesn't give a damn what any Commisioner or judge decides is right or wrong. They are irrelevant to any scientific proof. Only Nature makes the rules. Sincerely, RWW From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 20:14:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA26898; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604200402.AAA16918@zork.tiac.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman's technology. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Doyle P. Henderson an excellent post which raises several points I would like to address: > Many of us, no doubt, agree with Bob Shannon's remarks that > who's right or wrong isn't as important (interesting) as finding > (proving) the truth. Bob, I agree with you about that. And, I > don't want to lose my objectivity from any desire I might have > to "believe it's all true." But, I do have a few comments about > the serious problems people have in determining scientific truth-- > and the use of the scientific method. If you're not interested, > or don't think they're right or applicable, that's OK, too. > (Snip) > > And, they're generally receptive to any new idea-- as > long as the design (perhaps for some new very long suspension > bridge or a super fast microprocessor) is based on current beliefs, > sound technology, and recognized natural laws. Very often it's all too true that new ideas are only received if they fall within specific, rarely written guidelines. This is a clear scientific prejudice I do not agree with personally. (snip) > But, when some (usually) unknown innovator has a new idea, one > that CONFLICTS with current beliefs and teachings of long-standing, > an entirely different situation occurs. > > If he reveals his ideas and states what he thinks is happening, > and if he is able to set forth his basic premise(s) hopefully in some > concise statements, and they CONFLICT with what is then believed, then > people respond most naturally with skepticism and doubt. Or simple wonder and curiousity, wanting to know the truth. Skepticisim and doubt enter the picture when we are told that experimentally proven facts are incorrect based on less than complete testing, as it should do. > > The layperson, with much less vested in the current beliefs, > may be more apt than not to consider the new ideas with an open mind. > Surprisingly, the professional, or person with years of study, effort, > and a reputation/occupation in the field, may have far more to lose, > if the new idea(s) repudiate his important beliefs. If they're right, > then at some point, he must admit that he has been "all wrong" about > important principles in which he has believed, taught, and applied. > That's hard to do. The discovery diminishes him. Very true, and this cuts both ways here. I'll wager it's far harder to say this about your own theory rather than to say it about a learned theory not of ones one hand. (snip) > In my opinion, here is where we (as a people) go wrong. We > claim to be open-minded, seekers of the truth; but, we evaluate the > things we confront with obvious closed-mindedness. We judge truth > based on what we currently know and believe-- without admitting the > possibility that we (or what is known) might be wrong. Again, I agree completely with this, and for his reason I looked into Mr. Newman's two coil test and made careful measurments. I have also objected to the question of fraud being raised here, as a matter of simple respect, and done so openly on this forum. Please show me my closed-mindedness in this matter. If this is the case, I wish to correct it immediately. > It seems that the more involved we are, the more difficult > it is for us to admit that that possibility is real. We evaluate > a new idea using the very beliefs and laws that are being repudiated > by the new idea. That's crazy! We end up defending the laws that > we are asked (sometimes quite arrogantly) to question. And, then > a lot of emotion gets into what are supposed to be absolutely > logical and reasonable analyses. At that point, we forget that > "garbage in = garbage out" and we may lose sight of the fact that > our own arguments (that the new idea is flawed) may be based on > our own flawed ideas. This simply is not the case here. I am not evaluating Mr.Newman's theory with the very same beliefs he is disputing. Mr. Newman is claiming that conventional theory is saying things it does not, and is incorrectly applying conventional theory, and then claiming it to be wrong. In the most recent theory posted by Mr. Soule, Mr. Newman claims that the "total power" to a given magnetic field level is the product of the current and voltages under a steady state condition. As an engineer, you can easily verify the fact that this is not the conventional, nor the correct way to calculate the energy stored in the field of an inductor, and the L/R time constants for a given inductor. I'm perfectly willing to find the conventional theory to be wrong, and this is why I am a hands-on developer of experimental technologies, and on this list server. This is why I have posted two construction projects to Bill's web site that show conventional theory may not describe everything we observe. It this an exaple of closed mindedness to you? Emperical tests show us reality, but we must observe carefully to be sure we understand what effects we are seeing, and be willing to beleive that we made an error. Especially if that error is easily reproduced and demonstrated. On the other hand, I stand equally willing to be wrong here, if Mr. Newman can clarify his interpretation of the two coil tests. > If everyone would stop and think about it for a moment, > they would have to agree that when there is a stated conflict of > principles, further discussions may be useless until one (or both) > parties acknowledge the possibility of being in error-- or that > they have a different understanding of the situation. Reread my postings, I would dearly love for Mr.Newman to provide any reasonable explaination for the apparent errors we find emperically. > From such a concilliatory posture, they can then go back > to certain basic fundamentals... way back, if necessary, until > they can agree on certain laws and principles. Then, they can > move forward slowly, presenting statements which are agreed upon > until they reach some issue which is clearly in conflict. Again, > one or both parties must agree to the possibility that their > belief or understanding might be flawed-- or there is no point > in continuing without some means of proving the point. The > use of authority, anecdotes, testimonials, or prevailing beliefs > may not be acceptable as proof. Again, one or the other, if not > both, must acknowledge the possibility of being wrong at each > point of contention. But, if they can continue, then the > entire concept, the entire approach, the idea of application, > and the demonstration of tests or feasibility may be achieved. > Otherwise, stalemate will probably occur. An excellent suggestion. This is why I began with the simple two coil test. So far, the only responses from Newman Energy Products has been to release additional theory, with additional problems. I would like to see Mr. Newman directly address the problem of not masuring the time to maximum current in the two coil test in an effort to resolve any conflict and questions. If Mr. Newman can show any unusual phenomema present, I'll stand corrected. Just where did I fail to follow the path you suggest here? (snip) > Shouldn't a truly open-minded evaluator, at least temporarily, > consider the entire concept en toto, and also become a supportive > advocate, not the skeptical antagonist? If only the skeptic would > for a time, change his hat and argue the case in its favor. Perhaps > we should ban any participant evaluator who insists that it is his > job to shoot the idea down. I don't mean it, but do you get my point? > > Open-minded means: "I could be wrong about what I believe." You tread a dangerous line here. I think that yout are quite correct up to the point of considering the whole, but not quite to the point of being a supportive advocate. This crosses the line into pathological science! We must consider the whole, then ask, how do I distinguish this theory from others experimentally? If this is not done objectivly, we will fail to observe some important fact (like the current over time in the two coils) and think we are seeing verification of out "chosen" theory rather than actually finding the real truth. Mr. Newman's two coil demonstration is a perfect example of why we positivly must be antagonistic in testing our new theories. If we do not eliminate all known phenomema before we declare having found a new one, we are not being objective. Can we fairly ask others to be supportive of this? > Are these wondrous ideas (in our own fields) so numerous > that we cannot take the time to give them their due? Are we so > insecure (or so closed-minded certain) that we can't even consider > for awhile that what we're evaluating might be an important break- > through, might be valid... even though it may prove US to be wrong? This has happened many times, and will happen many more. There are however a number of casualties along the path to truth. We must learn from these as well. Let me ask you this, if indeed my testing of the two coil demonstration does show that no nonconventional effect is present, have I been "closed-minded certain" all this time, or simply have been telling the unpleasent truth? Is there a difference? > Can't we put aside our "cock-sure" prideful certainty of > what is so-- at least for a little while-- and perhaps realize that > what we're reading or hearing needs a better explanation, some help > here and there, to make the case... instead of jumping on every > inaccuracy-- especially when the innovator is admittedly without > expertise in certain areas? Has Mr. Newman done this as yet? If Mr. Newman has made an error in an area he lacks expertise, should we not point it out, and let it pass? What I read, I might have misread, and what I've written, I may have mistated. My grasp of conventional theory is limited at some level, so clearly I might be wrong, and have said so before. Experimental evidence however is quite a different matter, as it allows others to find the truth on their own. As I have posted my testing methods, I await having this error pointed out. If on the other hand, I made no error, but Mr. Newman has, then it's time to swallow our "support" with a large dose of reality and objectivity. I object to your term "cock-sure prideful certainty" here, as being totally unwarrented. You appear to have a less than objective bias. > We need our innovators! Protect them, nurture them. > Help them. Let that be the rule. Encourage them! Let them hope > to become rich and famous! They often stake their lives and all > their own money on their ideas. (Others who invest should weigh > the risks against the opportunities. Let each of us be wholly > responsible for our own acts. There are enough [far too many] laws > alleging to protect people from their own acts.) If I am speaking the truth, am I doing a disservice to Mr. Newman here? If I am correct, am I doing a service to alternitive research as a whole? To protect our innovators, we must strongly enforce a code of scientific conduct and objectivity amongst ourselves. (I include myself here, as an inventor.) If we ingore the commission of major errors by our peers, we deserve no scientific credibility from others, nor the trust of the investors needed to bring new technology forward every bit as much as the inventors themselves. Think of the damage to the credibility of all alernitive research should it be shown that Mr. Newman's theory indeed has no experimental suport. If this is overlooked by a less than objective community, that community deserves no cridibility what so ever. Shuould we mind out own buisiness while investors end up empty handed? As a field, alternitive research has yet to earn a reputation for credibility and objectivity. It'nt it about time for that to change? Science must maintain high standards by peer review, both critical and supportive, based on truth alone. Anything less is dogma, and I argue has no place on this list server. > Be sorry for the innovator if his idea doesn't work out. > Don't embarrass him and laugh at him if it turns out he is wrong. > If you're glad it turned out that he was wrong, perhaps you > should question yourself as to why you feel as you do. I have at all times maintained my respect for Mr. Newman's years of hard work and commitment. I have tried to address what I see as major flaws, and addressed these in a respectful manner, without intended insult. I take no joy in finding no evidence for Mr.Newman's theory, and I for one, am not laughing at anyone here sir. I have personally spoken to Mr. Soule on several occations, and offered my services at no cost. Should I have sent flowers as well? What more? Perhaps you might point out what it is that led you to think I might take some form of satisfaction from right vs. wrong as opposed to true vs. untrue? (snip) > That's why I read your postings--- not to see Mr. Neuman or > any other innovator win-- or get shot down! Again, I say, HELP him > with his theories and testing. Try to prove he's right, not wrong! > If you and he fail, it'll soon enough become apparent why. But, > for now, try to overcome your own arguments and explanations-- > against new ideas-- if you can! Like a college debater, who argues > BOTH sides-- one after another, try to present HIS case convincingly. > Don't be so quick to shoot him (or his advocates) down. May I ask, why do you appear to have the idea that I personally tested for Mr. Newman's two coil effect with the intent of proving him wrong? Or am I mistaken in that assumption? I did not test to see if Mr. Newman was wrong, but to find the truth. Why do you have to reduce it again and again into these terms of right and wrong? It's totally inappropriate in scientific inquiry in my opinion. Why not conduct a test yourself, with the intent of showing him right, or better still try and show me to be wrong in my disproof of Mr. Newman's theory. Or, simply test for what is true as I did. I've said it before, I'd love to be wrong here. I've already made such tests Mr. Henderson, so please do not brand me a skeptic for being objective to the best of my abilities. Please produce some test results that support Mr. Newman's theory, and I will read them with great interest. It's quite unfair for you to ask me to support Mr. Newman's theory, especially if you have not tested what is true yourself. I have given my testing results already, simply show me to be wrong here. > Whether his ideas were borne of ignorance or inspiration, > and certainly, a lot of perspiration, just think of what he has > gone through trying to figure out, understand, and advance (for > whatever reasons he has) his own remarkable ideas. Wow! What > excitement he has brought to us all! Who knows what will come > from all of this? > > Doing what he has done is hard enough without having to > face closed-mindedness and rejection from those who might help > him. He can get rejection anywhere! Point out his errors, but > do so with some humility that comes from considering that maybe > it's you who don't correctly understand what's happening-- no > matter how sure you may feel. Wouldn't that be the way to go? Again, you seem to be under the impression that I rejected Mr. Newman's theory out of hand, and began trying to find problems. This simply is not the truth of the matter at all. Were I closed minded, would I have tested anything at all? I object to you infering that my testing was less than impartial or open minded as being totally baseless and unwarrented. Have I treated Mr. Newman is a less than honorable manner? Why do you fail to recognise that I have asked to be shown incorrect here on several occations? If you think I am not handeling this in the best manner possible, please then lead by example. I suspect that if my results had been different, you would have a very different opinion of my objectivity here. > Lastly, it also seems to me that this list/service is no > place to infer "intellectual dishonesty" or fraud, nor is it the > place to make demands of anyone to cease or desist their activities > except for conduct prohibited by this service. (And, please don't > construe this rambling message as a demand for doing or not doing > something.) The InterNet, though recently hampered by our hapless > government, still permits free expression of ideas and opinions-- > as well as the dissemination of information-- even that which may > conflict with current beliefs. So, please accept my comments as > my personal beliefs-- for today-- and if they conflict with yours, > just try to consider that maybe I'm right. But, then, I must > admit that maybe I'm wrong, too. > > Most sincerely, Doyle Henderson. E-mail: panacea@bigbear.net The issue of Intellectual Honesty was raised by Mr. Soule here, framing Mr. Newman as Galileo, fighting against the dark forces of intellectual dishonesty. The issue is quite relevant in my opinion, for reasons already discussed. In an objective search for the truth, I found what I beleive to be major experimental and subsequent theoretical errors, which led to Mr. Newman concluding he has found support for his theory. In actuality, nothing beyond conventional theory was shown, but due to an admittedly unusual set of normal phenomema is does appear to support Mr. Newman's theory, if you look only so closely. i made this information freely available for others to confirm or deny. This list service, being dedicated to experimental approches to new theories IS THE place to address this, as I understand Bill's intent. Testing serves only to find truth, not to coddle innovators or theories. Testing that makes claims not supported by the types of testing done must be rejected here, by anyone. Nothing less is credible, objective science, and this is the bottom line in intellectual honesty. If Newman Energy Products will not address the issues raised by direct experimental evidence, then I think we might well give thought to their stated intellectual honesty. There are more general forums available for discussions of a less "hard core" nature, such as Neotech. Freenrg-l has made itself quite distinct from Neotech specifically on it's insistance on actual experimental work and evidence. I'm not sure we both see freenrg-l in the same way here. Just where should such discourse happen Mr. Henderson? The issues raised against the testing methods documented have been brought to the attention of Newman Energy Products many years ago, as shown by the web site I referred to in a earlier posting. Now that we have addressed these important matters of philosophy, as an engineer, is there anything wrong with my testing that you see? What about Mr. Newman's testing methods? What do you find to be the truth here? Have you questioned your own objectivity in this matter as yet? If we begin a test intended to prove or disprove a given theory, we have already lost our objectivty in looking for right or wrong instead of true or false. Machines care nothing about right or wrong, just objective truth, right and wrong belong in the realm of philosophy alone. I'm off my soap box for now, and thanks for listening, Bob Shannon. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 17:29:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA20462; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Magnetic Healing summary (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: <> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:45:28 -0500 From: Richard E. Swanson To: Multiple recipients of list PHYS-L Subject: Magnetic Healing summary Thanks to all who responded to my query about "magnetic healing" devices being touted for horses, people, et. al. Here is a summary of what I gleaned. 1. Even though there is the opportunity for "quackery", the mechanism, even though not completely understood, seems to be real and, in many cases, effective. 2. The healing mechanism is simply increased blood circulation to the healing area. More traditional ways of accomplishing this are heating by one form or another: pads, anelgesic, microwaves, etc. 3. The mechanism by which magnetic fields can cause this increased circulation is the Lorentz force. Moving charges (or, I suspect, electric dipoles if you want to consider alignment variations) experience a vXB force and thus are accelerated (ala the Hall effect which is cited in some discussions but I'm not sure if the analogy is stretched in applying it to charged particles in a flowing fluid). If you can vary the direction of the magnetic field, the charges will accelerate back and forth, thus causing increased thermal energy in the blood or even expansion of the walls of the vessel. Thus, voila', increased circulation. (ASIDE: Like I said, this mechanism is not well understood and even less well articulated. One explanation in a popular magazine said really strange things like, "the charge is attracted to the North charge of the magnet ..." 4. People change the direction of the magnetic field either actively (with some sort of device that requires power) or passively by designing magnets with alternating poles (N S N S N S ...). These magnets come in different sizes and often resemble those credit card sized magnets you stick on refrigerators. One popular design has concentric circles of N's and S's. 5. The medical, veterinary, and farrier communities are doing studies on the effect but I am not aware of any scientists studying the mechanisms. An any case, it is an interesting effect and possibly worth using in class during Lorentz force discussions. Cheers, Rick Richard E. Swanson Associate Dean of Instruction Physics Professor (910) 695-3715 Sandhills Community College swansonr@ncccs.cc.nc.us 2200 Airport Road "He who laughs, lasts." Pinehurst, NC 28374 "Castigat ridendo mores." From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 18:35:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA20783; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Complete info on New "Free Energy" book! (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: << old message found on newsgroups >> From: roamer@globalone.net (Roamer) Subject: Complete info on New "Free Energy" book! Date: 22 Mar 1996 00:53:27 GMT I received several messages indicating that I should just post all the information instead of forcing e-mail responses. Ok, no problem. I initially post only short notes so that only those interested will contact me. I am distributing this info for my friend, George M. I suggested that he take all his notes and compile them into a useful text, so he did. The only catch was, I had to do the footwork to let people know about it. He's also a little paranoid and cares about his everyday privacy much more than I. So, the burden falls on me to talk to people. Well, here's the info. Author George Moonhie has just finished a book that exposes the secrets of Free Energy production using High Voltage. His book will show you in plain english exactly how many of these devices actually function. Suprisingly, the secrets are all part of standard electrical theory. It's just a matter of clearly defining some previously unclear definitions and combining them in a new way. Since this free energy is all around us anyway, we're not really getting "something for nothing" or creating "perpetual motion machines" because these device use this "outside" energy source. But, to us, the energy seems to just appear. The book includes a complete copy of patent for a device that was considered by it's designer to be a free energy generator. The patent text carefully avoids indicating that it's a free energy machine because the patent office flat out refuses to patent anything that appears to be a "perpetual motion device", EVEN IF YOU CAN SHOW THEM A WORKING PROTOTYPE!!! "They" apparently don't want the general public to know of such devices. Imagine the outraged public realizing that they've been shafted by the power companies all these years!. This device has been reproduced by "basement scientists" and tinkerers who all claim that it works! The book includes experiments that show simple proof of free energy production. All experiments use readily available parts. We don't sell parts, just the info on how to use them. Also included are construction plans for the main components of this device so that anyone with a little mechinical skill could reproduce a similar device without much difficulty. The title of the book is: "High Voltage Free Energy Secrets" The price is $15 (U.S. currency) Overseas orders add $4 for shipping. Send order and payment to: T.A.S. 1221 State St. Schenectady, NY 12304 No personal checks please. Orders can be placed with Cashiers check, Money Order or Cash. Inside continental U.S., orders should arrive within 15 working days after the day your order is postmarked. If you choose to send cash, please fold bills and tape them to a small 3" by 5" card so that they can't be seen through the envelope. If, for any reason, you followed the above directions and you don't receive your book in the time allowed, PLEASE e-mail me, roamer@global1.net. I check my mail at least 5 times a week, usually more. I PROMISE not to sell your personal information (name address) to any mailing list companies. I know I hate getting all kinds of junk in the mail so I won't inflict that irritation on anyone else. Thankyou for your time. Sincerely, roamer@global1.net -- ....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 15:07:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA22223; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 02:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 02:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Project Rainbow (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 17:56:54 -0600 From: Mike McLaren To: billb@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Project Rainbow Hi my name is Mike McLaren I am a Physicist from Calgary Alberta Canada.I am trying to locate any information on Einstein's Unified Field Theory or other information on Project Rainbow. I you have any leads please contact me at our home page www.lexicom.ab.ca:80/~steadystate From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 19:14:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA24604; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 02:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 02:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Reich/Orgone symposium X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Thanx to Richard Wayne Wall... --- FORWARDED --- From: demeo@mind.net (James DeMeo) Subject: Re: catalog Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 12:02:31 -0900 Please Copy and Post the Following to Other Interested Individuals, Groups and Lists *********************************** Announcing: "Greensprings 1996" Building Upon the Discoveries of the Late Dr. Wilhelm Reich Orgone Biophysical Research Lab A Non-Profit Science Research and Educational Foundation, Since 1978. Greensprings Center, PO Box 1148, Ashland, Oregon, 97520 USA James DeMeo, Ph.D., Director Schedule of 1996 Weekend Educational Seminars and Workshops 25-26 May 1996: Today's Children and the Struggle for Tomorrow's Humanity 20-21 July 1996: The Orgone Energy Accumulator: History, Construction and Use 3-4 August 1996: Laboratory Workshop on Bions and the Reich Blood Test 28-29 September 1996: Seminar on Drought, Desert and Forest Death Details Given Below; Brochure available on request. 25-26 May 1996: Today's Children and the Struggle for Tomorrow's Humanity With the following speakers (alphabetically): * James DeMeo, Ph.D., on Saharasia: Peaceful Versus Violent Societies, Lessons from Cross-Cultural Research, History and Archaeology -and- Modern AIDS Hysteria and the Unproven Hypothesis of "Infectious HIV" * Marilyn Milos, R.N., on The Politics of Genital Mutilation (Circumcision) in the USA. * Harry Lewis, M.S.W., Ed.D., on Adolescent Sexuality and Healthy Child Development * James Prescott, Ph.D., on The Role of Integrated Pleasure in the Prevention of Violence and Drug Abuse * Eva Reich, M.D., (health permitting), on Gentle Bio-Energetics: Preventing Neurosis from Birth On. * Michael Rothenberg, M.D., on The National Conspiracy Against Children In the USA. * Daniel Schiff, Ph.D., on Actions Speak Louder than Ideals: Fostering Healthy Parent-Child Relationships Plus other possible guest speakers, & ending round-table discussions. videos, slides, handouts. 20-21 July 1996: The Orgone Energy Accumulator: History, Construction and Use Covering the following general topics: * Wilhelm Reich's Discovery of the Orgone Energy. * Orgone Biophysics; laboratory demonstration of orgone energy experiments. * Discovery of life energy by scientists other than Reich. * Hands-on construction of orgone blankets and accumulators. * Open discussion of best materials and effective use of accumulating devices. * Discussion of medical use of orgone accumulator overseas, in Germany and other nations. Instructors: James DeMeo, Ph.D. and Theirrie Cook, B.A. demonstrations, slides, handouts. 3-4 August 1996: Laboratory Workshop on Bions and the Reich Blood Test Covering the following general topics: * Wilhelm Reich's Discovery of Bions, and the Cancer Biopathy. * Lab demonstration and microscopical observations of bions from both living and non-living materials; discussion of basic phenomena, sterile technique. * Problems and controversies; recent discovery and observation of bion-like structures by other scientists. * Lab demonstration of the Reich Blood Test. Instructors: Richard Blasband, M.D. & Stephen Nagy, M.D., assisted by James DeMeo, Ph.D. If you have a good microscope, please bring it. A microscope video-display system will be provided for those who cannot. demonstrations, videos, slides, handouts. 28-29 September 1996: Seminar on Drought, Desert and Forest Death Covering the following general topics: * The Bioenergetic, Orgonomic Basis of Global Weather; the classical view versus the orgonomic view; bioenergetic origins of global winds, westerlies and easterlies; unusual properties of water; healthy versus stagnant or over-charged atmospheres; "organism Earth". * Relationship between global desert-spreading and droughts. * Forest death as an expression of atmospheric-energetic stagnation. * Practical results of experimental cloudbusting experiments for drought abatement and desert greening in the USA, Israel and Africa. Instructor: James DeMeo, Ph.D. videos, slides, handouts. More Information: A four-page descriptive brochure will soon be available, along with speaker biographies. Also a list of nearby motels, inns, restaurants, and other facilities will be sent upon request. The area is loaded with recreational attractions and beautiful natural wonders. Call, write, fax or e-mail for more information. Times: 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM each day, Saturday and Sunday. Where: At the new O.B.R.L. Greensprings Center, 20 miles east of Ashland, Oregon in the forests of the Siskiyou Mountains. A street address and map will be sent to all registrants. Cost: $150 per full weekend event; half-price for full-time students (documentation required). Limited to 30 participants; preregistration advised, with payment to the Orgone Biophysical Research Lab (or simply, "O.B.R.L.") Send to: Orgone Biophysical Research Lab Greensprings, PO Box 1148, Ashland, Oregon 97520 USA 541/ 552-0118 telephone/fax e-mail to: demeo@mind.net ************************************************ To obtain a complete set of descriptive flyers and a detailed Seminar/Workshop announcement, plus our 22-page unusual science book and product catalog, send us your complete postal mailing address. "Love, work and knowledge are the wellsprings of our lives, they should also govern it" - Wilhelm Reich ************************************************ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 11:45:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA01919; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 09:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 09:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "Effect" Analysts: Shannon, Eisenson, & Morriss X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >4/19/96 > >You wrote: > >Snip. . . > >I consider the Newman chapter decisively closed. All of the discussion >posts related to Newman on Free Energy should be posted somewhere for >web access and I hope it is. I have kept a complete archive, only >because I am an incurable info junkie. I will transmit the entire >archive to whomever wants to webbize it. Again, thank you very much >for speeding us to the end of the chapter. > >snip . . . > Dear Michael: I'm pleased to say that interest in Joseph Newman's work is growing and innovations to operational prototypes continue... As an astrophysicist once said, "this is but the beginning of the beginning...." Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684 New Orleans, Louisiana 70157-7684 ____________________ and for Joseph Newman: (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 05:39:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA22556; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 14:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 14:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: The proof is in the "Pudding" X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >>Moreover, even a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office with >>"superb credentials" (according to a Federal Judge hearing Joseph >>Newman's suit against the Patent Office) wrote: "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; and Defendant (PTO) intentionally did not >>consider the formalities of Plaintiff's (J. Newman's) application or >>the patentability of Plaintiff's claims under 35 USC sec. 102/103." > >. . . snip . . . > >Mr. Soule is this another example of your misdirection, obfuscation and >an attempt to conceal facts and confuse the readers of this list? >Since you wish to put forward "legal evidence" to prove what appear to >be your bogus claims regarding Mr. Newman's technology, I make the >following questions and demands. > >1. Who was the "former U.S. former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent >Office with "superb credentials"? > >2. Who was the Federal judge mentioned above? > >3. Did the judge or the Commissioner write the above quote? Your >sentence is misleading. > >4. What is the full legal citation of the case? > >5. What was the courts holding in the above case? This means who won >the suit, Newman or the PTO. > >6. Are you quoting a judge in the minority opinion or the majority >opinion? > >Since, you often very cleverly quote out of context to prove your >point, I make demand that you post the whole legal case so that list >members may decide for themselves what the legalities of this case >prove or disprove. Mr. Soule your intellectual honesty is on the line. >Do the right thing. > >And, most importantly Nature doesn't give a damn what any Commisioner >or judge decides is right or wrong. They are irrelevant to any >scientific proof. Only Nature makes the rules. > > >Sincerely, > >RWW Dear Richard Wayne Wall: First of all, I don't care for your attitude. I would suggest you alter it. Your words such as "misdirection, obfuscation and an attempt to conceal facts and confuse the readers" as well as words such as "what appear to be your bogus claims" and "very cleverly quote out of context" -- are not appreciated by myself. When you choose to apologize for these words then I will CONSIDER responding to your email. Moreover, I don't react well to the word ***"demand."*** No one --- including you, RWW --- "demand(s)" anything of me. If one chooses to request, or ask politely, then this would be an appropriate technique for discussion. Because I will do my best to follow Rule One of this Forum, I will refrain from responding in this public forum in a way that I feel would be appropriate to your "demand." Privately, I would have very strong words in reply to your so-called "demand." Within the context of this Forum, however, I will do my best to remain polite despite a very strong urge to respond otherwise. I will say this (since it wasn't "demanded" of me): when one knows the ENTIRE FACTS of the case surrounding Joseph Newman's ongoing battle with the Patent Office, one is quite amazed by the MASSIVE INJUSTICE that has been perpetrated against this innovator. Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684 New Orleans, Louisiana 70157-7684 Joseph Newman can be reached at: (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 P.S. The Proof is STILL in the "pudding"! And this "pudding" has been prepared in accordance with the "recipe" of Natural Laws. As an astrophysicist once said, "The Scientific Method is the 'key' designed to unlock the secrets of the Universe." From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 07:26:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA02834; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 15:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 15:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31793BC2.7F34@bigbear.net> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Doyle P. Henderson" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman's technology. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This message contains Doyle Henderson's reply to Bob Shannon who posed a number of questions and logical comments. So...... (I'm sorry it's so long... hopefully, it will be the last RE:) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bob Shannon wrote: > > Doyle P. Henderson, an excellent post which raises several points > I would like to address: > > > Doyle had written: > > > > Many of us, no doubt, agree with Bob Shannon's remarks that > > who's right or wrong isn't as important (interesting) as finding > > (proving) the truth. Bob, I agree with you about that. And, I > > don't want to lose my objectivity from any desire I might have > > to "believe it's all true." But, I do have a few comments about > > the serious problems people have in determining scientific truth-- > > and the use of the scientific method. If you're not interested, > > or don't think they're right or applicable, that's OK, too. > > > (Snip) > > And, Doyle now replies: Ah Bob! You snipped out all my best stuff... where my beliefs were probably right! All I was doing was making a few comments about some of my beliefs which I formed a long time ago-- long before I ever heard of Newman's motor. And, you could have let them pass... deferring your evaluation of them (my comments and beliefs)... And, I was hoping you would. But, instead, I think you proved my point. You just couldn't simply acknowledge I might be right that people show a general closed-mindedness when a new idea CONFLICTS with current beliefs... even though I had admitted to you and all of the list subscribers that my comments might not be right. Like most of us, you had to defend your beliefs! That's precisely my point. And, human nature being what it is, now I've got to do the same thing or just say I was wrong and be done with it. But, I think we both have something worth- while to say. It might affect what happens to Newman's motor or some other new incredulous idea yet to come. You agreed with me "here and there," but, when you found some specific comment or belief which I made-- that CONFLICTED with yours, well, like I say, you, like so many other people, just had to respond with some form of rejection, counter argument, or antagonistic statement. Statement by statement, we ALL (me, too) tend to accept or reject new ideas based on whether they conflict or not with our beliefs. That's the problem (with all people) that I addressed in my first message. And, I guess, it's OK in the course of normal affairs; but, I don't think it's logical or valid in those rare cases (like Newman's motor) when the new idea conflicts with current beliefs. Bob, please note that other subscribers to this list may NOT have found my ideas to be in conflict with their beliefs, like you seem to have. So, yes, by not remaining silent on those points you felt you should respond to, I think you demonstrated some real "closed-mindedness certainty." I found no qualification of your beliefs... no statement of the possibility that you might be wrong-- anywhere in your message. There was some qualified agreement, some deferral, and rebuttals. You stated that you may be willing to admit you're wrong under certain (test) conditions; but, that's not the same as admitting at this time the possibility you are wrong. You require a test be performed and that the results show you are wrong. You hope you are wrong, but you do not admit that possibility exists. There is a big difference and that's what prevents people from evaluating a new idea without defending their current beliefs. Bob, aren't you using the same sort of response to my message as you have used with Mssrs. Soule and Newman? You seem to reject any idea or statement which conflicts with your beliefs--- rather than admit it might be right. If you won't admit the possibility of being wrong, you're stuck with defending your position and shooting down your opposition. There is no logical concilliation possible without some admission of the possibility... however remote it seem. Now, let me clearly establish my own position again, I don't want to fall into the same "trap" you did. And, Bob, please note, all it takes is a little humility to state that perhaps I am wrong about what I say here. I don't have a problem with that... obviously, at least one person (you) clearly thinks I am wrong about some of the things I've said. They may have disturbed you. So, you've challenged them--- all based on your beliefs. Please remember in all this, that all I have meant to say is that people should realize how closed-minded we all are most of the time... while we like to think we're so open-minded. And, I'm saying that whenever we're dealing with conflicting beliefs, we can't logically use those same beliefs as valid arguments any longer. I think we have to find some other means of validating or rejecting ideas-- without invoking beliefs, laws, or conventions which have been stated to be in contention. > > Or simple wonder and curiousity, wanting to know the truth. Skepticisim > and doubt enter the picture when we are told that experimentally proven > facts are incorrect based on less than complete testing, as it should do. > (That brings to mind Michaelson & Morley's experiments that Einstein used to prove the existence of an ether. Later, he used the same experiments to DISprove its existence.) But, you're right on here... though skepticsm and doubt enter the scene pretty fast because we're being told that THIS motor somehow uses NEGATIVE current-- or something wild like that! As I understand it, this thing charges the batteries that power it while it's doing other work. Now, that CONFLICTS right away with what is known. So, we can just ignore it, or statement-by-statement reject the idea-- or (ugh!) we'll have to admit what is currently known as valid may be flawed or wrong. Bob, there aren't any other choices. My whole point is that when you evaluate it-- using the current beliefs held by yourself and others, without admitting they may be flawed, you maintain a "closed-minded certain" attitude and position. You can't evaluate an idea by using the very same postulates (beliefs) that are being questioned or repudiated by the idea-- unless you find some other way to judge its validity. That's the problem! We have to stop rejecting his ideas on those grounds. I'll bet Newman knew what was currently believed about motors and inductors. But, it didn't seem to fit what he thought was happening in his devices. So, he came up with his idea-- and I don't much care for the gallon of current (the water analogy) at all. Positive current flow has rubbed me the wrong way for most of my lifetime. Somehow, I just can't see a gallon of water going through a coil of wire-- like it goes through a pipe-- and I have a hard time envisioning copper wire becoming energy and then back to copper-- many times a second. But, maybe that's what's happening. I have just as hard a time picturing electrons jumping from atom to atom heating up the wire and creating a magnetic field. OK, so, maybe he's wrong about the extra gallon... but, let's not immediately claim that that means the motor doesn't work like he (and several other people) says it does! So, maybe some of the things he thinks are happening aren't! Who knows what's going on in 55 miles of wire in that big motor coil with a ten-foot inner diameter? Who of us can help him figure that out? The Radio Amateur's Handbook or even Professor Terman's books won't let you extrapolate what's happening in an inductor that large with a rotating magnet inside. No engineering outfit has ever designed or built anything like it. Theory is fine, but it seems to me that it's high time for careful, professional testing. I agree with some of your(?) comments about measurements. And, I wish he could get rid of the fluorescent lights after showing them off at first. I'd like to see him replace the fan (unless it's cooling the motor) with a pulley-driven water pump-- or DC generators/alternators (with good voltage regulators) charging lead-acid batteries-- so accurate power measurements could be made. And, when the large, heavy rotor is hand-spun up to speed, tests should be made to determine whether that energy is a factor worth considering. How long does the rotor turn without any battery power? Ah, need I go on? You know what we'd all like to see. As someone (angrily) demanded in all capitals-- that he should connect the output of the thing back to its own input. Sure, why run a fan when the rotor's shaft could be used to develop some suitable form of electrical energy that could be used to re-charge a bank of lead-acid batteries. They could operate a suitable high voltage device that could replace the string of (how many) lantern batteries. (Their characteristics probably change seriously when any attempt is made to charge such things.) But, doing that, properly connecting the output mechanical shaft power to generate a suitable input high voltage-- might get quite complicated and pricey, too. Newman has already faced all that. And that's why I said those of us who can-- should help him, at least, not shoot him down by using arguments that may, eventually, be proved wrong. Sure, he may have made some errors, and he may not know what's really happening, but, let's try to HELP him with kindly suggestions and a lot more humility. That's where I come from. I think my suggestion that "skeptical evaluators (of an idea that conflicts with current beliefs) should try, at least for awhile, to become "supportive advocates" rather than antagonists"-- was read out of context. The important phrases: "at least temporarily", and "for awhile" seem to have been ignored. I didn't say to surrender, to be stupid, or become a pathological scientist. I suggested trying to see it his way-- for awhile, and trying to come up with some explanations that would support his work-- not shoot it down. Has any of his detractors ever tried to argue the case is his favor... to explain how it might be valid-- how it might work over unity or whatever it supposedly does? Is there anyone who is technically qualified out there who is willing to try? Or, as I suspect, has almost everyone-- right from the start-- quickly stated that it couldn't be possible... and how it violated all technical conventions! Now, it's obvious, that being supportive-- for awhile-- won't hurt science and it may clearly reveal that the idea just can't work and that no one can agree with any of the inovator's concepts or explanations which conflict with convention. Then, he's on his own.... and you can have at him-- so to speak. But, then he's had a chance to explain his ideas to a receptive technical audience, and he's had the opportunity for a calm interchange with professional people who truly listened, really opened their minds, at least for awhile, tried to wear his hat-- at least temporarily. If it were you, would you want less? Bob, I find many (most) of your remarks quite on the mark. And, yes, perhaps my objectivity is off-tilt a bit-- adversely affecting my views. If I seem to favor the innovator, it's probably only because I believe his task to be heard is overwhelming... his ridicule is endless... his support, usually nil.... his adversaries, powerful, brilliant, all-knowing, and usually closed-minded-- and all too often, ruthless and vicious. We may never know how many (or how important) good ideas have been suppressed, or how many valid ideas have been abandoned because their innovators couldn't persuade anyone... even themselves... into believing it really was valid and would work? Yet, the innovator usually needs help, often desperately, but he cannot get it because his ideas repudiate the beliefs of those from whom he needs support. The specialists in the field may be threatened by his ideas, the companies who make current products may want to suppress his ideas. Worse, he may lack important knowledge in some critical area or field... and can't obtain it. He may have made errors which make him look stupid, or intent on fraud, or that the whole thing is wrong. If he minimizes his claims, no one bothers to look. If he claims they will turn the world upside down, it's a scam or he's branded as a nut. Of course there are alternatives, he can quit, like Tesla? Or work alone until he has a device/machine that clearly proves itself-- like the man who invented the linotype. But, maybe to do that takes more money, time, skills, and energy than he has left-- and after years, and one or two prototypes that don't prove the theory, he's out of dough. Yes, Bob, I'm guess you're right. I favor the innovator over all those of us who can refuse him the support and recognition, and RESPECT he may deserve. And, perhaps, I always will. But, at least, I admit I may be wrong in doing so. Gadzooks, I thought I was done... but I see you have some more questions/items I need to respond to! > I would like to see Mr. Newman directly address the problem of not > masuring the time to maximum current in the two coil test in an effort to > resolve any conflict and questions. If Mr. Newman can show any unusual > phenomema present, I'll stand corrected. > > Just where did I fail to follow the path you suggest here? > I'm no judge of your (or Mr. Newman's) behavior... just a commenting observer, but, your requests seem reasonable and, perhaps, they deserve a direct answer. But, Bob, aren't you still trying to invalidate the WHOLE idea by some test that doesn't involve the motor? His motor still may do something very special even if the two-coil test proves (?) that parts of his theory are wrong! Something else may be happening in the motor. I'm not questioning the test you suggest. It WOULD allow him to demonstrate he's right-- or maybe get him to admit he might be wrong about some aspects (some big ones) of his understanding. It would be nice if everyone could admit they might be wrong without being diminished for doing so. Please note, I have no problem with admitting I may be wrong... I'm old enough to have learned how often I am wrong and how bad my memory really is... and how just plain stupid I am sometimes. It's the truth. I feel better admitting it rather than trying to hide all my goofs like I did for years. I don't think I fooled anybody. I'm human and want to be right, but as you (and others) read this, you can see where I may be wrong. Why not admit the possibility (or probability) in the first place? But, running the two-coil test, even if it got him to admit he's wrong about that wouldn't necessarily end it. It still wouldn't really be "case closed", and so forth-- like what I've heard here on-line lately-- unless, most regrettably, he gave up and quit! I don't want to see that happen even if some people do. I want to see whether the whole thing works or not! And, I hope it does... not because I've sold GE or Edison stock short, but because I love unique new ideas that work! > > > > Doing what he has done is hard enough without having to > > face closed-mindedness and rejection from those who might help > > him. He can get rejection anywhere! Point out his errors, but > > do so with some humility that comes from considering that maybe > > it's you who don't correctly understand what's happening-- no > > matter how sure you may feel. Wouldn't that be the way to go? > > Again, you seem to be under the impression that I rejected Mr. Newman's > theory out of hand, and began trying to find problems. This simply > is not the truth of the matter at all. Were I closed minded, would > I have tested anything at all? I object to you infering that my > testing was less than impartial or open minded as being totally > baseless and unwarrented. > > Have I treated Mr. Newman is a less than honorable manner? Why do you > fail to recognise that I have asked to be shown incorrect here on several > occations? OK, Bob. Again I want to make it clear that I'm not judging your behavior towards Mr. Newman-- or your correctness. My only criteria for alleging anyone's "closed-mindedness" is my belief that to fail to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong-- brings about that undesired label. Worse, I think that the act itself makes it impossible for the evaluator to do anything else except reject the conflicting idea. That's what concerns me-- not the label. I've tried to suggest alternatives. You (and other sub- scribers) may have some better and/or different ideas about how to evaluate something that CONFLICTS with the very means you have to evaluate it. * Please realize that my entire discussion in both messages * is meant to be applicable only to the relatively few cases * where the new idea CONFLICTS with current well-established * beliefs of long-standing. It applies to psychiatry, medicine, * physics, chemistry, geology, physiology, and almost every * other science-- as well as all types of engineering. * The people in alternative health care face the same * problems. But, look how the open-minded Ph.D. has * accepted the use of magnets as healing devices for * horses without rejecting it because no one understands * how it works. How does that response compare with * the ugly remark: "Newman, get off the net!" ? * Remarks like that are probably what prompted me to * say what I have in defense of the innovator. Bob, I regret you feel I directed my comments to you. They really had nothing to do with you-- except as you understood them yourself. I've had such beliefs for years. Perhaps, if you read them again, you'll see I was directing my remarks to other people-- elsewhere (and referring to innovators other than Mr. Newman). It was because those same beliefs seemed to apply here, that I offered them as I did. You have my deep respect for your obvious knowledge, logical thinking, technical understanding, experience, and ability to express yourself in these complex matters. I'm glad to see you have such strong interests in them. I appreciate the time you have taken to read my messages, and prepare worthy responses. I only hope you will find some of my ideas of meaningful value. Yours have in- fluenced me. Most sincerely, Doyle Henderson. E-mail: panacea@bigbear.net ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 20 21:48:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA19792; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604202346.JAA18613@peg.apc.org> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jfrancis@peg.apc.org (Jim Francis) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: OVERUNITY WEB site grows ! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Hi, > >Check out the new Takahashi motor page >at my new free energy WEB site. >You can have a look at it right now: > >http://www.overunity.de > >Regards, Stefan. Well done Stefan... Jim Francis AUSTRALIAN LATERAL MIND RESEARCH GROUP http://malls.com/australian-lateral-thinking the "Breath of fresh air" mall From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 21 02:48:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA14768; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 19:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 19:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604210223.VAA08980@firefly.prairienet.org> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Complete info on New "Free Energy" book! (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >From: roamer@globalone.net (Roamer) >Subject: Complete info on New "Free Energy" book! [snip] > The book includes a complete copy of patent for a device that was considered >by it's designer to be a free energy generator. The patent text carefully avoids >indicating that it's a free energy machine because the patent office flat out refuses >to patent anything that appears to be a "perpetual motion device", EVEN IF YOU >CAN SHOW THEM A WORKING PROTOTYPE!!! "They" apparently don't want the general >public to know of such devices. Imagine the outraged public realizing that they've > been shafted by the power companies all these years!. >This device has been reproduced by "basement scientists" and tinkerers >who all claim that it works! > Would this by chance be the Kromrey generator? (I know, I should get the book!) I have copies of the patent for the Kromrey device, and it's been a mystery to me. Kromrey supposedly had to delete any references to free energy when he got his patent; also the design has been altered in the patent so it won't work as such. Moray B. King suggests the magnets should be aligned to produce a sharply bucking field. Do any of you have any further info on this device? Zack w9sz@prairienet.org From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 22:04:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA07991; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 22:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 22:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Electric Rocket X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Blast from the past: I just found a source of *tin* foil, from a dental supply house. Its .0005, about $40/lb. I ordered a roll. We'll see if it's too thin, even if so, it should make a good, solderable capacitor. ..............................freenrg-L.................................... William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-L VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 22:20:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA09953; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 22:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Web Page for Orgone Biophysical Research Lab X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:28:15 -0800 From: James DeMeo To: OBRL Forward Subject: Web Page for Orgone Biophysical Research Lab Announcement: Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory New Web Page Site: http://id.mind.net/community/orgonelab/index.htm Building Upon the Discoveries of the Late Natural Scientist, Wilhelm Reich From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 23:03:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA14710; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 22:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 22:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Scalar Gradiometer Meters X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: RWW says: meters still available ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 05:05:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Wayne Wall Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Scalar detector. [Bill, feel free to post the following to your list services and your web advertising page.] I recently constructed the scalar gradiometer posted on Bill Beaty's web. The most difficult part to obtain was the 2.5-0-2.5 ma null meter. Recently, I had the good fortune at a Navy surplus auction to obtain about twenty 250-0-250 microamp null meters. They are military spec and rugged. They have precision d'Arsonal movements. The resistor connected to the meter in the gradiometer has to be increased a bit, but other than that they work great. I offer them free of charge to all list members who wish to build the gradiometer or any other device. A buck or so for shipping would be nice. To date, I have been unable to obtain steel core material for the Barkhausen scalar detector. Any sources would be most appreciated. Thanks, RWW From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sat Apr 27 23:30:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA18955; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 23:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 23:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: R.I.P. John Draper X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- It is with great sadness that I wish to let every one know that we have all lost a long time free energy pioneer: John Draper (johndee@gremlin.greenville.lib.sc.us). I had been wondering way he stopped responding to the messages that we exchanged regularly (as many of you here have as well). It seems that about six weeks ago he had a massive heart attack and died as he was about to sign the closing papers on his new house in the area of his new job. While he was new the list here many of you new him from past contacts. The inscription in the front of one of John's books reads: "To John Draper a fellow pioneer with best wishes" - signed - Gorge W. Meek. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:04:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA22599; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 23:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 23:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: HERE ARE SOME OLD MESSAGES X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Now that I finally have some free time, I'm going to forward a bunch of errors and bounces caused by software problems at eskimo.com over the last week or so. Note dates for anything to follow, since some are a week old and the subject threads have gone to other things. ..............................freenrg-L.................................... William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-L VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:02:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA23004; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 23:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 23:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Kozyrev's work? (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 18:16:03 -0700 From: "Dave Cruz @ T9TO (PTL!!!)" Reply-To: phys-l@atlantis.cc.uwf.edu To: phys-l@atlantis.cc.uwf.edu Subject: Kozyrev's work? Dear list members, Is anyone familiar with M. Kozyrev's work? Below are questions about Kozyrev that a good friend of mine forwarded. ======================================================================= = In the 1960's M Kozyrev seemed to show that a strange force was = associated with a gradient in the pace of time. He used gyroscopes and = vibrating systems on scales to show this phenomena. Does anyone know of = a sequel to this work? = = Secondly, in relation to this time differential -- do electrostatic or = electromagnetic fields produce time dilation? Would like to relate these = two ideas but have not been able to find articles on interferometry which = show a gradient in the pace of time due to these fields. Grateful for = any help or references on this subject. ======================================================================== I'd appreciate any help or reference. Regards, Dave Cruz {Speaking for myself} From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:05:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA23351; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Re: The Newman Motor/Generator (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- >something real, but the half-baked attempts that he and his hangers-on >make to try to convince people are simply making him look extremely >foolish. >-- >Chris Morriss Mr. Morriss: Your certainly entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree with it. The operational prototypes speak for themselves. A recently-produced Wiring/Construction Diagram of the Commutator System has also been offered. My respect to the gentleman in Philadelphia who had the sincere initiative to read the book for himself --- master the technology --- and proceed to construct his own corroborating prototype. I respect this individual who put words into action. I don't appreciate your words "half-baked attempts" and "stumbled across" --- if you sincerely had any idea of the broad and insightful range of innovative concepts developed by Joseph Newman over the past 30 years you would be ashamed at your words. I suggest you read his book for yourself. I also don't appreciate your words "his hangers-on" which is an insult to the thirty scientists who --- at their own expense and initiative --- tested the original prototypes and had the courage to sign Affidavits attesting to the validity of the technology. Your insulting remarks reflect poorly on yourself and discredit any value to your words. In accordance with the dictates of Rules One and Three of this Forum I will not join you on your level of insulting remarks --- although I must admit, I am sorely tempted. Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 Joseph Newman can be reached at: Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 (601) 947-7147 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:07:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA23899; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:03:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:03:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Re: Newman Motor test results (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >At 01:21 AM 4/15/96 -0700, you wrote: > >> >>Since you mentioned Conan Doyle's "barking" (from Sherlock Holmes), I am >>reminded of another famous author who wrote a memorable quotation with >>respect to our canine friends: >> >>"If you give a starving dog a bone he will not bite you. This is the >>principal difference between a dog and a man." --- Mark Twain >> >>Best regards, >> >>Evan >>josephnewman@earthlink.net >>(504) 524-3063 >> >> > >Evan, I still do not accept that Newman has proven anything much at all, but >I do wish to express my admiration for your diligence on his behalf and to >thank you for reminding me about Mark Twain's dog gone quote above. >____________________________________ >Michael Mandeville Michael, Anytime. Glad to brighten up your "dog day" afternoon. Joseph Newman's operational prototypes speak for themselves. Rest assured that this work and development of the technology will continue. Your interest is appreciated. Best Regards, Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 Joseph Newman may be reached at: Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 (601) 947-7147 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:12:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA24520; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Re: Newman Motor test results (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- >Evan Soule wrote: >> >Redundant rhetoric, for its own sake. > >******************************************************************* > >Mr. Soule, the absence of disclosure and good science convinces me that >you are wasting bandwidth on an empty argument. > >Henry Mr. Eisenson: Your certainly entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree with it. Disclosure has been made and will continue to be offered. And if one wants to read the full disclosure as it was developed by the innovator, I suggest you read his book for yourself. The operational prototypes speak for themselves. A recently-produced Wiring/Construction Diagram of the Commutator System has also been offered. My respect to the gentleman in Philadelphia who had the sincere initiative to read the book for himself --- master the technology --- and proceed to construct his own corroborating prototype. I respect this individual who put words into action. Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 Joseph Newman can be reached at: Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 (601) 947-7147 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:15:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA25005; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- >On Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:13:06 -0700 (PDT), Evan Soule wrote: >[snip] >>As to "CLOSING THE LOOP" -- this statement demonstrates how some do not >>understand the nature of this technology. Joseph Newman explicitly >>describes why one cannot "simply feed the generated, outpu current back >>into itself, eliminating the need for an input battery" on pages 58-59 of >>his book. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Evan Soule >>josephnewman@earthlink.net >>__________________________________ >Evan, > >Speaking only for myself, I might be much more inclined to buy this >book, if at least some form of explanation were published on this >forum. > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk _____________________________________ Dear Robin: Since you may have missed this post, I've included it below: NEWMAN'S THEORY By Roger Hastings PhD Transcribed By George W. Dahlberg P.E. [Reformatted and spell checked by Patrick Bailey, INE, 16 Apr 96] I do not intend to recapitulate the theory presented in Newman's book, but rather to briefly provide my interpretation of his ideas. Newman began studying electricity and magnetism in the mid 1960's. He has a mechanical background, and was looking for a mechanical description of electromagnetic fields. That is, he assumed that there must be a mechanical interaction between, for example, two magnets. He could not find such a description in any book, and decided that he would have to provide his own explanation. He came to the conclusion that if electromagnetic fields consisted of tiny spinning particles moving at the speed of light along the field lines, then he could explain all standard electromagnetic phenomena through the interaction of spinning particles. Since the spinning particles interact in the same way as gyroscopes, he called the particles gyroscopic particles. In my opinion, such spinning particles do provide a qualitative description of electromagnetic phenomena, and his model is useful in understanding complex electrical situations (note that without a pictorial model one must rely solely upon mathematical equations which can become extremely complex). Given that electromagnetic fields consist of matter in motion, or kinetic energy, Joe decided that it should be possible to tap this kinetic energy. He likes to say: "How long did man sit next to a stream before he invented the paddle wheel?" Joe built a variety of unusual devices to tap the kinetic energy in electromagnetic fields before he arrived at his present motor design. He likes to point out that both Maxwell and Faraday, the pioneers of electromagnetism, believed that the fields consisted of matter in motion. This is stated in no uncertain terms in Maxwell's book "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field". In fact, Maxwell used a dynamical model to derive his famous equations. This fact has all but been lost in current books on electromagnetic theory. The quantity which Maxwell called "electromagnetic momentum" is now referred to as the "vector potential". Going further, Joe realized that when a magnetic field is created, its gyroscopic particles must come from the atoms of the materials which created the field. Thus he decided that all matter must consist of the same gyroscopic particles. For example, when a voltage is applied to a wire, Newman pictures gyroscopic particles (which I will call gyrotons for short) moving down the wire at the speed of light. These gyrotons line up the electrons in the wire. The electrons themselves consist of a swirling mass of gyrotrons, and their matter fields combine when lined up to form the magnetic lines of force circulating around the wire. In this process, the wire has literally lost some of its mass to the magnetic field, and this is accounted for by Einstein's equation of energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light. According to Einstein, every conversion of energy involves a corresponding conversion of matter. According to Newman, this may be interpreted as an exchange of gyrotrons. For example, if two atoms combine to give off light, the atoms would weight slightly less after the reaction than before. According to Newman, the atoms have combined and given off some of their gyrotrons in the form of light. Thus Einstein's equation is interpreted as a matter of counting gyrotrons. These particles cannot be created or destroyed in Newman's theory, and they always move at the speed of light. My interpretation of Newman's original idea for his motor is as follows. As a thought experiment, suppose one made a coil consisting of 186,000 miles of wire. An electrical field would require one second to travel the length of the wire, or in Newman's language, it would take one second for gyrotons inserted at one end of the wire to reach the other end. Now suppose that the polarity of the applied voltage was switched before the one second has elapsed, and this polarity switching was repeated with a period less than one second. Gyrotons would become trapped in the wire, as their number increased, so would the alignment of electrons and the number of gyrotons in the magnetic field increase. The intensified magnetic field could be used to do work on an external magnet, while the input current to the coil would be small or non-existent. Newman's motors contain up to 55 miles of wire, and the voltage is rapidly switched as the magnet rotates. He elaborates upon his theory in his book, and uses it to interpret a variety of physical phenomena. RECENT DATA ON THE NEWMAN MOTOR In May of 1985 Joe Newman demonstrated his most recent motor prototype in Washington, D.C.. The motor consisted of a large coil wound as a solenoid, with a large magnet rotating within the bore of the solenoid. Power was supplied by a bank of six volt lantern batteries. The battery voltage was switched to the coil through a commutator mounted on the shaft of the rotating magnet. The commutator switched the polarity of the voltage across the coil each half cycle to keep a positive torque on the rotating magnet. In addition, the commutator was designed to break and remake the voltage contact about 30 times per cycle. Thus the voltage to the coil was pulsed. The speed of the magnet rotation was adjusted by covering up portions of the commutator so that pulsed voltage was applied for a fraction of a cycle. Two speeds were demonstrated: 12 R.P.M. for which 12 pulses occurred each revolution; and 120 rpm for which all commutator segments were firing. The slower speed was used to provide clear oscilloscope pictures of currents and voltages. The fast speed was used to demonstrate the potential power of the motor. Energy outputs consisted of incandescent bulbs in series with the batteries, fluorescent tubes across the coil, and a fan powered by a belt attached to the shaft of the rotor. Relevant motor parameters are given below: Coil weight : 9000 lbs. Coil length : 55 miles of copper wire Coil Inductance: 1,100 Henries measured by observing the current rise time when a D.C. voltage was applied. Coil resistance: 770 Ohms Coil Height : about 4 ft. Coil Diameter : slightly over 4 ft. I.D. Magnet weight : 700 lbs. Magnet Radius : 2 feet Magnet geometry: cylinder rotating about its perpendicular axis Magnet Moment of Inertia: 40 kg-sq.m. (M.K.S.) computed as one third mass times radius squared Battery Voltage: 590 volts under load Battery Type : Six volt Ray-O-Vac lantern batteries connected in series A brief description of the measurements taken and distributed at the press conference follows. When the motor was rotating at 12 rpm, the average D.C. input current from the batteries was about 2 milli-amps, and the average battery input was then 1.2 watts. The back current (flowing against the direction of battery current) was about -55 milli-amps, for an average charging power of -32 watts. The forward and reverse current were clearly observable on the oscilloscope. It was noted that when the reverse current flowed, the battery voltage rose above its ambient value, verifying that the batteries were charging. The magnitude of the charging current was verified by heating water with a resistor connected in series with the batteries. A net charging power was the primary evidence used to show that the motor was generating energy internally, however output power was also observed. The 55 m-amp current flowing in the 770 ohm coil generates 2.3 watts of heat, which is in excess of the input power. In addition, the lights were blinking brightly as the coil was switched. The back current from the coil switched from zero to negative several amps in about 1 milli-second, and then decayed to zero in about 0.1 second. Given the coil inductance of 1100 henries, the switching voltages were several million volts. Curiously, the back current did not switch on smoothly, but increased in a staircase. Each step in the staircase corresponded to an extremely fast switching of current, with each increase in the current larger than the previous increase. The width of the stairs was about 100 micro-seconds, which for reference is about one third of the travel time of light through the 55 mile coil. Mechanical losses in the rotor were measured as follows: The rotor was spun up by hand with the coil open circuited. An inductive pick-up loop was attached to a chart recorder to measure the rate of decay of the rotor. The energy stored in the rotor (one half the moment of inertia times the square of the angular velocity) was plotted as a function of time. The slope of this curve was measured at various times and gave the power loss in the rotor as a function of rotor speed. The result of these measurements is given in the following table: Rotor Speed Power Dissipation Power/(Speed Squared) radian/sec watts watts/(rad/sec)^2 4.0 6.3 0.39 3.7 5.8 0.42 3.3 5.0 0.46 3.0 3.5 0.39 2.1 2.0 0.45 1.7 1.2 0.42 1.2 0.7 0.47 The data is consistent with power loss proportional to the square of the angular speed, as would be expected at low speeds. When the rotor moves fast enough so that air resistance is important, the losses would begin to increase as the cube of the angular speed. Using power = 0.43 times the square of the angular speed will give a lower bound on mechanical power dissipation at all speeds. When the rotor is moving at 12 rpm, or 1.3 rad/sec, the mechanical loss is 0.7 watts. When the rotor was sped up to 120 rpm by allowing the commutator to fire on all segments, the results were quite dramatic. The lights were blinking rapidly and brightly, and the fan was turning rapidly. The back current spikes were about ten amps, and still increased in a staircase, with the width of the stairs still about 100 micro-seconds. Accurate measurements of the input current were not obtained at that time, however I will report measurements communicated to me by Mr. Newman. At a rotation rate of 200 rpm (corresponding to mechanical losses of at least 190 watts), the input power was about 6 watts. The back current in this test was about 0.5 amps, corresponding to heating in the coil of 190 watts. As a final point of interest, note that the Q of his coil at 200 rpm is about 30. If his battery plus commutator is considered as an A.C. power source, then the impedance of the coil at 200 rpm is 23,000 henries, and the power factor is 0.03. In this light, the predicted input power at 700 volts is less than one watt! MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION OF NEWMAN'S MOTOR Since I am preparing this document on my home computer, it will be convenient to use the Basic computer language to write down formulas. The notation is * for multiply, / for divide, ^ for raising to a power, and I will use -dot to represent a derivative. Newton's second law of motion applied to Newman's rotor yields the following equation: MI*TH-dot-dot + G*TH-dot = K*I*SIN(TH) (1) where MI = rotor moment of inertia TH = rotor angular position (radians) G = rotor decay constant K = torque coupling constant I = coil current In general the constant G may depend upon rotor speed, as when air resistance becomes important. The term on the right hand side of the equation represents the torque delivered to the rotor when current flows through the coil. A constant friction term was found through measurement to be small compared to the TH-dot term at reasonable speeds, but can be included in the "constant" G. The equation for the current in the coil is given by: L*I-dot + R*I = V(TH) - K*(TH-dot)*SIN(TH) (2) where L = coil inductance I = coil current R = coil resistance V(TH) = voltage applied to coil by the commutator which is a function of the angle TH K = rotor induction constant In general, the resistance R is a function of voltage, particularly during commutator switching when the air resistance breaks down creating a spark. Note that the constant K is the same in equations (1) and (2). This is required by energy conservation as discussed below. To examine energy considerations, multiply Equation (1) by TH-dot, and Equation (2) by I. Note that the last term in each equation is then identical if the K's are the same. Eliminating the last term between the two equations yields the instantaneous conservation law: I*V=R*I^2 + G*(TH-dot)^2 + .5*L*(I^2)-dot + .5*MI*((TH-dot)^2)-dot If this equation is averaged over one cycle of the rotor, then the last two terms vanish when steady state conditions are reached (i.e. when the current and speed repeat their values at angular positions which are separated by 360 degrees). Denoting averages by < >, the above equation becomes: = + (3) This result is entirely general, independent of any dependencies of R and G on other quantities. The term on the left represents the input power. The first term on the right is the power dissipated in the coil, and the second term is the power delivered to the rotor. The efficiency, defined as power delivered to the rotor divided by input power is thus always less than one by Equation (3). This result does require, however, that the constants K in equation (1) and equation (2) are identical. If the constant K in equation (2) is smaller than the constant K appearing in equation (1), then it may be verified that the efficiency can mathematically be larger than unity. What do the constants, K, mean? In the first equation, we have the torque delivered to the magnet, while in the second equation we have the back inductance or reaction of the magnet upon the coil. The equality of the constants is an expression of Newton's third law. How could the constants be unequal? Consider the sequence of events which occur during the firing of the commutator. First the contact breaks, and the magnetic field in the coil collapses, creating a huge forward spike of current through the coil and battery. This current spike provides an impulsive torque to the rotor. The rotor accelerates, and the acceleration produces a changing magnetic field which propagates through the coil, creating the back EMF. Suppose that the commutator contacts have separated sufficiently when the last event occurs to prevent the back current from flowing to the battery. Then the back reaction is effectively smaller than the forward impulsive torque on the rotor. This suggestion invokes the finite propagation time of the electromagnetic fields, which has not been included in Equations (1) and (2). A continued mathematical modeling of the Newman motor should include the effects of finite propagation time, particularly in his extraordinary long coil of wire. I have solved Equations (1) and (2) numerically, and note that the solutions require finer and finer step size as the inductance, moment of inertia, and magnet strength are increased to large values. The solutions break down such that the motor "takes off" in the computer, and this may indicate instabilities, which could be mediated in practice by external perturbations. I am confident that Maxwell's equations , with the proper electro-mechanical coupling, can provide an explanation to the phenomena observed in the Newman device. The electro-mechanical coupling may be embedded in the Maxwell equations if a unified picture (such as Newman's picture of gyroscopic particles) is adopted. Dr. Roger Hastings, PhD _________________________________________ Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 To reach Joseph Newman: Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 (601) 947-7147 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:22:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA25367; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:13:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:13:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: COMMUTATORS FOR NEWMAN MOTOR/GENERATORS - AN OVERVIEW (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- From: ralph.hartwell@emachine.com (Ralph Hartwell) Organization: The Energy Machine Information System 504-733-8380 To: josephnewman@earthlink.com _________________________________________ Note: The views expressed herein may or may not represent the position of Joseph Newman and, as informational material, are provided here from submissions by other individuals interested in the technology _________________________________________ COMMUTATORS FOR NEWMAN MOTORS - AN OVERVIEW (C)opyrighted 1991 by Ralph M. Hartwell 715 Jefferson Heights Avenue Jefferson, Louisiana 70121-1110 * * * * * * * * * * Note: This discussion assumes that you have some knowledge of the design and general construction of standard commutators as used on electric motors and generators. It also assumes that you have read enough about Mr. Newman's design and theory to know the differences between his commutators and standard commutators, as well as the general circuit connections he uses. This discussion considers only the standard circular rotating drum-type commutator, and not Mr. Newman's reciprocating commutator (nor the recent magnetic rotor design). * * * * * * * * * * OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM - Commutators have been used in electric motors and generators for many years, and their theory and operation had become a matter of textbook theory and well established commercial and industrial practice. The invention of the Newman motor has caused designers and engineers to take another look at the design of the previously well-understood commutator. Experimentors have quickly discovered that attempting to use a standard commutator with a Newman motor was a failure. Something new and obviously different was required. Perhaps the best way to explain the difference between a standard commutator and what I shall call the "Newman" commutator is that unlike the conventional commutator which is designed to prevent brush arcing if at all possible, the Newman commutator must allow a spark to occur after each conducting segment is passed by the brush. A rotating commutator has one simple function - to regularly interrupt the flow of electric current passing through it. A secondary function is to prevent its own destruction by overheating usually caused by friction and electrical arcing, and destruction of the commutator surface, caused by mechanical wear and pitting caused by the effects of the arcing between the commutator conducting segments and the brushes. These destructive effects are aggravated in a Newman commutator due to the fact that the Newman commutator must be designed to allow an arc to occur after the brushes pass each conducting segment in the commutator. This is necessary because in Mr. Newman's theory, the generated power is released when the current flowing through the coils of his motor is interrupted in a very rapid manner. This means the current must be abruptly switched off by a rapid and complete breaking of the circuit. So far, no one has developed a solid-state switching circuit capable of handleing the extremely high voltages generated by his machines - even the smaller machines generate voltages in the multi-kilovolt region. A standard rotating commutator used with a conventional motor or generator consists of conductive segments spaced regularly around the outer surface of a drum or wheel. Between each of these conducting segments are insulating segments to prevent the conducting segments from shorting out to each other. The spacing of the conducting segments is quite close; usually the ratio of widths of the conducting to insulating segments is about 20:1. The width of the brushes which ride against the commutator varies from about 50% of the width of one conducting segment to almost twice the width of a conducting segment. The exact width used will depend on the design of the particular motor or generator, and is influenced by such things as the number of turns per coil, the number of coils in the armature, the operating voltage of the motor or generator, and the horsepower the device must handle. * * * * * * * * * * STANDARD COMMUTATORS - A conventional design commutator is specifically designed to prevent any brush arcing, or to at least reduce it to a minimum. It accomplishes this by insuring that the brush is always in contact with at least one commutator segment, and is never completely disconnected from a segment so as to cause an open circuit to occur. This means that before the brush disconnects from the segment it is leaving, the brush will connect to the next segment, shorting the two segments together momentarily. Since the adjacent segments of the commutator are at slightly different voltages, this temporarily short circuit will result is a small spark between the commutator segment and the brush at the time fo connection or disconnection by the brush. In addition, the short circuiting of adjacent segments results if the flow of wasted power through the coil that is connected between the two segments which are short circuted. The lower the voltage in the coil, the less the arcing. The more segments the commutator has (and by definition, the more coils the motor has), the lower the voltage, and the less the arcing. This is the reason that better quality motors will have a greater number of commutator segments than a cheaper motor. Motors designed to operate on high voltage will also require a larger number of commutator segments than low voltage motors. * * * * * * * * * * NEWMAN COMMUTATORS - By contrast, a Newman commutator typically is connected to the single coil in the Newman motor, but the commutator has the job of interrupting the current flow in this single coil many times per revolution of the armature. In addition, the commutator must reverse the polarity of the applied voltage twice during each revolution of the armature. The interruption of the current flowing in the Newman motor by the commutator is of vital importance to the proper operatin of the motor, and it is necessary to understand Newman's theory to be able to design a successful commutator. For purposes of commutator design, a Newman motor may be considered as a huge inductor in series with a pulse generator. When the commutator connects the input power supply to the motor coil, current starts flowing through the coil, and this current gradually increases to the final steady-state value as determined by inductor theory. A portion of the time required for the current to reach the maximum level according to Ohm's law through the inductor is considered by Newman to be the "charging" time of the motor coil. This charging time is rather short when compared to the time required for the curent to reach steady- state value, typically 10-30% of the total time to reach steady- state current levels. * * * * * * * * * * DESIGN OF A NEWMAN MOTOR COMMUTATOR - There are two slip rings mounted side by side with the segmented commutator. Each slip ring is connected to half of the segments on the commutator assembly, but rather than the usual arrangement of being connected to alternate segments, in the Newman design, all the segments in a 180 degree sector are connected to one slip ring, and the other slip ring is connected to the segments of the commutator. The connections to the slip rings go to the battery or other power supply, and the brushes running on the segmented commutator go to the coil in the motor. This allows the commutator / slip ring assembly to reverse the polarity of the voltage applied to the coil every 180 degrees as the rotating magnet on the armature reverses its direction. If this polarity reversal is not accomplished properly, the motor will not run correctly, or will refuse to run at all. The normal polarity reversal position is about 10-15 degrees past "top-dead-center", or the position where the magnet is parallel to the axis of the coil. Note that the position of the reversal is adjustable by changing the angle between the magnet and the commutator polarity reversal position. The most effecient operation is not in the position where the motor runs the fastest, but rather slightly before that position, or "advanced" in timing if this were an automoblie engine. This requires a bit of "playing" with to get it just right - or even close to right! Commutator design for a Newman motor is basically as follows: 1) Determine the time required for the current to rise to the maximum value through the coil in the motor. This may be determined by commecting the motor coil to a battery with a small resistor in series with the motor. Using an oscilloscope, measure the time for the current to rise to about 90% of the maximum value. 2) Decide the speed in RPM at which you are going to have the motor operate. Remember it is unwise to have the machine run too fast, especially if the armature is large or poorly constructed. The centrifugal force generated during operation can easily destroy the machine - and you, too, if you happen to be in the way when it flys apart! 3) Calculate the time required for the motor armature to rotate one time at the RPM you have chosen. 4) Calculate the time for the current to rise to about 20% of the maximum value as determined in step 1. 5) Divide the time per revolution by the time required for the coil current to rise to 20% as determined in step 4. This should be at least 10, and less than 20. Discard the fractional part of this number, and call the whole number part N. 6) Draw a circle the size your commutator is going to be when you build it. How large should it be? I suggest as a first approximation, make the segmented commutator wheel at least 4" in diameter; smaller sizes are hard to work with unless you have good construction facilities, and smaller sizes are more prone to arc overwhen in operation. Note, too, that high voltage machines need larger diameter commutators so the insulating segments may be bigger to prevent flashover when in operation. The slip rings may be any convenient size. 7) Divide the circumfrence of the circle into as many segments as your calculated value N. The length of one of these segments is the length that ach conducting segment on the commutator must be to allow the current to rise to the value you calculated in step 1 when the motor is running at the speed you selected for its' operation. 8) Obviously, you cannot have the whole commutator periphery filled with conducting segments, which is what would happen is you placed as many segments on the commutator as you calculated would fit there in step 4. To solve this problem, remove one conducting segment and divide the space thus gained between the remaining segments. You must have an even number of conducting segments remaining, because half of them go on one 180 degree segment, and the rest of them go on the other half of the commutator. If you do not have an even number of segments, remove another one and adjust the spacing again. 9) When you are finished, you should have an insulating (non- conductive) gap between each conductive segment which is between 1/8 to 1/2 the lenght of one of the conducting segments. The exact length will vary widely depending on such variables as the diameter of the commutator and the speed of rotation. The general rule is; the faster the rotation or the higher the operating voltage, the wider the insulating gap must be to prevent flashover when in operation. * * * * * * * * * * OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS - The insulating segments should be made of a heat resistant substance, such as glass or ceramic. The material should not break down or burn when exposed to the heat of the arc which will occur during operation, nor should it be eroded by the action of the arc. The insulating segments should be wide enough to prevent "flashover", which is the tendency for the arc to follow the brush from one conducting segment to he next segment, resulting in a complete path for the battery current through the ionized gasses in the arc. If flashover occurs consistantly when the machine is in operation, this is an indication that the insulating segments are too small, and that the commutator* is probably too small in diameter. Try again!! Back to the old drawing board... Copyright 1991-1996, Ralph M. Hartwell, II _________________________________________ *The latest commutator design enables higher voltages to be utilized. Note: The above article was written several years ago. The principles described above are generally applicable "across the breadth of the technology." However, considerable improvements to the commutator design have been made in the recent past. These improvements are intended to actually reduce the intensity of the sparking by distributing the physical connections over a wider area. The reader should bear in mind that there are TWO totally different design systems (but many sub-configurations within each basic design): there is one commutator design when the energy machine is intended to function as a GENERATOR and a totally different commutator design when the energy machine is intended to function as a MOTOR. The latest design improvements to the commutator system apply to the machine operating as a MOTOR. Subsequent torque can be utilized for mechanical systems or can be used in conjunction with a conventional generator. Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 _________________________________________ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:36:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA26786; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: What is objectivity? (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: O X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Doyle Henderson responded: >You just couldn't simply acknowledge I might be right >that people show a general closed-mindedness when a new >idea CONFLICTS with current beliefs... even though I had >admitted to you and all of the list subscribers that my >comments might not be right. Like most of us, you had >to defend your beliefs! That's precisely my point. >And, human nature being what it is, now I've got to do >the same thing or just say I was wrong and be done >with it. But, I think we both have something worth- >while to say. It might affect what happens to Newman's >motor or some other new incredulous idea yet to come. When I wrote "Very often it's all too true that new ideas are only received if they fall within specific, rarely written guidlines.", I was acknowledging that I beleive that you are correct in this. When I wrote "This is a clear scientific prejudice I do not agree with personally." I was trying to say that as I also beleive what you had written to be true, that I also tried to uphold a personal adherence to objectivity. I'm sorry this was not clear. >So, yes, by not remaining silent on those points you felt >you should respond to, I think you demonstrated some real >"closed-mindedness certainty." I found no qualification >of your beliefs... no statement of the possibility that >you might be wrong-- anywhere in your message. There was >some qualified agreement, some deferral, and rebuttals. When I wrote "On the other hand, I am equally willing to be wrong here, if Mr. Newman can clarify his interpretation of the two coil tests.", and "What I read, I might misread, and what I've written, I may have mistated. My grasp of conventional theory is limited at some level, so clearly I might be wrong, and have said so before.", just how did you take my meaning Mr. Henderson? >You stated that you may be willing to admit you're wrong >under certain (test) conditions; but, that's not the same >as admitting at this time the possibility you are wrong. >You require a test be performed and that the results show >you are wrong. You hope you are wrong, but you do not >admit that possibility exists. There is a big difference >and that's what prevents people from evaluating a new >idea without defending their current beliefs. First, let me ask, just what is the difference in this case? Secondly, I clearly did admit the possibility that I was wrong as shown in the quotes above. Did you read them in an objective manner? If so, why did you dismiss them? >Bob, aren't you using the same sort of response to my >message as you have used with Mssrs. Soule and Newman? >You seem to reject any idea or statement which conflicts >with your beliefs--- rather than admit it might be right. >If you won't admit the possibility of being wrong, you're >stuck with defending your position and shooting down >your opposition. There is no logical concilliation >possible without some admission of the possibility... >however remote it seem. >Now, let me clearly establish my own position again, I >don't want to fall into the same "trap" you did. And, >Bob, please note, all it takes is a little humility to >state that perhaps I am wrong about what I say here. Please Mr. Henderson, do re-read my quotes above, and tell me how you took my words. Some self reflection may be in order to evaluate who is fallen into a trap in this case, and who is being objective. >Please remember in all this, that all I have meant to >say is that people should realize how closed-minded we >all are most of the time... while we like to think we're >so open-minded. And, I'm saying that whenever we're >dealing with conflicting beliefs, we can't logically use >those same beliefs as valid arguments any longer. I >think we have to find some other means of validating or >rejecting ideas-- without invoking beliefs, laws, or >conventions which have been stated to be in contention. We are in complete agreement here. >Bob, there aren't any other choices. My whole point is that >when you evaluate it-- using the current beliefs held by >yourself and others, without admitting they may be flawed, >you maintain a "closed-minded certain" attitude and position. >You can't evaluate an idea by using the very same postulates >(beliefs) that are being questioned or repudiated by the idea-- >unless you find some other way to judge its validity. That's >the problem! We have to stop rejecting his ideas on those >grounds. Ah, but this is the point exactly! Please read this carefully: Conventional theory predicts one set of behaviors, while the theory of Mr. Newman's says something quite different. When I made my tests, I simply looked to see if the behaviors I observed were those described by conventional theory or by the theory of Mr. Newman. Then I reported the facts as I found them. At no time have I used conventional theory to argue against Mr. Newman's theory. I have used experimental facts alone. And experimental facts are the only way to judge validity. In fact, the very videotape Mr. Newman sells shows conventional theory alone under careful examination, when all factors are accounted for, and no support for his theory at all. >And that's why I said those of us who can-- should help >him, at least, not shoot him down by using arguments that >may, eventually, be proved wrong. Sure, he may have made >some errors, and he may not know what's really happening, >but, let's try to HELP him with kindly suggestions and >a lot more humility. That's where I come from. Arguments may be claimed wrong, but experiments show us the truth. Please do provide any experimental confirmation of Mr. Newman's theory, as a fellow engineer. >Has any of his detractors ever tried to argue the case >is his favor... to explain how it might be valid-- how >it might work over unity or whatever it supposedly does? >Is there anyone who is technically qualified out there >who is willing to try? Or, as I suspect, has almost >everyone-- right from the start-- quickly stated that >it couldn't be possible... and how it violated all >technical conventions! First, how can a detractor argue the case in favor while still being a detractor? Many technically qualified people have tested Mr. Newman's machine without first claiming it to be impossible. All who used the accepted methods have shown efficiences of less than 100%. I strongly suggest you look at the web site I referenced some short time ago for many personal accounts of the testing performed. You will also find that Mr. Newman has been made aware of these issues, and has not yet addressed them. >But, running the two-coil test, even if it got him to >admit he's wrong about that wouldn't necessarily end >it. It still wouldn't really be "case closed", and so >forth-- like what I've heard here on-line lately-- >unless, most regrettably, he gave up and quit! Having him "quit" is not the issue here. Establishing a degree of professionalisim and credibility for the field as a whole is more important to me than any given innovators "quitting". This does the larger good for innovators as a whole in my opinion. Is this not more important than any given innovator or device? >I'm no judge of your (or Mr. Newman's) behavior... just >a commenting observer, but, your requests seem reasonable >and, perhaps, they deserve a direct answer. But, Bob, >aren't you still trying to invalidate the WHOLE idea >by some test that doesn't involve the motor? His motor >still may do something very special even if the two-coil >test proves (?) that parts of his theory are wrong! If Mr. Newman based his theory on the effect he shows in the video tape, and if in fact grave errors were committed in that same test, is it then due to my intent that these errors now shed doubt on the whole resultant theory? You suggested starting with least principles, and I agree that this is an excellent idea. Lets set the motor aside while we take a closer look at the two coil test, and the resultant theory. >Something else may be happening in the motor. I'm not >questioning the test you suggest. It WOULD allow him to >demonstrate he's right-- or maybe get him to admit he >might be wrong about some aspects (some big ones) of his >understanding. It would be nice if everyone could admit >they might be wrong without being diminished for doing so. Two out of three is not bad. So far, You have admitted the possibility of being in error, as have I, or at least I claim to have done so. To date, Mr. Soule and Mr. Newman have not done this, and have not addressed the issues raised with the demonstration. Apparently, objectivity is a matter of degree as well. >OK, Bob. Again I want to make it clear that I'm not judging >your behavior towards Mr. Newman-- or your correctness. My >only criteria for alleging anyone's "closed-mindedness" is >my belief that to fail to acknowledge the possibility of >being wrong-- brings about that undesired label. >Worse, I think that the act itself makes it impossible >for the evaluator to do anything else except reject the >conflicting idea. That's what concerns me-- not the label. I find your inability to recognise my having admitted to the possibility of being wrong several times, where you apparently could find it not, clearly shows the level of your objectivity in this discussion. >I've tried to suggest alternatives. You (and other sub- >scribers) may have some better and/or different ideas >about how to evaluate something that CONFLICTS with the >very means you have to evaluate it. If you objectivly read this message, you will now see that I have not used a theory Mr. Newman claims is incorrect to show his theory to be incorrect at all Mr. Henderson. This simply is not the case at all. I used only the experimental results, which clearly show the conventional theory to be accurate over Mr. Newman's contrary theory. The evidence Mr. Henderson, not the arguments as you seem to beleive. There is an important difference here. >You have my deep respect for your obvious knowledge, >logical thinking, technical understanding, experience, >and ability to express yourself in these complex matters. >I'm glad to see you have such strong interests in them. >I appreciate the time you have taken to read my messages, >and prepare worthy responses. I only hope you will find >some of my ideas of meaningful value. Yours have in- >fluenced me. Thankyou, I have found this intellegent and reasoned discourse to be of great personal importance, and hope other readers will feel the same way. I think this exchange should serve to show just how fine a line objectivity draws in the sand. Until we confront our beliefs with experimental evidence, it is often hard to know on which side of that line we stand. Mr. Hendersons point of view is as completely valid as mine, yet these are still diameterically opposite in some respects. As Mr. Henderson correctly points out, it cannot be both ways. Is such situations, we have only one recourse to find truth, and that is through direct experimentation alone. Only this way will nature reveal truth, but we must maintain the objectivity to tell if the effects we observe confirm or deny what the conventional or alternitive theories each state. Occam's razor tells us we must eliminate all known processes before we envoke any unknown processes. When this is done in the case of the two coil experiment, we find only conventional processes to be at work. At no point in this process must we use a disputed point of conventional theory to disprove Mr. Newman's theory of this experiment as Mr. Henderson apparently beleives is the case. I hope Mr. Henderson will reply with how in his opinion, I used a disputed issue in conventional theory against the theory of Mr. Newman, rather than establishing the fact that the coils show only conventional phenomema alone. If this is the case, (yes, I do admit it is possible) I await Mr. Henderson's showing me my errors. If it is not the case, have I been less than objective here? From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:35:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA27231; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: 22 Apr 96 14:01:59 EDT From: Jules Brovont <102012.1500@CompuServe.COM> To: Multiple recipients of l Subject: Re: Gravity Coil I read a doc about a gravity coil that supposedly can bend/alter space-time. Could anyone give me more info about this-> maby a schematic and or parts lists, etc.? I am very interested in building such a device. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:39:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA27595; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Latest Takahashi Infos ! (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Hi, I will now update the Takahashi motor page at my new free energy WEB site in the next few hours, so you can have a look at it, at: http://www.overunity.de Point your WEB browser to it and let me know, if you have any difficulties. Thanks a lot. Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany Tel: ++ 49 30 344 23 66 FAX: ++ 49 30 344 92 79 email: harti@ddd.snafu.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.powerweb.de/harti Check out our Internet MPEG CD-ROM ! Visit the WEB site! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:42:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA27885; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: Re: The Truth X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- >Greg Watson wrote: >> >> To all Freenrg-list members. >> >> You have seen the correspondence between myself and Mr. Soule. >> >> I will ask you to support me by e-mailing Mr Soule the 2 following >> questions. >> >> 1)Do you and your organization stand behind the Hasting's report? >> >> 2)Are you and your organization conduction a business in the book, video >> and other services / products which are offered for sale? >> >> I realize that this group is interested in free energy devices and it is >> NOT my intention to engage in a "Flame War" with Mr. Soule. I only seek >> what you seek, the truth and a better future for our children. >> >> I do believe that there may be some areas of the Newman motor which is >> worthy of further study. I have for some years worked on the development >> of a high performance induction generator. which has lead me to a very >> good understanding of the interactions of coils, magnetic fields and >> moving masses. There is much material for open discussion. >> >> Greg Watson > >Resent above, bounced (why?) first time. > >Greg Watson To the other members of this Forum: It is precisely because --- in my interaction with the above-named individual --- I have done my best to respect Rules One and Three of this Forum that I have ***not*** engaged in a "Flame War" (on this public Forum) with G. Watson. Point of clarification: any "flaming" that has transpired on this public Forum has been unilaterally directed at me by the above-named individual. Best regards, Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 To contact Joseph Newman: Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 (601) 947-7147 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:43:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA28202; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:03:28 -0700 From: Evan Soule To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: superconducting motor? >bshannon: >This is the diametrical opposite of Mr. Newman's work, and hence, I >cannot see how this claim can be made in good faith by Mr. Newman. _____________________________________ Dear bshannon: I suggest you read Joseph Newman's book to understand how this is indeed related to Joseph Newman's technology. Evan Soule. _____________________________________ >bshannon: >Also, as Mr. Newman holds no US patent, and his Mexican patent is not >enforceable under NAFTA, he cannot claim this work as his own in court >within the context of any infringements of his intellectual property >by Reliance Electric, even if the device was similar. _____________________________________ To bshannon: This will be a matter for litigation to decide. Evan Soule. _____________________________________ >bshannon: >Mr. Newman has no valid claim to any electrical motor design of high >efficiency as he seems to believe. > >Is Mr. Newman going to ask his investors to bare the costs of another >round of lawsuits to try and gain validation of his claims? _____________________________________ To bshannon: Joseph Newman does indeed have a valid claim to an electromagnetic Motor/Generator which produces greater energy output than external energy input. His operational prototypes attest to this fact. And if Joseph Newman does ask his investors to bare the costs of another round of lawsuits I am sure you would agree that this would be between Joseph Newman and his investors. But I thank you for your concern. Evan Soule _____________________________________ > >Evan Soule added: > >>P.S. It is possible that these companies are using the words "high- >>temperature superconducting (HTS) electric motor" as a euphemism for >>the technology Joseph Newman has developed over the past 30 years. >bshannon: >No sir, I cannot see that being the case due to the diametrical technical >philosophies between a zero voltage, zero resistance superconductor, and >Mr. Newman's high voltage, low current, high reactance coils. Such a claim >would appear to be unfounded. To bshannon: Yes sir, if one understands the breadth of Joseph Newman's technology it is indeed possible that these companies are using the words "high-temperature superconducting (HTS) electric motor" as a euphemism for the technology Joseph Newman has developed over the past 30 years. Since you have not read Joseph Newman's work, I am not surprised that you would say, "such a claim would appear to be unfounded." Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 To reach Joseph Newman: Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 (601) 947-7147 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:46:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA28636; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:43:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:43:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: Re: superconducting motor? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:44:44 -0500 (CDT) From: John Fields To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: superconducting motor? It seems to me that even if a motor and a generator using superconductive material were used to generate the magnetic fields required to run the motor, and this allowed the system to run over unity, there would still be a price to pay for the refrigeration equipment needed to achieve (and maintain) the required superconductivity. Where will the energy used to run the refrigerator come from? If the gain of the _total_ system was sufficient, I suppose the output shaft of the motor could drive the refrigerator as well as the generator, or perhaps part of the output of the generator could be used to run the refrigerator. I'd love to see some numbers describing the energy budget of such a system John Fields From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:53:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA28965; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: The Newman Machine... plans? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:45:23 -0700 From: Evan Soule To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Newman Machine... plans? >Evan Soule wrote: > >> "If I were to be sarcastic I would say, 'sure, why not? Let's send the >> "free" plans. A human being spends thirty years of his life developing >> a new technology that will ultimately benefit everyone long after he >> (the inventor) is dead....certainly he should "give away" everything >> that he has worked for.... >*************************************************************** >Reply by Mr. Eisenson: >Sorry, Mr. Soule, but that's downright silly. ______________________________ No, Mr. Eisenson, what's downright silly (and destructive of civilization) is for one to expect "something for nothing." Evan Soule ______________________________ ______________________________ >Newman's "technology" either works or your claims are fraudulent. H. Eisenson ______________________________ Mr. Eisenson: Joseph Newman's technology does work and he has the operational prototypes to prove it. If you believe it, fine. If you don't believe it, fine. Either way, the development of the technology will not depend upon your opinion in this matter. There are curious and sincere individuals who have discovered the workability of this technology and its implications for the future access of our species to abundant, non-polluting energy. Evan Soule ______________________________ ______________________________ >If it works, prove it and society will give you a blank check plus protection >for Newman's intellectual property. >H. Eisenson ______________________________ Mr. Eisenson: Joseph Newman has proven it repeatedly. Some understand, some don't, some "blow smoke." So what else is new? Evan Soule ______________________________ ______________________________ >If it doesn't, your strategy should be to dodge the proof issue and sell >>books/seminars. So far, you've chosen the latter option ---- and by >itself that >choice is a self-indictment. >H. Eisenson ______________________________ Mr. Eisenson: These words are your opinion. You are certainly welcome to them. I disagree completely. There is another option which you have overlooked: the technology DOES work and a book is sold to further explain the technology. [Books are still useful tools in the educational process.] And, last I heard, American free enterprise is still permitted. The book represents thirty years of Joseph Newman's hard work and innovative thinking. It is his testament to a life of creativity. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. Evan Soule ______________________________ ______________________________ Evan Soule wrote: >> ...just completed a Wiring/Construction Diagram for one of the most >> recent Commutator Designs for the Newman Motor/Generator. > >NO! No one cares about partial plans. To skeptics, your "most recent >commutator" is as useless as a "new, improved, ON/OFF switch." H. Eisenson ______________________________ Mr. Einsenson I must say, I really don't like your attitude. Fortunately, for the sake of this conversation, this is a public Forum, and I will refrain from tell you precisely my opionion of your above two sentences. I will, however, ***politely*** say the following: I am going to sincerely and lovingly suggest that a total absence of curiosity has consumed your skeptical attitude. You don't even know what is featured on the "Wiring/Construction Diagram" and yet you have catagorically condemned it. As a matter of fact, the Diagram enables one to construct one version of Joseph Newman's Motor/Generator, and focuses especially on the construction of the Commutator since it is the "heart" of the system. I really "love" some of my fellow species members: A considerable amount of effort goes into producing a Construction Diagram, this Diagram is freely offered, and I am operationally "spit upon" by one who condemns it without even looking at it. Yes, some people certainly are "wonderful and sensitive." However, since my "free" offer was predicated on the recipient having both curiosity and rationality, I will sincerely and honestly recommend that you save your postage since I would not now send you a Diagram even if you ordered it. Evan Soule _______________________________ _______________________________ >provide a simple set of drawings that permit anyone "reasonably >skilled in the art" to duplicate Newman's claimed results. H. Einsenson _______________________________ Mr. Einsenson: This has been done. Evan Soule _______________________________ _______________________________ > >Newman's technical claim remains unsubstantiated by independent >experimenters, uses unproven assumptions with no basis in physics (i.e. >"gyroscopic particles moving at the speed of light" but with less than >infinite mass), won't be discussed openly and freely, is disclosed >piecemeal through paid-admission "seminars" and privately-published >books rather than peer-reviewed journals, and the "inventor" nurtures a >paying cult around his ideas. H. Einsenson _______________________________ Mr. Einsenson: What you say in the above paragraph is TOTALLY UNTRUE and INSULTING!!!!!!! And, for instance, since your knowledge is so "extensive" on this subject: just what are these "paid-admission 'seminars'" to which you refer? They certainly are news to Joseph Newman!!!!!! And I RESENT --- DEEPLY RESENT, EINSENSON, the "paying cult" INSULT! You owe me an apology on this remark! Ironcially, Einsenson, there is a whole chapter in Joseph Newman's fundamental book discussing "peer-reviewed Journals" and their quintessential "intellectual honesty." And, oh, Einsenson, just what is wrong with a privately-published book? There appears to be an anti-capitalistic hang-up here since such a book represents the essence of American individualism and the spirit of free enterprise. I highly recommend a book --- The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality --- by Ludwig Von Mises, which discusses this affliction. BTW, Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica was also a privately-published book. SIC ITUR AD ASTRA. Evan Soule _______________________________ _______________________________ Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, Louisiana 70157-7684 Joseph Newman can be reached at: (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:53:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA29296; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:48:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:48:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Burden of Proof (was . . . Proof in Pudding) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:07:08 -0700 From: Richard Wayne Wall To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Burden of Proof (was . . . Proof in Pudding) Bounced and reposted Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:58:10 -0700 BURDEN OF PROOF 4/21/96 Mssrs. Newman/Soule, Another less than skillful evasion of legitimate questions and demands for full disclosure. You may bluster and try to bluff your way through the difficulties that you bring upon yourselves by making questionable claims and then failing to support them in any manner when you are required to do so. You may feign righteous indignation and hurt feelings when your hand is called in an attempt to avoid action in good faith. Without doubt, you have raised the issue of intellectual honesty and now by all your refusals, everyone may recognize where you choose to be placed on this issue. I believe you have settled the issue once and for all by your actions/inactions. You have attempted to shift the burden of proof of your claims to the rest of the world. Lest it may have slipped you collective mind, here's how it works. When an inventor or innovator releases his theory or device to the rest of the world and makes certain claims, it is up to the inventor to fully test and prove his device to the rest of the world. First, Occam's razor must be fully applied and satisfied (see R. Shannon). Once all conventional science has been ruled out, then and only then, should other explanations be entertained. The inventor is then required to prove the truth only and answer all reasonable questions and demands by anyone in an honest, truthful and straight forward manner. It is not the responsibility of all others to prove or disprove the truthfulness of the inventors allegations or claims. It is totally the inventor's responsibility. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE INVENTOR NOT THE PUBLIC. The members of this list have politely ask you many questions and made many suggestions. Even though the burden of proof is not on them to prove the validity of your claims, they have, none the less, bent over backwards to accommodate you in every possible manner. They have been rebuffed. Why? Although not a requirement, Bob Shannon tested your theory and two coil device. He very gently offered his results and analysis. His analysis, suggestions and questions to you have been rebuffed. Why? Scott Little has offered his lab and services to test your device with your input. Rebuffed? Why? This list has been quite charitable with you simply because we all want you to succeed, even though the burden of proof is upon you to prove the validity of your claims. This has created a big problem because now you expect that this is the correct way to proceed. I assure you it is not. Everyone is scratching their head and wondering about the bizarre behavior of Newman Energy Products. Why aren't they forthcoming, acting in good faith and providing complete disclosure regarding the truthfulness and validity of their claims? I assume Newman Energy Products is a for profit company. We all hope that you profit handsomely from all legitimate products that you develop and offer for sale. Past posts have mentioned that you provide books, videos and seminars for sale. Promotion and sale to investors has also been mentioned. One million dollars for legal defense over the past several years has also been mentioned. I bring these up only to remind all that significant business is done by Newman Energy Products. Oh, yes. Since Newman Energy Products is in significant business for profit, I have a few questions that this group may be interested in as a whole. These are simple questions that are in general matters for the public record. Just business questions, nothing personal. 1. What is the business structure of Newman Energy Products? Is it a sole proprietorship? Partnership? Limited Partnership? Corporation? Just what form does it take? 2. Is Newman Energy Products registered or incorporated in the state of Louisiana or any other state or country? If so, Where? 3. Does Newman Energy Products offer products for sale as noted above? Does Newman Energy Products promote and make sale to investors? Has it done so in the past? Has Newman Energy Products sold products and sold to investors in Louisiana, or other states and countries? If so, where? 4. Is Newman Energy Products registered with the SEC or any other government regulatory agency? If so, which ones? A Rhetorical Question: Since Newman Energy Products is on public notice that there are serious questions regarding the truthfulness and validity of their claims regarding their products for sale and since Newman Energy Products appears to do significant business, is Newman Energy Product's objectivity clouded by the fact that serious business damage may result if their claims are proven invalid or untruthful? Sincerely, RWW >>Moreover, even a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office with >>"superb credentials" (according to a Federal Judge hearing Joseph >>Newman's suit against the Patent Office) wrote: "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; and Defendant (PTO) intentionally did not >>consider the formalities of Plaintiff's (J. Newman's) application or >>the patentability of Plaintiff's claims under 35 USC sec. 102/103." > >. . . snip . . . > >Mr. Soule is this another example of your misdirection, obfuscation and >an attempt to conceal facts and confuse the readers of this list? >Since you wish to put forward "legal evidence" to prove what appear to >be your bogus claims regarding Mr. Newman's technology, I make the >following questions and demands. > >1. Who was the "former U.S. former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent >Office with "superb credentials"? > >2. Who was the Federal judge mentioned above? > >3. Did the judge or the Commissioner write the above quote? Your >sentence is misleading. > >4. What is the full legal citation of the case? > >5. What was the courts holding in the above case? This means who won >the suit, Newman or the PTO. > >6. Are you quoting a judge in the minority opinion or the majority >opinion? > >Since, you often very cleverly quote out of context to prove your >point, I make demand that you post the whole legal case so that list >members may decide for themselves what the legalities of this case >prove or disprove. Mr. Soule your intellectual honesty is on the line. >Do the right thing. > >And, most importantly Nature doesn't give a damn what any Commisioner >or judge decides is right or wrong. They are irrelevant to any >scientific proof. Only Nature makes the rules. > > >Sincerely, > >RWW Dear Richard Wayne Wall: First of all, I don't care for your attitude. I would suggest you alter it. Your words such as "misdirection, obfuscation and an attempt to conceal facts and confuse the readers" as well as words such as "what appear to be your bogus claims" and "very cleverly quote out of context" -- are not appreciated by myself. When you choose to apologize for these words then I will CONSIDER responding to your email. Moreover, I don't react well to the word ***"demand."*** No one --- including you, RWW --- "demand(s)" anything of me. If one chooses to request, or ask politely, then this would be an appropriate technique for discussion. Because I will do my best to follow Rule One of this Forum, I will refrain from responding in this public forum in a way that I feel would be appropriate to your "demand." Privately, I would have very strong words in reply to your so-called "demand." Within the context of this Forum, however, I will do my best to remain polite despite a very strong urge to respond otherwise. I will say this (since it wasn't "demanded" of me): when one knows the ENTIRE FACTS of the case surrounding Joseph Newman's ongoing battle with the Patent Office, one is quite amazed by the MASSIVE INJUSTICE that has been perpetrated against this innovator. Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684 New Orleans, Louisiana 70157-7684 Joseph Newman can be reached at: (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 P.S. The Proof is STILL in the "pudding"! And this "pudding" has been prepared in accordance with the "recipe" of Natural Laws. As an astrophysicist once said, "The Scientific Method is the 'key' designed to unlock the secrets of the Universe." From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:56:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA29571; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Unexpected Death of one of our own X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:39:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Bert Pool To: freenrg-list@eskimo.com Subject: Unexpected Death of one of our own I am saddened to report to the Free Engergy listserve that John Draper died unexpectedly of a heart attack recently. John and his wife had found a new house and were ready to sign the final closing papers in just a couple of days. I knew John was going to be busy moving, new phone lines, etc., so I wasn't too concerned about not hearing from him for a while. I tried calling him at work today and was told that he died from a massive heart attack six weeks ago. I'd only known John a few months, but he had a sharp wit and I know that he had a long and keen love in the search for free energy. I had been collaborating with him and another valuable member of this listserve for some time on an interesting electromagnetic device. I know that I will greatly miss John's E-mail posts and my phone conservations with him. When the first available free energy light glows, it will glow just a bit dimmer because John's not here to celebrate the event with us. Bert From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:59:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA29875; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: Errors in Newman's theory. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:09:44 -0400 From: bshannon To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Errors in Newman's theory. Stefan Heartmann wrote: >A quick hint: >The above formular is only true, if you use a static coil ! >In the Newman case, ehere a permanent magnet rotates inside the coil, >this formula is not true and had to be enhanced. The formula I(t) = E/R (1 - e^(-t R/L)) describes the two coil demonstration of Mr. Newman, and was not intended to address Mr. Newman's motor. Stefan also wrote: >There you can see, that indeed, when the communitator switched, >there flows indeed a big back current pulse to the battery, which also >lights a few indescandent bulbs connected in series with the batteries >and and the coils. >So when the magnet rotates inside the coil, there is indeed coming >more energy out, when the field collapses, than is put in, when the >field builds up. I see. But Mr. Heartmann, to accurately say if more power is leaving the coil than entering, we must make very specific measurments. >I quote Dr. Hastings findings over here, which you did not seem >to have read carefully: Actually, I read the quoted section of Dr. Hastings report with great interest. (omitted here for length.) Dr. Hastings is claiming to measure the average wattage, with no evidence that he calculated the power factors first, and then comparing the claimed average wattages in and out. Under conventional theory, this is an incorrect method to use. Wattage over time must be accounted for, and a smaller current flows into the coil for a longer time, so the average wattage may be quite low, while the total power is actually higher entering than leaving the coil, in perfect accord with conventional theory alone. To date, no evidence that this is not the case has been offered. Also, if Dr. Hastings used current transformers to measure the input and output currents, these will not produce accurate measurments as they measure the first derivative of the current, and so will not be accurate measuring a fast discharge of current by producing a higher than actual signal, as a function of the rise time of the pulse. Dr. Hastings observations of an oscilloscope alone do not compute the total energy in the charge and discharge currents, and account for the AC power factors known to be present. >He ment the indescant bulbs connected in series with the battery, >so they blinked, when the back current pulse appeared! >They did not blink during the input current of 2 ma ! This is no indication that the back current pulse had greater total power than the input current by any means, strange as it may sound. As the filaments of the incandescent are highly inducive, the fast current pulse will dissapate more energy in these filiaments than the potentially higher total power, but lower average power input current in perfect accord with conventional theory alone yet again. This effect is quite common in incandescent light bulbs, which are often used as test loads for RF transmitters for exactly this reason. How do we know if this is or is not the case here? We cannot tell, so we cannot claim this video tape to prove or disprove Mr. Newman's claim. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 00:59:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA00265; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Special "iron" for detector cores available! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:09:59 -0400 From: bshannon To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Special "iron" for detector cores available! At long last, I am offering samples of pre-tested detector core material for builders interested in the Barkhausen effect detector design on Bill's web site! Laser printed hardcopies of all mechanical and schematic diagrams can be also be included if you wish, just say so in your request, and I'll run them off and include them. I currently have 20 sets of detector core strips and "E" core segments on hand for immediate shipment to interested builders and experimenters. What do I get? Act now, and you'll receive not one, but two different pieces of the "right stuff" for your very own weird science! You will receive both the single strip needed to biuld a Bearkhausen Effect Scalar Detector, AND a bonus, a "E" core segment removed from the very same transformer. The single strips each measure 3 3/4 inch by 5/8 inch, and an "E" core sections are 2 1/2 inch by 3 3/4 inch. (Sorry metric system fans, this is surplus weird science, and it's good old American surplus, in inches.) This material is quite thin, and not having a tight crystal grain structure, it's not quite so heavy as some pole pig iron out there. I'm not sure of the exact weight of both pieces, and the hardcopies if requested, but a simple check shows the two bits of core material weigh less than 230 grains. (as if that helps, what's a grain anyway?) How do I get it? To receive this material, you must do several things, first, please do not ask for it over freenrg-l, as we have enough bandwidth issues now. Next, do post an email message stateing your heartfelt desire for this old rusty transformer core material to: bshannon@tiac.net Please do not reply to any other internet addresses I may have used in the past. I will not acknowlage any requests arriving at any employers account. As I respond to each request, I will provide you with a US postal address to send a SASE with the proper postage to. I'll tape the core material to a sheet of recycled paper, and send it on it's merry way back to you, so that you too may have your very own weird science at your home or office. An ordinary, sturdy envelope should do the trick. How much does it cost? (so this bit comes last?) Please , with your SASE include a check or money order for only $10.00(US). If your ordering from overseas (or north of Vermont?) and international transactions will end up costing you this much alone, please tell me a (short) story all about it, and I'll give it to you in exchange for a postcard, ok? Now then, tax code, chapter so and so, subsection whatever, oh yes, if your ordering from within Massachusettes, your paying too much in taxes now! so we'll meet in some dark alley, and we'll work something out. Some nerve asking everybody else for ten bucks then? This way, I can pay my dear wife to do the taxes and keep this legal, and also to keep my "varied neferaious cohorts" snooping through more surplus looking for "the right stuff" and keep the supply available. Who knows what other strange crud we might bring your way? I garuntee nobody is making big bucks on this, and I don't expect a huge number of responses here. I'm sure once a few people get this in their hands, they can confirm if local materials work as well or not, and make these available to others. You can rate your local material in relation (transitons per second) to the material provided here, and post ad's on the proper section of Bill's web page. Please do not send samples of your local material to me for evaluation. I desperatley hate winding coils, and if I had been able to use some kind of hall effect gizmo instead, I would have just to advoid winding the coil by hand. Everything you need to know about testing local materials is included in the papers on Bills' site, but experiment with it. (Oh, yes, I used the clear five minute epoxy in a 50 - 50 ratio, mixed in small ammounts and spread on thin for my coils. They are not at all microphonic as a result. Someone asked, (Zack?) and my response to this question bounced, and I've now lost the orignal question.) (I have already personally promised several people free samples, which I will be shipping out seperately, you are not forgotten just yet, as I still have a chance to remember.) From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:02:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA00530; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Re: F/E in Munchen DE? (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- On Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:37:54 -0700 (PDT), William Beaty wrote: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 19:08:01 +0100 >From: Nikolai Korschun >To: billb@eskimo.com >Subject: Anti-Gravity Device, Free eng. Mach. > >Dear Bill Beaty > >Do you know about any activities in free energy and related topics >around my living area in Munich/Bavaria/Germany? > >Thanks a lot for any reply. > >Yours > >N.Korschunow > > > How about going to Switzerland, and taking a look at the Methernitha(SP?) device? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:05:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA00920; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604280720.RAA20585@peg.apc.org> Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jfrancis@peg.apc.org (Jim Francis) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Kozyrev's work? (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 18:16:03 -0700 >From: "Dave Cruz @ T9TO (PTL!!!)" >Reply-To: phys-l@atlantis.cc.uwf.edu >To: phys-l@atlantis.cc.uwf.edu >Subject: Kozyrev's work? > > >Dear list members, > > Is anyone familiar with M. Kozyrev's work? Below are questions about >Kozyrev that a good friend of mine forwarded. > >======================================================================= >= In the 1960's M Kozyrev seemed to show that a strange force was >= associated with a gradient in the pace of time. He used gyroscopes > There is a chapter devoted to this Russian Astrophysicist and his time dilation invention in an old book called "Psychic Discoveries behind the Iron Curtain" by Ostrander and Schroeder (Chapter 13) It's lomg out of print but I got a copy from the library. I've also got a brief mention of Kozyrev on my site Jim Francis http://malls.com/australian-lateral-thinking From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:22:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA02561; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: pathological skepticism X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Here's something from my CLOSEMINDED SCIENCE page, still under construction. ************************************************************************ SYMPTOMS OF PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM (c)1996 William J. Beaty ************************************************************************ 1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse. "The phenomena you claim to observe is impossible, crazy stuff. We need not publish your paper, and no one need attempt any replication of your results." 2. Constant altering of requirements for proof. Moving the goalposts. "I'll believe it when 'X' happens" (but when it does, this immediately becomes "I'll believe it when 'Y' happens.") 3. Ignoring the lessons of history. "Scientists of old ridiculed the germ theory, space flight, meteors, etc. Isn't it good that the researchers of today are much more wise, and such things can no longer happen?" 4. *Denial* of the lessons of history. Belief that good ideas are never supressed, then altering history to fit this belief. "Throughout history, scientists *never* ridiculed flying machines, spacecraft, continental drift, reports of ball lightning, meteors, etc. 5. Excusing the ridicule and suppression of new ideas as a desirable natural selection force. "It is right that new discoveries be made to overcome large barriers. That way only the good ideas will become accepted. 6. Blindness to phenomena which do not fit the current belief system, coupled with denial that beliefs affect perceptions. "Geologists have never seen any good evidence for this so-called 'continental drift.' Therefor it is safe to say that continents don't slide around the earth's surface. 8. Belief that all progress is made by small, safe, obvious steps, and that no new discoveries come from anomalies observed. "These observations are obviously mistakes, because if they were real, we would have to rewrite large portions of we know about physics." 9. Belief that evidence is worthless without a theory. "There is no explanation for what you observe, therefore the anomalies you report are the results of mistakes or delusion." 10. Excusing closemindedness with claims of a "slippery slope." "If we take one bizarre claim seriously, we'll have to accept them all, and we'll waste all of our time checking out crackpot claims." 11. Belief that the unknown is in the far distance, not staring us in the face. " 'X' cannot be true because it's not possible that thousands of researchers have overlooked it for all these years. If 'X' were true we would already know about it." 12. Hiding evidence of personal past ridicule of ideas which are later proved valid. " 'X' is obviously ridiculous, and it's supporters are crackpots who are giving us a bad name and should be silenced." Without warning this becomes "since 'X' is obviously true, it follows that..." 13. Belief that fundamental concepts in science do not change, coupled with a "herd following" behavior where the individual changes his/her opinions when collegues all do, all the while remaining blind to the fact that opinions ever changed. 14. Belief in the perfection of modern science, with consequent blindness to, and denial of, its many faults. 15. Blind to the existance of any of the above symptoms in self or peers. Sees all of the above as isloated instances which do not comprise an accumulation of evidence, and don't indicate a trend. ...............................freenrg-L.................................... William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-L VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:23:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA02772; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Re: Newman's technology. (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- > >.....those of us who can-- should help >him, at least, not shoot him down by using arguments that >may, eventually, be proved wrong. Sure, he may have made >some errors, and he may not know what's really happening, >but, let's try to HELP him with kindly suggestions and >a lot more humility..... > Hey Doyle, I am picking a short quote from your long post and just want to commend you for taking the time to express what probably (many?) on this list are feeling. Let's treat any inventor with a good deal of humility, that is, let's give him an advantage just for being an inventor, who has taken it upon himself to figure out something that isn't in accordance with currently 'known' technology and science, has found (something?) and is trying to get that something developed further or actually used. One of my messages on Newman that bounced off the listserv, I had given up on sending it, but I am digging it up and adding it to this post to reinforce what I just wrote. I do believe that if there is even a tiny bit of a chance that the thing might work, we MUST NOT gang up like a pack of meanies picking apart what we perceive as wrong. But really, what am I saying this for, your post has beautifully expressed the whole concept. Thanks a lot, in the name of many a silent lurker as well. - Josef Here is the post that bounced some time ago: -------------------------------------------- >4/9/96 > >Richard Wayne Wall wrote: > >So we may all talk the same language, for this debate define O/U energy >as follows. In a defined closed system (e.g. Neuman motor/genertator), >more measured energy is produced than measured energy supplied to the >system. Simply Eout > Ein. Energy is interchangable and >interconvertable and may take many forms. The common denominator used >is Joules. For simplicity, this is only a functional defintion, such >as, a Neuman motor/genertator sitting alone and running. Take note >this is a defined, tightly designed closed system. Nor is there any >implication that any energy is created de noveau in violation of any >thermodynamic law. Only, that output energy is greater than it's >source. > I think the basic flaw in this reasoning is that neither the Newman motor/generator nor any other electric motor or generator can really be defined a "closed system". That is where all our speculations fall down. Every electromagnetic action or reaction is not limited to the physical machinery that causes or utilizes it, but is mediated through an energetic background of space which you might call ether, zero-point energy or whatever other fancy name. Thus the term over-unity is only a concession to conventional physics, describing in t h e i r terms something they (the conventional physicists) do neither believe can exist nor are interested in examining evidence for or against. The newman motor is no more over-unity than an atomic power plant. If it functions as claimed, it simply utilizes a source of energy that is hidden to our limited understanding of physical reality and that source might be the copper atoms in the motor's material as proposed by Newman or it might be an over-effective interchange with the energetic medium of space background as proposed by others. The fact is, it is a waste of perfectly good human energy to clash over the definition of over-unity when we should be overcoming the old paradigm that forbids the existence of anything that we do not have a theoretical basis for. See also the controversy over cold fusion, a phenomenon that is certainly real but is attacked as crookery by some pointing out that fusion is, according to current theory, only possible at certain temperatures that would melt any cold fusion cell, including the laboratory and presumably the experimenters as well. So could we have a civilized dialogue and try to find out how Newman's machine actually works?? Kindly - Josef Josef Hasslberger Rampa Brancaleone 25, 00165 Rome, Italy j.hasslberger@agora.stm.it From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:31:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03031; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Response to Comment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 08:53:15 -0700 From: Evan Soule To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Response to Comment >>What will it be Mr. Newman? Mr. Soule? Will you stand behind the >>product you have already sold or not? Will you objectively consider the >>possibility of grave errors having been made? >> ON THE CONTRARY: As stated before, the ***operational prototypes*** built by Joseph Newman speak for themselves: this technology is going forth and continual improvements both to the general design and commutator design are being made. As indicated earlier, the redesigned Commutator has dramatically reduced the sparking found in the earlier prototypes which permits a "clean" waveform reading via an oscilloscope. Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 Joseph Newman can be reached at: (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:30:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03368; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Response to inquiry re NBS "test" X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 08:53:02 -0700 From: Evan Soule To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Response to inquiry re NBS "test" >> >>There are a number of reasons for such grounding in conventional >>measurements, but what special effects preclude such grounding in >>the case of the Newman device? >> >>I've already been branded as a being a skeptic just for taking >>issue with the test methods used to measure the 800% efficiency >>claim. For a "skeptic", I'm oddly willing to be convinced that >>these measurements are valid, while those made by the NBS were >>not if presented with a reasonable theory as to why this might >>be the case. >> >>I'd love to be wrong here. Can someone please clear this up? I thought everyone had seen this posting, but evidently not. The following is the post relating to the NBS "test": The following is now a long-over due response to the NBS Test originally conducted on Joseph Newman's motor/generator. [Actually this response was written at the time of its the original testing --- buy many did (and do) not know of this response.] THE NBS TEST: AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY (THE REAL STORY) Following the dismissal of the findings of the court-appointed Special Master, (a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office [with "impeccable credentials" according to Judge Jackson & nominated as Special Master by the Patent Office] who said that the "evidence was overwhelming" that the Newman motor/generator worked), Federal Judge Jackson (who appointed the Special Master) ignored his own Special Master's findings and imposed upon Joseph Newman a fee of $11,000.00 for the Special Master's Report. (Judge Jackson was the federal judge hearing the case brought by Joseph Newman against the Patent Office.) Judge Jackson then remanded the case BACK to the Patent Office --- Joseph Newman's judicial adversary --- for further action. It was then recommended by the Patent Office that the NBS formally test Joseph Newman's invention. Under the original NBS test conditions, Judge Jackson 1) refused to order the NBS to prepare a testing program in advance of delivery of the energy machine to the NBS, 2) refused to permit Joseph Newman the right to have an expert present for testing, 3) stated that the test results would be issued in secret to Judge Jackson who said in the court record that "it (the results) will be held under seal until we determine that it ought to be exhibited to the public.", and 4) gave the NBS an open-ended period of testing. On behalf of Joseph Newman, attorney John Flannery filed a WRIT OF MANDAEMUS with the U.S. Court of Appeals, seeking to reverse Judge Jackson's unfair testing conditions in favor of those open testing procedures originally proposed by Joseph Newman. On January 13, 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a court order upholding Joseph Newman's WRIT OF MANDAEMUS against Judge Jackson. The higher court sternly rebuked Jackson for ordering "highly irregular" testing procedures that denied Joseph Newman the "fundamental fairness" guaranteed him by the Federal Rules. Jackson had originally ordered Joseph Newman to surrender his energy machine of the National Bureau of Standards so that Office might dismantle or even destroy it. Instead, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected ALL of Jackson's conditions for testing and supported Joseph Newman's position. [As it turned out, this did no good, because Jackson/NBS/Patent Office did exactly what they wanted to do anyway.] The higher Court criticized Judge Jackson for authorizing the destruction of Joseph Newman's invention and giving "no reason for barring petitioner from observing all the tests on his device, or from knowing in advance what tests are to be conducted (by the NBS)," The higher Court concluded: "Such procedures are highly irregular, and taint the evidentiary value of the test results." SPECIFICALLY, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED THAT: 1) the NBS tests be prepared in advance of the energy machine's delivery to the NBS, 2) Joseph Newman be present for testing as well as have an expert on his behalf, 3) the energy machine could not be dismantled or destroyed without Joseph Newman's consent, 4) the NBS would have 30 days AND NO MORE to test the energy machine, and 5) the results would be issued openly and publicly to all parties. However, after Joseph Newman delivered his energy machine prototype to the NBS on January 24, 1986, the following happened: During the authorized and original 30-day test period (from January 24, 1986 to February 24, 1986) the NBS did not conduct a SINGLE test! The Patent Office and the NBS asked the Court of Appeals to change its mind and let the NBS dismantle and destroy the energy machine. On February 12, 1986, for the second time, the Court of Appeals said "NO: The NBS's representative, Dr. Hebner, has not attested to his inability to test the device, or that its structure is concealed, or that a test program cannot be reasonably conducted to ascertain whether the device performs as disclosed in the patent application and "on reconconsideration, we affirm the prior order." The NBS still refused the test the energy machine and to run a single test unless they were permitted to destroy the invention. They told the Court of Appeals BEFORE they ran the test that Joseph Newman's invention was a hoax! (Hardly the comment of an "unbiased" testing agency.) The NBS then offered dozens of excuses --- each of which Joseph Newman anwswered --- in an effort to run the (30 day) clock while they waited for permission to destroy the energy machine, e.g., the NBS insisted on communicating by mail, rather than by telephone. In another instance, the NBS required Joseph Newman to travel 1,000 miles from Mississippi to Maryland to move a single wire a single inch. Apparently the wire had come loose while the machine was in the possession of the NBS. Joseph Newman flew to Maryland and reconnected the loose wire, but the NBS still refused to test the energy machine or even tell Joseph Newman when or how they would test it. During the 1,000 mile trip to connect the wire by moving it one inch, an event occurred WHICH WOULD HAVE GREAT SIGNIFICANCE LATER ON. The approximately 135-lb energy machine delivered to the NBS would --- if not restricted --- "pump" back-emf into the battery pack and thus proceed to overcharge and damage the batteries by shorting them out internally. Normally, Joseph Newman placed 4-foot fluorescent bulbs in the circuit to act as a "release valve" to reduce this back-emf into the batteries. Since it was inconvenient to carry 4-foot bulbs to the NBS offices in Maryland the day Joseph Newwman traveled there from Mississippi to reconnect in several minutes the loose wire, Joseph Newman simply grounded the energy machine to shunt away the back-emf and prevent it from damaging the batteries. What is most ironic is that NBS officials saw Joseph Newman GROUND the energy machine and they ASSUMED that he ALWAYS grounded it --- even for testing! The NBS officials were not interested in mastering Joseph Newman's technical process and understanding the principles involved. Instead --- like "monkey see, monkey do" --- they later grounded the energy machine during their secret testing of the confiscated energy machine (see below). This action would have important ramifications with respect to the validity of the actual NBS test. [It should be added that Joseph Newman has NO intention of "educating the NBS personnel." They were supposed to be the experts; Joseph Newman's attitude was, "Let's see what the 'experts' do."] Moreover, before the NBS ran any tests, Joseph Newman's attorney sent the NBS a NON-GROUNDED schematic of the circuit used to test the energy machine. And the reader should be reminded that over five years earlier Joseph Newman transported an 800-pound unit from Mississippi to Maryland and asked the NBS to test the device. [This was shortly after he had filed his original Patent Application.] The NBS refused to even look at the unit! In addition, since Joseph Newman has over 30 Affidavits from physicists, electrical engineers and electrical technicians attesting to validity of the machine while the Patent Office had NOT ONE affidavit to the contrary, Joseph Newman's position was that the Patent Office's refusal to grant him a patent was groundless. ADDITIONAL HISTORICAL NOTE: early in the application process Joseph Newman was told by a patent office examiner "Mr. Newman, we believe that your invention works, but your technical description is inadequate." Joseph Newman appealed this decision and was informed by the next higher examiner: "Mr. Newman, we believe that your technical description is adequate, but your invention does not work." It was at this point that Joseph Newman initiated his lawsuit in the Federal Court against the Patent Office. BACK TO THE STORY OF THE NBS TEST: Well, the "experts" at the National Bureau of Standards did nothing during the court-ordered-and-authorized-30-day-test- period that expired on February 23, 1986. On Monday, 10:30AM on February 24, 1986, Joseph Newman's attorney, John Flannery, appeared at the Maryland headquarters of the National Bureau of Standards where the energy machine was being held. Armed guards met John Flannery and refused to permit him to secure and return Joseph Newman's property. Mr. Flannery was informed that he had until 12 noon of that day to appear at an emergency meeting in Federal Judge Jackson's courtroom. Should Flannery fail to appear, Jackson would immediately issue a warrant for his arrest. Attorney John Flannery did appear in the courtroom of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson by 12 noon. He was promptly informed by Judge Jackson that the energy machine of Joseph Newman was NO LONGER THE PROPERTY OF HIS COURT and that it was now under the COMPLETE CONTROL of the National Bureau of Standards and that the invention would NOT be returned to Joseph Newman --- even after the agreed-upon 30-day NBS test period had expired. Joseph Newman's attorney John Flannery then asked Judge Jackson to remove himself as the Judge in the case because of demonstrated personal bias and prejudice. Jackson denied that he was prejudiced and refused to tell Joseph Newman what authority permitted the Judge to violate the Court of Appeals Order (see above). As Joseph Newman said, "Since when in this country can a court take away a person's property, seize it without even a hearing and in violation of a standing order from an appellate court? Something is very wrong here." On March 3, 1986, as a result of the Court's questionable procedures, Joseph Newman made an Affidavit in support of a motion to disqualify Judge Jackson for his demonstrated bias and prejudice. On March 7, 1986, the District Court held a status conference to consider giving the NBS more time to test the energy machine in violation of the original 30-day time limit authorized by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Immediately before the status conference began, Jackson's law clerk handed Joseph Newman's attorney John Flannery an order denying Joseph Newman's motion to disqualify Judge Jackson as insufficient, but without any discussion as to why the pleadings were factually insufficient. Judge Jackson then held attorney John Flannery in contempt for merely mentioning the pending motion to disqualify him. Jackson then gave the PTO/NBS until June 26, 1986 to test the energy machine --- 150 DAYS AFTER THE ENERGY MACHINE WAS ORIGINALLY DELIVERED. Joseph Newman could not financially afford to be present with counsel and expert for the 12-hour workdays the NBS claimed they worked each day on testing the energy machine. It would have cost Joseph Newman over $60,000 to attend the tests and is one of the reasons that the U.S. Court of Appeals authorized the original 30-day test period limit. Former PTO Commissioner Mossinghoff misappropriated $100,000 to run the unprecedented tests which were in violation of the original order of the U.S. Court of Appeals. And according to the Patent Office, the tests cost approximately $75,000.00. Although Joseph Newman has the "right" to attend the later, unauthorized tests on his now-confiscated energy machine, it was a "right" that he could not financially afford to exercise. Joseph Newman is not a large corporation. He is an inventor who lives by what he invents. Worse, the Patent Office said that they expect Joseph Newman to reimburse the Patent Office for ALL NBS tests! IT IS, IN FACT, JOSEPH NEWMAN'S POSITION THAT ALL PTO/NBS/JUDGE JACKSON ACTIONS TAKEN AFTER THE FEBRUARY 24, 1986 CONFISCATION WITHOUT-DUE-PROCESS OF HIS PROPERTY ARE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. As a result of this position and of the expense in attending 90 additional days of testing, Joseph Newman did NOT IN ANY WAY wish to appear to endorse the NBS proceedings by being present for their testing. Also, it should be noted that BEFORE the NBS ran any tests, Joseph Newman's attorney, John Flannery, forwarded to the NBS a schematic of the circuit used to test the energy machine. It plainly showed NOT to connect the energy machine to ground. Prior to the expected release of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) test (conducted by three individuals) results on June 26, 1986, Joseph Newman issued a national press release --- sent to over 1,500 members of the press --- which predicted that the NBS test results would be negative and that a "mockery of justice is expected to continue in the chambers of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson." On June 26, 1986, the NBS unsurprisingly said that Joseph Newman's device did not work. Moreover, Jackson set a trial date for December 8, 1986. (Up to this point, Jackson had held a series of expensive hearings to determine if a trial was warranted. Jackson refused to relieve himself from the case due to bias, and Jackson refused to give Joseph Newman a trial by jury. In fact, a Patent Office attorney once told Joseph Newman's attorney, "We would hate to see this case tried by a jury.") It is ironic that as a consequence of the Patent's Office disregard of the Court of Appeals requirement that the NBS notify Joseph Newman of what tests they intended to run, Joseph Newman did not know how the NBS "tested" his machine until AFTER the NBS issued its report. Consequently, Joseph Newman discovered that the NBS DID NOT ACTUALLY TEST HIS INVENTION AT ALL. In one of his press releases, Joseph Newman writes: "In his April 9, 1984 Statutory Declaration before a Federal Court, page 10, NBS expert Jacob Rabinow claimed the following: 'It is my opinion since Mr. Newman does not use a tightly-coupled iron structure around his armature, that the efficiency of his motor should be very low when used purely as a motor.' Following the release of the June 26, 1986 NBS Report (which has been challenged by Dr. Roger Hastings and other scientific experts), NBS spokesman Matt Heyman boastfully stated to the newsmedia that: 'the energy machine invention was so inefficient that if one wanted to operate an ELECTRIC FAN, then don't use the Newman Invention hooked to a battery, but rather use a simple conducting wire from a battery to a conventional motor.' The above two statements by NBS representatives Rabinow and Heyman are ESPECIALLY IRONIC because on July 30, 1986 --- in conjunction with his appearance before the Senate Subcommittee Hearing --- Joseph Newman demonstrated his latest, portable energy machine prototype which operated as a MOTOR (without Rabinow's 'tightly-coupled iron structure around the armature') to power a home-appliance ELECTRIC FAN at an efficiency rate that proved the Patent Office and the NBS dead wrong. Again." Dr. Roger Hastings, Senior Physicist with a major research corporation concluded that the Patent Office's trial expert, the National Bureau of Standards --- the preeminent national testing laboratory --- failed to measure the energy in Joseph Newman's energy machine although it had the energy machine for 150 days. Dr. Hastings said that the NBS simply didn't know what they were doing. "The Court of Appeals gave the Patent Office 30 days to test the energy machine and required the Patent Office to tell us in advance what tests they were going to run during the 30-day test period authorized by the U.S. Court of Appeals," said John Flannery, Newman's counsel. "But their expert, the NBS, kept the device 150 days and never told us what tests they were going to run during this 30-day period," he concluded. In his evaluation, Dr. Hastings wrote that the NBS "results reflect a total lack of communication between the NBS and Newman or any other expert on Newman's technology." "If they told us what they were doing, we might have been able to avoid this waste of time and resources of Joseph Newman and the taxpayers as well," said Flannery. Dr. Hastings said in his evaluation that the NBS allowed energy to escape from Newman Energy Machine and then, instead of measuring the output energy from the machine, they measured the power consumed by resistors "placed in parallel with the Newman motor, and called this power the output." Dr. Hastings concluded, "The primary r.f. (radio frequency) power was shunted to ground." As for measuring output, Hastings said the NBS's test was "equivalent to stating that the output of an electric motor plugged into a wall socket is given by the power used by a light bulb in the next room which is on a parallel circuit." "The NBS test results came as no surprise to me," said Joseph Newman, "I never expected that we would get a fair shake from the Patent Office's expert. What I am surprised about is how badly they did the job." If the Patent Office and the NBS had complied with the Court of Appeals Order, Joseph Newman would have had a second opportunity to reinforce what was already obvious from the schematic diagram forwarded to the NBS --- that they should NOT connect Joseph Newman's energy machine to ground. Joseph Newman could have told the NBS that they were in error. But since the NBS and the Patent Office failed to give Joseph Newman any notice --- contrary to the U.S. Court of Appeals Order --- of the tests they intended to run during the 30-day test period authorized by the Court of Appeals, the Patent Office and the NBS wasted Joseph Newman's resources and, by their estimates, $75,000.00 of federal taxpayer's monies misappropriated by former Patent Office Commissioner Mossinghoff. The Republican Study Committee of Congress wrote in its May 9, 1986 REPORT: "Joseph Newman has received arbitrary and unfair treatment at the hands of the Patent Office and Judge Jackson. Congress should act because the Executive and Judicial branches have failed this American citizen. In light of Congress' oversight responsibilities and the fact that it is empowered by the Constitution to issue patents, the fact that the preponderance of evidence is in Joseph Newman's favor, and the fact that this invention is potentially beneficial to hundreds of millions of people, it is totally in order for Congress to grant Newman a patent and to allow the American marketplace to decide the value of this invention." SUMMATION OF ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS: GROUND: The NBS shunted energy from the Newman invention to ground without measuring and lost this energy. RESISTORS: The NBS measured energy spent in resistors but not in or by Newman's invention. Dr. Hastings: "In the NBS testing, the Newman motor was connected directly to ground, thus eliminating the excess r.f. power from the system." Dr. Hastings: "The NBS test is equivalent to stating that the output of an electric motor plugged into a wall socket is given by the power used by a lightbulb in the next room which is on a parallel circuit." Principal points concerning deficiencies of the NBS test conducted by three individuals: 1) The input voltage into the energy machine was restricted. This is exactly opposite to the Technical Process taught by Joseph Newman who teaches that the input voltage should be maximized and the input current should be minimized. The three individuals at the NBS did the opposite. 2) As Dr. Roger Hastings wrote in his statement: "In the NBS testing, the Newman motor was connected directly to ground." --- as a result, the excess output power was shunted away. 3) The NBS test did not measure the output of Newman's motor --- instead, he says, the tests measured the output of parallel resistors. As a result, Dr. Hastings says, "Their measurements are therefore irrelevant to the actual functioning of the Newman device." 4) No attempt was made by the NBS to measure the heat generated in the motor windings. 5) No attempt was made by the NBS to measure the mechanical output of the Newman motor --- only the electrical output. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, contact: Evan Soule Director of Information Newman Energy Products (504) 524-3063 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, Mississippi (601) 947-7147 email: josephnewman@earthlink.net P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, Louisiana 70157-7684 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:33:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03610; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:26:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:26:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: [Fwd: You want to Dance!] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 08:52:41 -0700 From: Evan Soule To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: You want to Dance!] >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > >--------------77934BDF2C7C >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Above received from Evan Soule. > >Mr. Soule, > >I didn't ask for a fight, I just asked a few questions. Seems you don't >like questions. > >1)Why do the first two statements in the Hasting's report of the >Newman's motors efficiency use measurements which would NEVER have been >made by a physicist? IE the oil pump load calculation and the running >losses when the motor is up to speed. > >2)Do you and your organization stand behind the Hasting's report as a >true and accurate report? If not why not? > >3)Are you and your organization using this and other mail groups to >conduct business and sell your products / services? > >I don't want a fight, Mr. Soule, only THE TRUTH. > >Greg Watson, > ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************* To: Greg Watson Organization: BS Technology P/L The TRUTH, G. Watson, is that YOU initiated contentious, insulting remarks to me in your previous posting. [To our Forum Host: G. Watson has chosen to publish on this public Forum, private ("FLAMEWAR") posts between myself and G. Watson. While the final decision is certainly up to the Host (as it should be) --- such publishing would seem to be in violation of Rule 3 of this Forum. While I am tempted, I will not engage in a public "FLAMEWAR" on this Forum with G. Watson in violation of Rule 3 of this Forum.] AND, for clarification purposes to the rest of the readership: Due to G. Watson's previous, **initiated,** contentious and insulting statements to me --- (for which he has failed to apologize when respectfully asked for said apology) --- he has **forfeited his claim to any type of rational discussion.** His attitude speaks for itself. Moreover, apologies are not offered with "conditions." SIC ITUR AD ASTRA Evan Soule ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************* From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:37:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03842; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:28:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:28:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hasting's Report (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- fm: GREG WATSON To : Evan Soule, Director of Information, Newman Energy Products. ON 20/3/96 YOU POSTED THE FOLLOWING : Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:55:41 -0800 X-Sender: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Unverified) Subject: PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF ONE NEWMAN MOTOR PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF ONE NEWMAN MOTOR SNIP C. Battery Lifetime Tests It has become apparent that the batteries powering the Newman motor outlive the expectations of the manufacturer. In this test, 124 old alkaline batteries were used to power the (90 lb. rotor) motor. The batteries read 2/3 of their fresh voltage value at the outset of the experiment. It was found that the 90 lb cylindrical rotor is spun up to 6 Hz. in 21 sec. when the batteries are connected to the motor. The voltage drops from 125 V. to 70 V. when the batteries are connected, and remains at 70 V. when the rotor runs at speed. The minimum power supplied by the batteries is therefore equal to the power required to spin up the rotor. This is: P equals one-half I W(squared) /t where t equals time to spin up rotor equals 21 sec. W equals angular speed equals 2 X =BD X 6 Hz. R[squared] L[squared] I equals M ( ------- plus ------- ) 4 12 M equals rotor mass equals 41 kg. R equals rotor radius (apr.) equals .08m. L equals rotor length (apr.) equals .31m. This yields a minimum energy required to keep the rotor spinning at 6 Hz. of 13 Watts. Therefore the batteries must be supplying at least 13/70 equals 190 m amps. As a separate estimate it was found that a constant drain of 300 m amps. through a resistor drops the battery voltage from 125 V to 70 V. Consulting the battery charts we find that a fresh battery with a starting drain of 150 m amps. (100 m amps. when V equals 2/3 starting voltage) will drop from 2/3 to 1/2 of its starting voltage in a few hours. If the batteries began at 2/3 of their fresh voltage under a drain of 250 m amps. they would be very dead in two hours. SNIP HERE DR. HASTINGS? HAS USED AN INCORRRECT PROCEDURE TO CALCULATE THE RUNNING LOSSES ON A 90LB ROTOR AS 13 WATTS. THE CALCULATION REPRESENTS THE ENERGY NECESSARY TO ACCELERATE THE ROTOR TO SPEED. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE RUNNING LOSSES AS STATED. ON 18/4/96 YOU POSTED THE FOLLOWING : Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:27:27 -0700 (PDT) From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) Subject: The Proof is in the "Pudding" SNIP Coil weight : 9000 lbs. Coil length : 55 miles of copper wire Coil Inductance: 1,100 Henries measured by observing the current rise time when a D.C. voltage was applied. Coil resistance: 770 Ohms Coil Height : about 4 ft. Coil Diameter : slightly over 4 ft. I.D. Magnet weight : 700 lbs. Magnet Radius : 2 feet Magnet geometry: cylinder rotating about its perpendicular axis Magnet Moment of Inertia: 40 kg-sq.m. (M.K.S.) computed as one third mass times radius squared Battery Voltage: 590 volts under load Battery Type : Six volt Ray-O-Vac lantern batteries connected in series SNIP Mechanical losses in the rotor were measured as follows: The rotor was spun up by hand with the coil open circuited. An inductive pick-up loop was attached to a chart recorder to measure the rate of decay of the rotor. The energy stored in the rotor (one half the moment of inertia times the square of the angular velocity) was plotted as a function of time. The slope of this curve was measured at various times and gave the power loss in the rotor as a function of rotor speed. The result of these measurements is given in the following table: Rotor Speed Power Dissipation Power/(Speed Squared) radian/sec watts watts/(rad/sec)^2 4.0 6.3 0.39 3.7 5.8 0.42 3.3 5.0 0.46 3.0 3.5 0.39 2.1 2.0 0.45 1.7 1.2 0.42 1.2 0.7 0.47 The data is consistent with power loss proportional to the square of the angular speed, as would be expected at low speeds. When the rotor moves fast enough so that air resistance is important, the losses would begin to increase as the cube of the angular speed. Using power = 0.43 times the square of the angular speed will give a lower bound on mechanical power dissipation at all speeds. When the rotor is moving at 12 rpm, or 1.3 rad/sec, the mechanical loss is 0.7 watts. SNIP HERE DR. HASTINGS HAS USED A VALID PROCEDURE TO MEASURE RUNNING LOSSES ON A 700LB ROTOR AS 0.7 WATTS. MY QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS : WHY IN THE FIRST EXAMPLE HAS DR. HASTING? MADE AN INCORRECT CALCULATION AND IN THE SECOND A CORRECT CALCULATION? THE FIRST EXAMPLE IS BEING USED TO CLAIM/SHOW HIGHER THAN EXPECTED BATTERY LIFE (EFFICIENCY), SECOND IS JUST A OBSERVATION. IS THIS WHY? MR. SOULE AS DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION FOR NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCES? GREG WATSON From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:38:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA04147; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: experimenting X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:03:23 +0200 From: Tommy Andersson To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: experimenting Is the anybody who have done any experimenting with the Fogal semiconductor? If you look at the patent ( 5,430,413 ) you can use ordinary parts. I have a sugestion for a self osilating osilator who uses two Fogal semiconductors to amplify and get signal phase right. It's a gif file (12kb) and I will send it to anyone intrested. ------- Tommy Andersson tommy.andersson@mbox2.swipnet.se ------- From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:40:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA04503; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: [Fwd: Challange and counter challange.] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 21:05:18 -0700 From: Evan Soule To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Challange and counter challange.] >>I had challenged Mr. Newman and Mr. Soule to stand behind the two >>coils experiment shown on the video tape which has been used as >>evidence for the claims for the Newman Energy Machine. >> >>I received a counter challenge, asking that I arrange for a University >>physics department to test Mr. Newman's new, portable demonstration >>unit. >> >>As I am not connected to a university physics department, this is not >>practical. Were I a director of such a department, I would test Mr. >>Newman's new demonstration unit as there is nothing to fear in >>performing reasonable testing. Such a series of tests would be an >>invaluable learning experience for students in my opinion. >> >>Especially if the device works as claimed! If not, finding why not is >>an equally valid learning experience. I strongly recommend anyone in >>such a position accept Mr. Newman's offer. >> >>A claim had been made that "The externally applied high voltage is not >>"consumed" by the system". >> >>I had made a critical comment on this: >> >>>Why then to the batteries run down? Clearly this last statement is >>>in error where the facts are concerned, as described by the same test >>>results. Anybody else find this significant? >> >>To which the reply came: >> >>>To rshannon: >> >>>The only thing "flawed" is the above writer's ability to understand >>>what Joseph Newman has accomplished: namely, an energy technology >>>which generates greater external energy (output) than external energy >>>(input) in accordance with E=mc(squared). Throughout his book --- >>>The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman --- the author has been >>>completely intellectually-honest and has demonstrated thirty(+) years >>>of "good science." >> >>>Your statement above: "Why then do(sic) the batteries run down?" is >>>typical of one who has NO comprehension of the technical processes >>>involved in Joseph Newman's system. Quite the opposite, rshannon: >>>his batteries --- when connected to his system DO NOT RUN DOWN! When >>>the batteries are connected to a conventional motor they DO INDEED >>>run down! Since you have initiated the questioning of my >>>intellectual honesty, I also question your level of intellectual >>>honesty since it is obvious to me that this level prevents you from >>>understanding that, in principle, the system is NO different from >>>that of a conventional nuclear reactor. >> >>This is interesting, as in the Hastings report, we find: >> >>>The batteries were drained to about 60% of their starting voltage >>>after seven (7) hours! Although the input current to the Newman >>>Motor follows a complicated waveform, we may estimate the initial >>>average input current from the performance curve (fig. 1). >>>Using 0.2 amps at 12 volts we find: >> >>>Initial Newman Motor Input equals 2.4 Watts. >> >>Clearly in this case, Dr. Hastings is attempting to measure the energy >>delivered from the batteries to the Newman device, and the batteries >>are being discharged in the process. Voltage is being "consumed" by >>the very test reports used to support the claims. >> ------------------------------------ The above was posted on April 11 and received by me on April 23. Where has it been "floating" for the past 12 days is anyone's guess. Someone once suggested that some emails "hang out in cyberbars" until they "feel like" being delivered. Who knows? Anyway, the above statement was answered in an earlier post. It was found that when fresh batteries were connected (to the Newman Motor/Generator) --- a certain percentage of the batteries could not hold up to the backemf and were broken down through overcharging; the other batteries held up better without breaking down. In the above instance apr. 40% of these batteries did overcharge --- hence the voltage drop. RAY-O-VAC would receive the overcharged batteries (as returned to them) and verify that in fact they were overcharged. The point is: when the initial voltage drop occurred, it occurred not because the batteries were being "drained" --- but just the opposite! And note Dr. Hasting's entry of April 20, 1982: "On this date the old batteries have worn down to a point at which they will not even run a 1 1/2 V small toy motor. Yet when they are connected to the Newman Motor, the 90 lb. rotor is spun up to 4.5 Hz. in about 20 seconds! Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 To reach Joseph Newman: (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:42:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA04784; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: Re: The Proof is in the "Pudding" (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- > >Dear bshannon: > >Thank you for your post entitled "Errors in Newman's Theroy(sic)" --- > >As the title of this reply suggests, the operational prototypes speaking >for themselves. Thirty scientists --- via their own expense and initiative >--- have signed Affadivits attesting to the validity of the technology >after having tested operational prototypes of the technology. Moreover, >even a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office with "superb >credentials" (according to a Federal Judge hearing Joseph Newman's suit >against the Patent Office) wrote: >"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; and Defendant (PTO) intentionally did not >consider the formalities of Plaintiff's (J. Newman's) application or the >patentability of Plaintiff's claims under 35 USC sec. 102/103." Dear Dr. Soule: I respectfully request that you list the names of all the abovementioned people to this newsgroup. Zack Widup w9sz@prairienet.org From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:46:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA05096; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Space-Energy Conference in Russia (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 10:57:59 -0800 To: demeo@mind.net (OBRL Forward) From: demeo@mind.net (James DeMeo) Subject: Space-Energy Conference in Russia Orgone Biophysical Research Lab Forwarded News Item >From Natalia Uldastova Following is an announcement of a conference for the: International Committee on Researches of Cosmic-Helio-Geophysical Correlations in Physical-Chemical, Biological and Social Processes. Or, in French: Comite International de Recherche et D'Etude de Facteurs de L'Ambiance C.I.F.A. This group takes much of its developmental direction from both Giorgio Piccardi, the Italian Chemist ("Chemical Basis of Medical Climatology") and the Russian solar-terrestrial researcher A.L.Chizhevsky. Natural Energy Works carries a xerox volume of Abstracts from the Third International Symposium of CIFA, held in Pushchino, Russia. ($17 from Natural Energy Works, PO Box 1148, Ashland, Oregon 97520) An incredible group of researchers, engaged in study of cosmic factors which appear very similar to Reich's orgone energy, or which at least require the existence of an energetic medium in space by which solar-terrestrial influences can be transmitted. ********** CIFA General Assembly and The Fourth International Pushchino Symposium RELATIONS OF BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROCESSES WITH SPACE AND HELIO-GEOPHYSICAL FACTORS Dedicated to the centennial of helio-biology founder A.L.Chizhevsky (1897 - 1964) September 23 - 28, 1996, PUSHCHINO (Moscow Region, RUSSIA) THE SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT Three international Symposiums in Pushchino on problems of research of space and helio-geophysical external factors influences on biological and physico-chemical fluctuation processes were held in the past (1983, 1990, 1993). The Proceedings of the Third Symposium are in effect published in issues 4 and 5 (1995) of Biophysica journal. We invite the participation in the symposium of experts of many branches of knowledge - physicists, chemists, mathematicians, biologists, etc. However, joint work of experts of such different areas makes specific requirements on the lecturers. It is necessary that the reports are clear to experts of other specialities, in particular, it is very desirable that space-geo-heliophysical research is submitted in connection with possible biological effects. Attention! The deadline for abstract reception is extended till May 1 1996. Those wanting to participate in Fourth Symposium should fill out the Registration form and/or send brief abstract of their report to the Organising Committee. The abstracts should take not more then 1 page. The text should be printed by sharp font on standard sheet of white paper (format A4) with margins not less then 2 cm from each side. Please send two copies of abstract in English language. Illustrations are allowable. The dispatch of thesis on e-mail is preferable (in this case you should not send the printed copy of text). As done previously, we intend to publish abstracts of reports before the beginning of the Symposium and Proceedings later in special issues of journal Biophysica. Abstracts should be send not later than on May 1, 1996. Registration fee: 100 USD, paying during the registration. Provisional program of Symposium September 23. The opening of symposium. A.L.CHIZHEVSKY: essay of life and creativity. The modern condition of heliobiology. Air-ions in medicine and biology. September 24. Cosmo-geophysical correlations in biological processes. The general assembly CIFA. September 25. Cosmo-geophysical correlations in medicine. September 26.Cosmo-geophysical correlations in physico-chemical and physical processes and their possible mechanisms. September 27. General discussion. Excursion to the museum of A.L.CHIZHEVSKY (Kaluga). The closing of symposium. GUIDELINES TO PARTICIPANTS OF PUSHCHINO SYMPOSIUM Dear colleagues! The practice of international symposiums of different structure of previous years results in the necessity of significant change of style of execution of such arrangements. So that all participants of the symposium can have the opportunity to present their results and concepts, we ask the authors - lecturers to be limited by THREE (!) slides with the most relevant descriptive information. Such style of reports allows to give the opportunity for a brief message (not more than 15 minutes) for the majority of participants of the symposium, not dividing them to "classes" of posters and plenary messages. These restrictions, naturally, do not exclude the opportunity of detailed representation of all materials, for example as additional poster, and discussion with interested participants at the special meeting. Chairman of Organising Committee S.E.SHNOL' Organising Committee: Chairman: Prof.S.SHNOL', vice-president of CIFA Secretary: Dr.N.UDALTSOVA, general secretary of CIFA Technical secretary: T.MALOVA Members of Organising Committee: L.Chailahjan (Pushchino) E.Fesenko (Pushchino) O.Gazenko (Moscow) V.Oraevsky (Moscow) I.Shtrankfeld (Moscow) B.Vladimirsky (Crimea) A.Naumov (Pushchino) A.Kulikov (Pushchino) V.Ivkov (Pushchino) V.Kornilov (Pushchino) L.Agoulova (Pushchino) T.Breus (Pushchino) T.Peterson (Cleveland, USA) L.Engelgardt (Kaluga) Organising Committee Address: Dr. Natalia Udaltsova, ITEB RAS, Pushchino, Moscow Region, 142292, Russia FAX: ( 095 ) 924-04-93 for N.Udaltsova Phone (home) (0967) 73-31-20 E-mail: udaltzova@venus.iteb.serpukhov.su THE REGISTRATION FORM 1. Surname, name (full), year of birth 2. Scientist degree, rank 3. Location of job, post 4. Mail address for correspondence 5. Telephone, fax, e-mail 6. Title of proposed report From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:46:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA05360; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Earthtech volunteers to test Newman device X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 06:22:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Little Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Newman motor At 10:59 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Robin wrote: >I would like to propose to Mr. Newman, and all members of this list >that we as a group ask Scott Little to do an independent test of the >Newman motor. Such a test, preferably to be carried out under >conditions agreed upon by both parties. We (EarthTech) are willing to perform these tests according to concensus of the group and to publish a detailed report of our findings. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:49:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA05643; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: [Fwd: Newman's two coil test, and measurment methods.] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 21:40:33 -0700 From: Evan Soule To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Newman's two coil test, and measurment methods.] For some reason, some posts take 12 days to arrive yet later posts arrive earlier and are answered before the earlier post arrives later....this can create a bit of confusion. The post below was addressed in an earlier reply to a later post about the same subject. Oh well.... >>To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com >>From: bshannon@tiac.net (bshannon) >>Subject: Newman's two coil test, and measurment methods. >>Cc: >>Bcc: >>X-Attachments: >> >>Mr. Soule, >> >>Thank you for your time Tuesday evening. I found our conversation to >>be very productive. >> >>On the subject of the "two coil" videotaped demonstration: >> >>I claimed that this test does not support Mr. Newman's theory, and >>that nothing other than the conventional ampere turns law is shown. >> >>You responded with the observation that the time to reach maximum >>magnetic field strength was shorter for the larger coil than it was >>for the smaller one. >> >>Unfortunately this effect has nothing to do with the coils. ________________________________ REPLY: This has EVERYTHING to do with the two coils! As Joseph Newman has stated, conventional science would predict the opposite to occur. ________________________________ >>I was able to reproduce this effect using purely resistive loads. >>I conducted a few basic tests with the following results: >> >>The smaller coil draws a higher current than the batteries used can >>easily supply. In this case, the voltage delivered drops, and >>maximum current is not delivered until several seconds have passed. >> >>This is the normal performance of the batteries used. This effect can >>be observed with resistors alone, as it is greater than the effects of >>the higher inductance of the larger coil. If Mr.. Newman repeats this >>same test with several pairs of batteries in parallel, to supply a >>higher initial current to the larger coil, he will find that the time >>to maximum magnetic field levels is much shorter. ________________________________ REPLY: Apples and Oranges. One of the important factors is that the batteries are connected in series. ________________________________ >> >>With the larger coil, the maximum delivered power is reached sooner >>than it is in the case of the smaller coil. >> >>The differences in the magnitude of the magnetic fields at full >>strength is due only to the ampere turns law alone. >> >>If both current and voltage are measured while the fields reach their >>maximum values, it is clear that Mr. Newman's claimed effect does not >>exist. Nothing beyond the bounds of conventional theory are shown in >>this demonstration, and the support for Mr. Newman's theory is not >>present. ________________________________ REPLY: It most certainly does exist and is present. And if one understands Joseph Newman's technology then this becomes self-evident. ________________________________ >> >>The time to maximum delivered power from the batteries fully accounts >>for the difference in time to maximum magnetic field strength. The >>fact that two inductors of differing masses exhibit identical >>electrical performance also is at direct odds with Mr. Newman's >>theory. ________________________________ REPLY: If one includes the fact that the stronger magnetic field of the large coil is reached FASTER than that of the small coil then the "inductors of differing masses" DO NOT exhibit "identical electrical performance." ________________________________ Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 To reach Joseph Newman: (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:53:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA05935; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:47:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:47:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: [Fwd: Newman's two coil test, and measurment methods.] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 21:25:04 -0700 From: "Doyle P. Henderson" To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Newman's two coil test, and measurment methods.] Mark Mansfield wrote: > > Mr. Bob Shannon is having problems posting to the freenrg > listserver and asked me to forward these. > X-Sender: bshannon@tiac.net > Subject: Newman's two coil test, and measurment methods. > >To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com > > > >Mr. Soule, > > > >Thank you for your time Tuesday evening. I found our conversation to > >be very productive. > > > >On the subject of the "two coil" videotaped demonstration: > >I claimed that this test does not support Mr. Newman's theory, and > >that nothing other than the conventional ampere turns law is shown. > >You responded with the observation that the time to reach maximum > >magnetic field strength was shorter for the larger coil than it was > >for the smaller one. > > > >Unfortunately this effect has nothing to do with the coils. I was > >able to reproduce this effect using purely resistive loads. > >I conducted a few basic tests with the following results: > > > >The smaller coil draws a higher current than the batteries used can > >easily supply. In this case, the voltage delivered drops, and > >maximum current is not delivered until several seconds have passed. > > > >This is the normal performance of the batteries used. This effect can > >be observed with resistors alone, as it is greater than the effects of > >the higher inductance of the larger coil. If Mr.. Newman repeats this > >same test with several pairs of batteries in parallel, to supply a > >higher initial current to the larger coil, he will find that the time > >to maximum magnetic field levels is much shorter. > > > >With the larger coil, the maximum delivered power is reached sooner > >than it is in the case of the smaller coil. > > > >The differences in the magnitude of the magnetic fields at full > >strength is due only to the ampere turns law alone. > > > >If both current and voltage are measured while the fields reach their > >maximum values, it is clear that Mr. Newman's claimed effect does not > >exist. Nothing beyond the bounds of conventional theory are shown in > >this demonstration, and the support for Mr. Newman's theory is not > >present. > > Bob, this is Doyle Henderson responding briefly to your message to Evan Soule. In my opinion, your remarks above AND all those which followed [and which I snipped out] were presented in a highly professional, respectful manner. Like many other observer/readers, I would suspect, I read them entirely without offense--- and with heightened interest in their technical content. I would have preferred that you had inserted a few qualifying phrases here and there-- possibly including: "In my opinion," or "Isn't it possible that--" or "Conventional theory states that--" rather than making so many firm positive statements without allowing even a possibility that current beliefs MAY be flawed. It seems to me, it might be better to insert one of these phrases every so often. Or, maybe I'm wrong about that. But, I don't think it would have weakened or changed your technical arguments in any way. But, even without the use of those phrases, the way you presented your findings and discussed your arguments-- (in a most polite and civil manner [see below]) is, indeed, in my opinion, a solid credit to you. (I suspect your addressee will respond in similar fashion.) You made your case without being personal or insulting-- as some messages have become in recent days-- and I certainly want to thank you for continuing to share your logical, reasonable arguments with us all-- in this gentlemanly way. The manner in which they are presented-- and that alone, notwithstanding their content, deserves respectful attention-- and it sure gets mine. Note, Bob, it is not my intent here to appraise or judge your arguments... and I will make no statements about their correctness or technical validity at this time. But, I would like to say that the manner in which you presented them-- and your case was worthy of everyone's respect. It serves as a credit to yourself, personally. It certainly didn't miss my noticing it. Thank you. Doyle ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > >I hope this underlines the concerns many have with the testing methods > >used to support the claims of over 100% efficiency for the Newman > >invention. It should also serve to show why batteries can make > >accurate measurements much harder to make. > > > >In cases where AC power is used to drive the Newman motor, no > >measurements of AC power factors have been made. It is known from > >other University testing that the power factor, or phase angle between > >current and voltage is very high in the Newman device. > > > >AC power meters will not read the true wattage used under these > >conditions. With the power factor of the Newman motor, the watt meter > >will read artificially low. > > > >RF wattmeters also will give incorrect readings where high power > >factors are involved. Current transformers will incorrectly measure > >current if the waveform is not a sine wave, again as in the case of > >the Newman device. > > > >Tests such as those at the Lucedale park cannot be taken to show that > >the power delivered by the Newman device is larger than that consumed > >due to these factors. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 02:05:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA06331; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: What is objectivity? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:31:43 -0400 From: bshannon To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: What is objectivity? Doyle Henderson responded: >You just couldn't simply acknowledge I might be right >that people show a general closed-mindedness when a new >idea CONFLICTS with current beliefs... even though I had >admitted to you and all of the list subscribers that my >comments might not be right. Like most of us, you had >to defend your beliefs! That's precisely my point. >And, human nature being what it is, now I've got to do >the same thing or just say I was wrong and be done >with it. But, I think we both have something worth- >while to say. It might affect what happens to Newman's >motor or some other new incredulous idea yet to come. When I wrote "Very often it's all too true that new ideas are only received if they fall within specific, rarely written guidlines.", I was acknowledging that I beleive that you are correct in this. When I wrote "This is a clear scientific prejudice I do not agree with personally." I was trying to say that as I also beleive what you had written to be true, that I also tried to uphold a personal adherence to objectivity. I'm sorry this was not clear. >So, yes, by not remaining silent on those points you felt >you should respond to, I think you demonstrated some real >"closed-mindedness certainty." I found no qualification >of your beliefs... no statement of the possibility that >you might be wrong-- anywhere in your message. There was >some qualified agreement, some deferral, and rebuttals. When I wrote "On the other hand, I am equally willing to be wrong here, if Mr. Newman can clarify his interpretation of the two coil tests.", and "What I read, I might misread, and what I've written, I may have mistated. My grasp of conventional theory is limited at some level, so clearly I might be wrong, and have said so before.", just how did you take my meaning Mr. Henderson? >You stated that you may be willing to admit you're wrong >under certain (test) conditions; but, that's not the same >as admitting at this time the possibility you are wrong. >You require a test be performed and that the results show >you are wrong. You hope you are wrong, but you do not >admit that possibility exists. There is a big difference >and that's what prevents people from evaluating a new >idea without defending their current beliefs. First, let me ask, just what is the difference in this case? Secondly, I clearly did admit the possibility that I was wrong as shown in the quotes above. Did you read them in an objective manner? If so, why did you dismiss them? >Bob, aren't you using the same sort of response to my >message as you have used with Mssrs. Soule and Newman? >You seem to reject any idea or statement which conflicts >with your beliefs--- rather than admit it might be right. >If you won't admit the possibility of being wrong, you're >stuck with defending your position and shooting down >your opposition. There is no logical concilliation >possible without some admission of the possibility... >however remote it seem. >Now, let me clearly establish my own position again, I >don't want to fall into the same "trap" you did. And, >Bob, please note, all it takes is a little humility to >state that perhaps I am wrong about what I say here. Please Mr. Henderson, do re-read my quotes above, and tell me how you took my words. Some self reflection may be in order to evaluate who is fallen into a trap in this case, and who is being objective. >Please remember in all this, that all I have meant to >say is that people should realize how closed-minded we >all are most of the time... while we like to think we're >so open-minded. And, I'm saying that whenever we're >dealing with conflicting beliefs, we can't logically use >those same beliefs as valid arguments any longer. I >think we have to find some other means of validating or >rejecting ideas-- without invoking beliefs, laws, or >conventions which have been stated to be in contention. We are in complete agreement here. >Bob, there aren't any other choices. My whole point is that >when you evaluate it-- using the current beliefs held by >yourself and others, without admitting they may be flawed, >you maintain a "closed-minded certain" attitude and position. >You can't evaluate an idea by using the very same postulates >(beliefs) that are being questioned or repudiated by the idea-- >unless you find some other way to judge its validity. That's >the problem! We have to stop rejecting his ideas on those >grounds. Ah, but this is the point exactly! Please read this carefully: Conventional theory predicts one set of behaviors, while the theory of Mr. Newman's says something quite different. When I made my tests, I simply looked to see if the behaviors I observed were those described by conventional theory or by the theory of Mr. Newman. Then I reported the facts as I found them. At no time have I used conventional theory to argue against Mr. Newman's theory. I have used experimental facts alone. And experimental facts are the only way to judge validity. In fact, the very videotape Mr. Newman sells shows conventional theory alone under careful examination, when all factors are accounted for, and no support for his theory at all. >And that's why I said those of us who can-- should help >him, at least, not shoot him down by using arguments that >may, eventually, be proved wrong. Sure, he may have made >some errors, and he may not know what's really happening, >but, let's try to HELP him with kindly suggestions and >a lot more humility. That's where I come from. Arguments may be claimed wrong, but experiments show us the truth. Please do provide any experimental confirmation of Mr. Newman's theory, as a fellow engineer. >Has any of his detractors ever tried to argue the case >is his favor... to explain how it might be valid-- how >it might work over unity or whatever it supposedly does? >Is there anyone who is technically qualified out there >who is willing to try? Or, as I suspect, has almost >everyone-- right from the start-- quickly stated that >it couldn't be possible... and how it violated all >technical conventions! First, how can a detractor argue the case in favor while still being a detractor? Many technically qualified people have tested Mr. Newman's machine without first claiming it to be impossible. All who used the accepted methods have shown efficiences of less than 100%. I strongly suggest you look at the web site I referenced some short time ago for many personal accounts of the testing performed. You will also find that Mr. Newman has been made aware of these issues, and has not yet addressed them. >But, running the two-coil test, even if it got him to >admit he's wrong about that wouldn't necessarily end >it. It still wouldn't really be "case closed", and so >forth-- like what I've heard here on-line lately-- >unless, most regrettably, he gave up and quit! Having him "quit" is not the issue here. Establishing a degree of professionalisim and credibility for the field as a whole is more important to me than any given innovators "quitting". This does the larger good for innovators as a whole in my opinion. Is this not more important than any given innovator or device? >I'm no judge of your (or Mr. Newman's) behavior... just >a commenting observer, but, your requests seem reasonable >and, perhaps, they deserve a direct answer. But, Bob, >aren't you still trying to invalidate the WHOLE idea >by some test that doesn't involve the motor? His motor >still may do something very special even if the two-coil >test proves (?) that parts of his theory are wrong! If Mr. Newman based his theory on the effect he shows in the video tape, and if in fact grave errors were committed in that same test, is it then due to my intent that these errors now shed doubt on the whole resultant theory? You suggested starting with least principles, and I agree that this is an excellent idea. Lets set the motor aside while we take a closer look at the two coil test, and the resultant theory. >Something else may be happening in the motor. I'm not >questioning the test you suggest. It WOULD allow him to >demonstrate he's right-- or maybe get him to admit he >might be wrong about some aspects (some big ones) of his >understanding. It would be nice if everyone could admit >they might be wrong without being diminished for doing so. Two out of three is not bad. So far, You have admitted the possibility of being in error, as have I, or at least I claim to have done so. To date, Mr. Soule and Mr. Newman have not done this, and have not addressed the issues raised with the demonstration. Apparently, objectivity is a matter of degree as well. >OK, Bob. Again I want to make it clear that I'm not judging >your behavior towards Mr. Newman-- or your correctness. My >only criteria for alleging anyone's "closed-mindedness" is >my belief that to fail to acknowledge the possibility of >being wrong-- brings about that undesired label. >Worse, I think that the act itself makes it impossible >for the evaluator to do anything else except reject the >conflicting idea. That's what concerns me-- not the label. I find your inability to recognise my having admitted to the possibility of being wrong several times, where you apparently could find it not, clearly shows the level of your objectivity in this discussion. >I've tried to suggest alternatives. You (and other sub- >scribers) may have some better and/or different ideas >about how to evaluate something that CONFLICTS with the >very means you have to evaluate it. If you objectivly read this message, you will now see that I have not used a theory Mr. Newman claims is incorrect to show his theory to be incorrect at all Mr. Henderson. This simply is not the case at all. I used only the experimental results, which clearly show the conventional theory to be accurate over Mr. Newman's contrary theory. The evidence Mr. Henderson, not the arguments as you seem to beleive. There is an important difference here. >You have my deep respect for your obvious knowledge, >logical thinking, technical understanding, experience, >and ability to express yourself in these complex matters. >I'm glad to see you have such strong interests in them. >I appreciate the time you have taken to read my messages, >and prepare worthy responses. I only hope you will find >some of my ideas of meaningful value. Yours have in- >fluenced me. Thankyou, I have found this intellegent and reasoned discourse to be of great personal importance, and hope other readers will feel the same way. I think this exchange should serve to show just how fine a line objectivity draws in the sand. Until we confront our beliefs with experimental evidence, it is often hard to know on which side of that line we stand. Mr. Hendersons point of view is as completely valid as mine, yet these are still diameterically opposite in some respects. As Mr. Henderson correctly points out, it cannot be both ways. Is such situations, we have only one recourse to find truth, and that is through direct experimentation alone. Only this way will nature reveal truth, but we must maintain the objectivity to tell if the effects we observe confirm or deny what the conventional or alternitive theories each state. Occam's razor tells us we must eliminate all known processes before we envoke any unknown processes. When this is done in the case of the two coil experiment, we find only conventional processes to be at work. At no point in this process must we use a disputed point of conventional theory to disprove Mr. Newman's theory of this experiment as Mr. Henderson apparently beleives is the case. I hope Mr. Henderson will reply with how in his opinion, I used a disputed issue in conventional theory against the theory of Mr. Newman, rather than establishing the fact that the coils show only conventional phenomema alone. If this is the case, (yes, I do admit it is possible) I await Mr. Henderson's showing me my errors. If it is not the case, have I been less than objective here? From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 01:59:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA06685; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: The proof is in the pudding. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:32:05 -0400 From: bshannon To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The proof is in the pudding. Mr. Soule wrote: >I will say this (since it wasn't "demanded" of me): when one knows the >ENTIRE FACTS of the case surrounding Joseph Newman's ongoing battle with >the Patent Office, one is quite amazed by the MASSIVE INJUSTICE that has >been perpetrated against this innovator. >P.S. The Proof is STILL in the "pudding"! And this "pudding" has been >prepared in accordance with the "recipe" of Natural Laws. As an >astrophysicist once said, "The Scientific Method is the 'key' designed to >unlock the secrets of the Universe." Mr. Soule, Mr. Newman, Would not the proper application of the scientific method "demand" a review of the two coil experiment in light of the recently posted experimental evidence? You may claim "the problem in this instance appears to reside with your (my) understanding of the technology..." however you, Mr. Soule, pointed out that the magnetic field of the larger coil reaches full intensity in less apparent time than the field of the smaller coil. Clearly you may not fully understand the full implications of Mr. Newman's apparent errors in this demonstration. Only revisiting this experiment will replace opinions and interpretations with absolute truth. What have you to fear from this? Is it intellectually honest to not address the issues raised to date with this demonstration? What about any possible injustice currently being done to buyers of this video? You also wrote: >...Joseph Newman could relate to you the fact that many individuals --- who >have contacted him after seeing the VHS tape --- understand perfectly the >significance of the demonstration and that it DOES INDEED verify his >position with respect to the original Oersted demonstration of c. 1820. >Consequently, I would postulate that Joseph Newman would view the problem >that you have in understanding the demonstration to be based upon a >non-understanding of his general technology. Indeed many may see the demonstration, and accept what you have said about what it is thought to show. However, this does not in any way give evidence that this demonstration shows anything like what you and Mr. Newman claim it does. Your claim that this demonstration "DOES INDEED" verify Mr. Newman's position is only an opinion, not supported by facts in evidence. Is this intellectually honest on your part? Is it possible that I'm correct in finding error here? As all effects claimed as support for Mr. Newman's theory have experimentally been reporduced with resistive loads alone, I counter that you do not yet grasp the nature of the apparent errors on Mr. Newman's part, and are failing to show reasonable objectivity in this matter, Mr. Soule. >I would also postulate that he sees no necessity to contact you since (from >his perspective) the demonstration is quite clear and does indeed verify >his basic position.....a position further corroborated by operational >prototypes of the technical process. Then sir, in my opinion you sacrifice your claim to intellectual honesty, and that of Newman Energy Products. Failure to address the magnitude of the apparent experimental errors I have found in this demonstration under the veil of my "non-understanding" is a less than respectful tactic, and easily recognised by the majority here on freenrg-l as such. It is clearly less than intellectually honest, as you personally countered the issues of ampere turns causing the larger magnetic field by pointing out that the larger magnetic field reached full intensity in less time than the smaller, in direct conflict with conventional theory. I have proven that this effect is fully conventional, Mr. Soule, now just what is it I fail to understand? Mr. Newman's theory does not enter into this picture at all according to the experimental evidence. This is the issue, Mr. Soule. Will you and Mr. Newman face up to the direct challange to this test and defend your claim to intellectual honesty, or simply claim that I do not understand Mr. Newman's theory yet again, and fail to defend your product? Am I in some way more intimidating than the whole PTO and NBS that Mr. Newman will not stand his ground here and defend his theory and demonstration? >From your accolades, I rather expected that Mr. Newman would never back away from a fair fight. Maybe Mr. Newman would like to extend one of his $10,000 challanges on this matter? Would you prefer to resolve this publicly, in front of a live audience with media coverage? To simply claim I fail to understand Mr. Newman's theory, where I have experimentally shown it to be incorrect, and have given my testing methods used openly for review, does Mr. Newman a grave disservice in my opinion because of the general perception that this creates in other readers of this forum. I think at this time, it would be best for you to show Mr. Newman the full transcripts from this forum if he has not already read them. We have heard Mr. Newman's claims for many years now. You claim that you have proof in the form of working devices. Others claim that due to the simple fact that proper measurements (by conventional standards) have failed to show that more energy is delivered than used by Mr. Newman's machine, no such evidence exists. Whatever evidence does exist, clearly we must agree that it is in dispute. In keeping with Mr. Henderson's excellent suggestion that we start from common ground and then proceed, I maintain that the two coil demonstration, also in dispute, and a current product of Newman Energy Products is the best place to begin to resolve the dispute. Your words, Mr. Soule, and the experimental facts, have painted Mr. Newman into a corner on this issue. Just how Newman Energy Products addresses these issues will resolve the question of intellectual honesty for many here. As all messages on this forum are archived, and will likely be uploaded to the existing web site seeking additional submissions on the history of Mr. Newman's invention and legal battles, the effects of Newman Energy Products actions have implications that extend far beyond this forum's current readership. It was very easy for me to find evidence that Mr. Newman has personally been made aware of issues such as AC power factors many years ago with a simple web search. As Mr. Newman to date has not addressed this issue, and it has been raised again in response to the Hastings report (quoted here again as fully supporting Mr. Newman's claims). I feel it is quite reasonable to question the intellectual honesty being demonstrated in these matters. Mr. Newman's failure to address these issues to date is not suggestive of intellectual honesty. There is already a clear pattern here. The issues I have raised, and testing I have done, are entered into the public record of the history of Mr. Newman's invention, and are available to anyone in the future, just as the issues raised years ago, but never addressed, remain today as points against the case for Mr. Newman's invention. Must we wait for someone to buy that video demonstration in good faith, only to then discover my postings, and initiate a claim against Newman Energy Products before you will review this in an intellectually honest manner? Having never bought the product, and having spoken against it, and given you public notice, as a matter of public record, that it provides no support for Mr. Newman's theory, I clearly cannot buy it now in good faith and file such a claim. Wy words however, stand as evidence. Anyone is free to verify Mr. Newman's theory as shown by the two coil experiment on their own, and measure the current delivered as each coils field reaches full intensity, and know the truth for themselves. It's a very simple matter, needing no fancy equipment at all. The proof is indeed in the pudding Mr Soule. Who's willing to actually bother to look and see what that truth is? Are you? Is Mr. Newman? From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 02:02:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA06977; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:55:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:55:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: A $10,000 conversation with Joseph Newman? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:32:23 -0400 From: bshannon To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: A $10,000 conversation with Joseph Newman? After discussing some of the issues raised in this forum on the testing reports and two coil demonstration, Mr. Soule suggested that I discuss these matters with Mr. Newman directly. I phoned Mr. Newman and introduced myself. Mr. Newman claimed not to have read the recent exchanges here. I began to discuss the recent messages here on freenrg-l. I found Mr. Newman to be rather volitile, and he became quite agitated, and began calling me a "god damn liar", and far worse to the point of threatening to 'knock me on my ass' and such for my opinions! I explained that my issues were only with the documentation of the testing being used as evidence for the claims, and that as I have never tested his device, I cannot fairly state that is does or does not work. I asked that the conversation remain the more rational, and that we not to trade insult for insult. I did go on to state that I had tested his two coil experiment, and it appears to show conventional theory alone, rather than confirming his theory. Again I was a "god damn liar", etc. I objected strongly to this, and pointed out that I have as a matter of public record objected to the question of fraud being raised here. I related my respect for Mr. Newman's sticking to his guns in the battle with the PTO, etc, and that my issues were only with the testing documentation, and again, with the two coil demonstration as I have discussed here. I mentioned that I knew someone, who MAY wish to challange him to a $10,000 cash showdown on his two coil experiment IF we could agree on an impartial moderator to judge the results, in may favor if it performs as conventional theory predicts, and in Mr. Newman's favor if some effect other than that predicted by conventional theory. This captured Mr. Newman's attention. We bagan to discuss the technical matters as well as the appointment of a moderator. A short technical discussion then proceeded over a range of related issues. I explained that my isue was with the test documentations being given as evidence were inconclusive for or against the claims made, due to several specific points in the reports, and suggested that he review the archive of this forum. I took some time to explain why this was the case, which he did respect, and he did apologise for his initial reactions. I thanked him, and replied that I can easily see why he could have assumed that I was a simple skeptic, and could understand his reaction. We ended out conversation in a civil tone, agreeing to discuss these matters at another time, as the dinner hour had arrived. I then called Mr. Soule's office to request the data Mr. Newman had mentioned, and discussed our conversation. Some time afterwards, Mr. Soule called me back, and related a series of requests for information on a web site I refered to that discusses the AC power factors issue and other information. He also requested some basic personal information and information on my employer, oddly enough. Should it not be possible to agree on an impartial moderator, I will suggest an alternative method to resolve this question: It should be possible to specify a simple test that will either show an unconventional phenomema, where the current either does not follow the L/R time constant of the coil, and/or the magnetic field level, as measured by a hall effect sensor, departs form the behavior predicted by conventional theory. (magnetic field proportional to the current.) Hopefully we will reach a mutual agreement, and resolve any questions raised by my initial testing that appears to show conventional behaviors alone for all coils tested. If anyone else has the ability to verify if the current increases just as conventional theory predicts, and that the magnetic field is at all time directly proportional to the current, I would be interested to hear of your results. An independant engineer is also begining a series of tests to check if any departures from conventional theory and bevavior is shown. As this subject has captured a good deal of attention, I will keep you all abreast of any future developments. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 02:03:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA07268; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:58:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 01:58:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 07:33:01 -0700 From: Christian Korfmacher To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Newman Motor/Generator Hi I've been lurking for quite a long time now and I watched and read the Newman motor thread with much interest. I'm impressed by the work of many people in the free-energy field. But this article ctached my attention especially. It describes the central elements of Mr. Newman's theory as far as I understand it to this point. But there was one point I could not let stand unchanged. There is always a difference between steady state and transient behaviour in a dynamic system. Evan Soule wrote: > > from rshannon: > > Fine, a compelling theory. It's the evidence for this production > > efficiency, and the evidence being sold used to support Mr. Newman's > > theory that is in question. > > > > Clearly, I do not stand alone in pointing out problems with the > > testing so far. Convince me that the two coil video demonstration > > is proper, and I'll stand by it 'till doomsday, and this goes for the > > rest of the claims and theories. > ____________________________________________ > > As Joseph Newman states: > Snipped a lot > > Physically speaking, this simply means that the energy contained within the > magnetic field --- when generated by positive ( + ) current flow in one > direction --- is returned by the collapsing magnetic field as negative ( - > ) current flow when the current reverses direction. > > The Prior Art also teaches Kirchhoff's Law which states: the same amount > of current placed into a system (as a copper conductor) for a given instant > of time has the same amount of current flowing from that system (copper > conductor) for the same given-instant of time. (See Figure 14-D.) > > The above facts of 14C and 14D totally contradict the prior teaching that > the magnetic field generated by the current flowing in a (copper) conductor > is solely a result of the current itself and that copper is non-magnetic. > > The facts demonstrate the following: 14C above shows that if one inputs a > given amount of current (X) into a copper coil during a given-instant of > time then, as described in 14D above, the same amount of current (X) > outputs from the copper coil during the same instant of time. In addition > 14C above also shows that if the current is then cut off and the coil > shorted with meters in the line, then the same amount of current (X) will > now come from the copper coil. > Now, how comes that you mix up steady state and dynamic behaviour of an inductor? At a given-instant of time you only get the same current out of an inductor as you put into it when you are in steady state, i.e. the current does no more change its strength during time! This current is only determined by the wire resistance. The fact of turning off the input current is per se a dynamic action and therefore the inductor stops behaving as a resistor but instead shows the behaviour you described. The current starts to settle down slowly according to an exponential function R U - --- * t i= --- * e L R Where i is the current, U the voltage at turn-off time, R the resistance of the copper wire, L the inductance and t the time we want to know the current for. L divided by R is also known as Tau, the time-constant of an inductor. After a time equal to Tau the current has decayed to 36.7% of its original level. (e to the power of -1) The same thing happens at turn-on time of the current but with inverted direction, the cuurent rises exponentially until it reaches steady state conditions, this will be after some 5*Tau (99.3% of current reached). > The facts therefore demonstrate: (X) current in and (X) current out PLUS > (X) current out again when the (X) current input is stopped. These facts > are therefore equivalent to 1 (X) amount of current into the coil (copper) > and 2 (X) amount of current out of the (copper) coil. > > Question: From where did the extra (X) amount of current coming from the > copper coil emanate? > > Answer: By analogy, the Prior Teachings indicate that current is equivalent > to the volume of water and that voltage is equivalent to the pressure of > water. Therefore, one should understand the essence of this analogy > relative to the facts discussed above (See Figures 14-E1 and 14-E2.) > Wrong answer. You simply did not mention the beginning of the current flowing through the coil. But on the other hand you take the end of current flow into account! There is no excess current if you set your time frame correctly, i.e. start at the beginning of any current flow and stop at the end of any current flow. Otherwise there seems to be some excess energy coming out of the coil. But this energy was put into the coil in the beginning you omitted from your explanation. Snipped even more > > Joseph Newman, > copyright 1984-1996 > ____________________________________ > > josephnewman@earthlink.net Start at the beginning, the king said gravely. Then continue until the end. Then stop. Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carrol -- Christian Korfmacher Ascom Business Systems Voice:+41 (0)65 24 27 16 Fax: +41 (9)65 24 31 56 You know, we learn by making mistakes. You'll learn a lot today! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 02:11:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA08235; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: Errors in Newman's theroy. (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Hello I posted this morning April 24. a reply to an explanation of Mr. Newman's theory by Mr. Soule. It stated exactly the same as the replys by Bob Shannon I received from the freenrg-list a lillte later this morning. Current in an inductor is exponentially at the beginning and at the end. But Mr. Newman doesn't seem to care about initial conditions in a system! Unfortunately I did not see that the mails I receive are a bit old i.e. they arive up to 12 days later than the sender sent them! My provider seems to have severe problems with newsgroups and mail delivery! Therefor my statement seems to be a mere copy of Bob Shannons work, this was not intended. Please acccept my apologies for the out of time posting of my article. -- Christian Korfmacher Ascom Business Systems Voice:+41 (0)65 24 27 16 Fax: +41 (9)65 24 31 56 You know, we learn by making mistakes. You'll learn a lot today! From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 02:14:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA08467; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Detector core materials available! (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- At long last, I am offering samples of pre-tested detector core material for builders interested in the Barkhausen effect detector design on Bill's web site! Laser printed hardcopies of all mechanical and schematic diagrams can be also be included if you wish, just say so in your request, and I'll run them off and include them. I currently have 20 sets of detector core strips and "E" core segments on hand for immediate shipment to interested builders and experimenters. What do I get? Act now, and you'll receive not one, but two different pieces of the "right stuff" for your very own weird science! You will receive both the single strip needed to biuld a Bearkhausen Effect Scalar Detector, AND a bonus, a "E" core segment removed from the very same transformer. The single strips each measure 3 3/4 inch by 5/8 inch, and an "E" core sections are 2 1/2 inch by 3 3/4 inch. (Sorry metric system fans, this is surplus weird science, and it's good old American surplus, in inches.) This material is quite thin, and not having a tight crystal grain structure, it's not quite so heavy as some pole pig iron out there. I'm not sure of the exact weight of both pieces, and the hardcopies if requested, but a simple check shows the two bits of core material weigh less than 230 grains. (as if that helps, what's a grain anyway?) How do I get it? To receive this material, you must do several things, first, please do not ask for it over freenrg-l, as we have enough bandwidth issues now. Next, do post an email message stateing your heartfelt desire for this old rusty transformer core material to: bshannon@tiac.net Please do not reply to any other internet addresses I may have used in the past. I will not acknowlage any requests arriving at any employers account. As I respond to each request, I will provide you with a US postal address to send a SASE with the proper postage to. I'll tape the core material to a sheet of recycled paper, and send it on it's merry way back to you, so that you too may have your very own weird science at your home or office. An ordinary, sturdy envelope should do the trick. How much does it cost? (so this bit comes last?) Please , with your SASE include a check or money order for only $10.00(US). If your ordering from overseas (or north of Vermont?) and international transactions will end up costing you this much alone, please tell me a (short) story all about it, and I'll give it to you in exchange for a postcard, ok? Now then, tax code, chapter so and so, subsection whatever, oh yes, if your ordering from within Massachusettes, your paying too much in taxes now! so we'll meet in some dark alley, and we'll work something out. Some nerve asking everybody else for ten bucks then? This way, I can pay my dear wife to do the taxes and keep this legal, and also to keep my "varied neferaious cohorts" snooping through more surplus looking for "the right stuff" and keep the supply available. Who knows what other strange crud we might bring your way? I garuntee nobody is making big bucks on this, and I don't expect a huge number of responses here. I'm sure once a few people get this in their hands, they can confirm if local materials work as well or not, and make these available to others. You can rate your local material in relation (transitons per second) to the material provided here, and post ad's on the proper section of Bill's web page. Please do not send samples of your local material to me for evaluation. I desperatley hate winding coils, and if I had been able to use some kind of hall effect gizmo instead, I would have just to advoid winding the coil by hand. Everything you need to know about testing local materials is included in the papers on Bills' site, but experiment with it. (Oh, yes, I used the clear five minute epoxy in a 50 - 50 ratio, mixed in small ammounts and spread on thin for my coils. They are not at all microphonic as a result. Someone asked, (Zack?) and my response to this question bounced, and I've now lost the orignal question.) (I have already personally promised several people free samples, which I will be shipping out seperately, you are not forgotten just yet, as I still have a chance to remember.) From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 02:15:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA08823; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: Error's in Newman's theory. (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- < missing header. From Bob Shannon? No? > Stefan Heartmann wrote: >A quick hint: >The above formular is only true, if you use a static coil ! >In the Newman case, ehere a permanent magnet rotates inside the coil, >this formula is not true and had to be enhanced. The formula I(t) = E/R (1 - e^(-t R/L)) describes the two coil demonstration of Mr. Newman, and was not intended to address Mr. Newman's motor. Stefan also wrote: >There you can see, that indeed, when the communitator switched, >there flows indeed a big back current pulse to the battery, which also >lights a few indescandent bulbs connected in series with the batteries >and and the coils. >So when the magnet rotates inside the coil, there is indeed coming >more energy out, when the field collapses, than is put in, when the >field builds up. I see. But Mr. Heartmann, to accurately say if more power is leaving the coil than entering, we must make very specific measurments. >I quote Dr. Hastings findings over here, which you did not seem >to have read carefully: Actually, I read the quoted section of Dr. Hastings report with great interest. (omitted here for length.) Dr. Hastings is claiming to measure the average wattage, with no evidence that he calculated the power factors first, and then comparing the claimed average wattages in and out. Under conventional theory, this is an incorrect method to use. Wattage over time must be accounted for, and a smaller current flows into the coil for a longer time, so the average wattage may be quite low, while the total power is actually higher entering than leaving the coil, in perfect accord with conventional theory alone. To date, no evidence that this is not the case has been offered. Also, if Dr. Hastings used current transformers to measure the input and output currents, these will not produce accurate measurments as they measure the first derivative of the current, and so will not be accurate measuring a fast discharge of current by producing a higher than actual signal, as a function of the rise time of the pulse. Dr. Hastings observations of an oscilloscope alone do not compute the total energy in the charge and discharge currents, and account for the AC power factors known to be present. >He ment the indescant bulbs connected in series with the battery, >so they blinked, when the back current pulse appeared! >They did not blink during the input current of 2 ma ! This is no indication that the back current pulse had greater total power than the input current by any means, strange as it may sound. As the filaments of the incandescent are highly inducive, the fast current pulse will dissapate more energy in these filiaments than the potentially higher total power, but lower average power input current in perfect accord with conventional theory alone yet again. This effect is quite common in incandescent light bulbs, which are often used as test loads for RF transmitters for exactly this reason. How do we know if this is or is not the case here? We cannot tell, so we cannot claim this video tape to prove or disprove Mr. Newman's claim. From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 02:19:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA09094; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:02:20 -0700 From: Evan Soule To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: STATEMENT AND CHALLENGE April 24, 1996 To All People: Since 1965 I have received cowardly and deliberately wrong statements (about my Technology) from so-called learned members of the scientific community concerning magnetic/electrical known and not known FACTS. My earnest and extremely sincere effort to achieve Scientific Debate is clearly documented in my book --- The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman --- now 470 pages (7th Edition). Because of all the lies, deceit and cowardliness I have received from the above individuals from 1965 through 1984, I published my Life's Work in book form so the total and direct TRUTH of my life's work would be known by the Reader. Thousands of people have bought said Book by word of mouth from one to another --- from members of the military to numerous, large corporations. In addition, numerous credible individuals have written me letters and telephoned me, praising my Life's Work as disclosed in my Book. In recent months, Evan Soule has made an honest effort to inform individuals on the internet of the correctness of my Life's Work. He informed me last night that a number of individuals --- who had never taken the time or honesty to read my Life's Work --- were taking "pot-shots" at what he had posted on the internet. Evan sent me copies of some of the "pot-shots" and these individuals were consistently stating FALSE information --- exactly as I had found years earlier before I originally published my energy machine Book in 1984. If you are honest, then read my Entire Book --- MY WORDS --- BEFORE you take cowardly and lying "pot-shots" at my Life's Work. Thousands of credible individuals have done just that. And though many disbelieved beforehand, they believed after reading my Book. Numerous engineers have called me personally and stated: at first they were offended by what they read the first time in my Book. And then, a week or so later they read the Book a second time and they felt more comfortable with what I said. And then, a week or so later they read it the THIRD TIME and then it all "clicked together" for them, they understood the TRUTH I taught, and they thanked me very sincerely for my Life's Work. Evan Soule has made an honest effort to advise you of this same TRUTH. He is only the messenger of my Life's Work --- don't attack him. I am the SOURCE of the TRUTH I teach in my Book. Read and Master ALL of it BEFORE taking "pot- shots" at only a mere microscopic part of it. It requires NO HONESTY OR CREDIBILITY TO TAKE INFORMATION OUT OF CONTEXT. Many of you have already done so relative to Evan Soule's efforts. Many have stated deliberate misinformation concerning known scientific facts to justify your condemnation of my Life's Work .... without ever reading --- much less MASTERING --- my Book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. Therefore, I make again a challenge, just as I did in 1986 (across the country on National News) for any competent engineer to meet me in the Superdome in New Orleans and debate the basics of electromagnetic engineering. This was an offer that was publicized throughout the national news media. NO ONE had the GUTS OR HONESTY TO DO SO! There is a VHS tape of this Historic Event. The public came by the thousands and The Times-Picayune newspaper of New Orleans carried article headlines which read: "Newman Energy Demonstration Wows Crowd at Superdome." If you think you can prove me wrong --- then meet me in New Orleans. I will put up $10,000.00 and you will put up $10,000.00 and we will discuss and explain the Basics of Electromagnetic Engineering and my Energy Invention to the PUBLIC. And whoever the majority of the Public says is correct: WALKS AWAY WITH $20,000.00! Don't cowardly judge my Life's Work without walking in my shoes. I don't waste my time responding to the cowardly pot-shots you have taken at Evan Soule's honest effort to inform you of my Life's Work. Again, Evan is only an honest messenger. I am the TIGER of the TRUTH I Teach of my Life's Work. Don't BLOW SMOKE with distortions of known scientific facts. I say again: I am the TIGER. Either meet me as stated above --- or SHUT UP! All people out there who's heart is of TRUTH will know that I speak TRUTH. This is the only reason I have responded. This Challenge is my response to any Future Cowardly Act out there yet to come! JOSEPH WESTLEY NEWMAN Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 (601) 947-7147 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 02:23:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA09342; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: Clarification of battery results. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:03:13 -0700 From: Evan Soule To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Clarification of battery results. >>After reading and watching the debate on Mr. Newman's motor here is >>my input and feelings. > >>I am a electronics design engineer with 25 years of practical >>experience. > >>The Hasting's report doesn't stand on its own! __________________________ Reply: The Hasting's Report should be understood in the context of the complete Theory and Technical Process as presented in Joseph Newman's Book. __________________________ > >>NO physicist would ever measure the work done by the oil pump this >>way! __________________________ Reply: This is your opinion. And you entitled to it. Joseph Newman would disagree with you. __________________________ >>3) Mr. Newman I believe has stated that his motor can't turn a >>generator and feed the electricity back to drive the motor because of >>some effect. Convenient, but to be more exact, if this is true >>Mr. Newman you have discovered a new form of electricity. If I were >>you, I would chuck the motor in the nearest dump and work on the patent >>on this new form of electricity. __________________________ Reply: I would be more than pleased to present on this Forum my opinion of your insulting comment "chuck the motor in the nearest dump." However, I don't think the Host of this Forum would appreciate the rather direct comments which I would make about your insulting comment (which I believe is in violation of Rule 1 of this Forum). Privately, I would have NO hesitation to telling you precisely what I think of your insulting statement. But, out of respect for our Host, I will leave this to your imagination. Since I don't wish to be accused of engaging in a Flamewar in violation of Rule 3 of this Forum, I will not respond in the way in which I would like to respond to your insulting statement. __________________________ > >>4) It is my belief that the first part of the Hasting's report is at >>the very least bad science and at the worst has been designed to >>misled. __________________________ Reply: You are certainly entitled to your belief. Joseph Newman would disagree with it. __________________________ > >The claim that the "dead" batteries are in fact overcharged has the >same effect. If it's a matter of overcharge, then use capacitors >rather than batteries! __________________________ Reply: This statement proves that you do not understand the technology of Joseph Newman. I suggest you read his book. __________________________ For this reason, Mr. Soule's rebuttal based on the overcharge >condition described by Ray-O-Vac also does not prove the claims made to date. __________________________ Reply: On the contrary. It represents additional verification. __________________________ > >Mr. Newman's vision of our energy future may be free of telephone poles, >but the battery electrolyte delivery truck makes regular stops. The >production of batteries is environmentally harmful, and uses more energy >than is delivered by the batteries. Why start off whith this inefficiencies >by producing batteries to run Newman motors? Surely we cannot be expected to >replace the current grid system with a battery based distribution system on a >large scale. __________________________ Reply: It is obvious that you do not understand his vision. __________________________ > >Use a Newman motor driver from the AC line to drive a generator that runs your >house, and then let the power company come in to see why your bill is low. Let >them measure the AC power factor and hand you a far larger bill than you would >have had before you started out. Think this is just my opinion? ask the power >company, or try it and see. __________________________ Reply: This is just your opinion. __________________________ > >Mr. Soule has stated that Mr. Newman is still using huge batteries that are >years old. I'm sure this is true, but do these batteries allow for the >electrolyte to be replaced, and if so, now many times has he actually >changed batteries by adding or replacing electrolyte? And how long should >these >industrial batteries be expected to last? __________________________ Reply: Your comment is further evidence that you do not understand the technology of Joseph Newman. __________________________ > >Sadly, I have shown that this effect has nothing to do with the coils >at all, but is due to the current demand placed on the battery by the >smaller coil. Mr. Newman failed to measure the simple fact that the >magnetic field level is at all times directly related to the current >delivered by the battery. Mr. Newman's theory is blown clear out of >the water by this one simple measurement. __________________________ Reply: Wrong again. Ditto the above reply. __________________________ > >Mr. Newman has been quoted as stating words to the effect that "this >is 10,000 times more important than the motor itself". This observation >is at the very heart of Mr. Newman's theory. As this demonstration in >reality proves that nothing other than conventional effects are present, >where is the evidence for Mr. Newman's theory now? Simple, in the Hastings >report, which leave Newman Energy Products apparently empty handed. __________________________ Reply: You're welcome to your opinion. Joseph Newman challenges it. __________________________ > >>7)Cut the crap, feed the output back to the input. The world's >>waiting for the result with open check books for over unity that >>works. Stop selling expensive books to people who want to believe in >>your motor. > >Remember that quite a few checkbooks have already been opened to get >Newman Energy Products where it is today. What do the investors have >to show for their investments? If the theory is proven wrong by the very >experiment used to support it, what have the customers who bought the >book gotten for their money? A valuable lesson in objectivity and scientific >method? > >Now place yourself in Mr. Newman's shoes. How easily could you or I >accept that all these years of effort were based on misinterpretations and >experimental error alone? Would each of us be willing to come to this >conclusion and face the investors? Remember, Mr. Newman is self educated >in these matters, and should take great pride in this. > >It will be a real test of intellectual honesty to see if Mr. Newman >will stand behind his products and address the problems pointed out >in this forum. Mr. Soule drew a line in the sand by bringing up the >subject of intellectual honesty. I have "called Mr. Newman out" by pointing >out that his theory is disproved by his very own experiments. All my cards >are on the table, face up. We will see who is on which side of Mr. Soule's >line in the sand. __________________________ Reply: The failure of the individual (who makes the above comments) to understand Joseph Newman's technology is indeed a valuable lesson in objectivity and scientific method. Joseph Newman has issued a Challenge on April 24, 1996. __________________________ >We can in fact disprove Mr. Newman's basic theory with his very own >video taped two coil demonstration. We need not even see his motor to >do this. __________________________ Reply: See Joseph Newman's Challenge of April 24, 1996. __________________________ >I suggest anyone who bought that video tape to conduct the experiment >themselves, and watch the current and voltage delivered to each coil >as the magnetic fields reach full strength. Now tell me if you still accept >Mr. Newman's word and theory? The believers have grown silent lately. __________________________ Reply: "The believers have grown silent lately." You must frequent different circles of individuals. Also: you left out the question of "time" in your statement "watch the current and voltage delivered to the coil...." __________________________ > >Mr. Newman has apparently not done this, and based his theory on an >incorrect assumption of what he thought he saw. __________________________ Reply: Again, your opinion. Joseph Newman would disagree. __________________________ >It's got nothing to do with right or wrong, but everything to do with >looking for what is true. So far, only two sets of conventional phenomena >have fully described all of Mr. Newman's results. Battery electrodynamics >explains the "overcharge depletion" and two coil video tape, while phase >angles between current and voltage (AC power factors)can explain all the >electrical measurments and demonstrations. As far as we can tell, neither >of these have been eliminated by Mr. Newman's testing. __________________________ Reply: The current and voltage were in exact phase. Your statement is meaningless. If you wish to understand the relationship of battery electrodynamics to the Technology, read Joseph Newman's book. __________________________ > >Occam's razor states we must eliminate any possible known cause before we >accept an unknown cause. Has this been done? Not that we can see. __________________________ Reply: Once again, thanks for your opionion. Joseph Newman would disagree with it. __________________________ > >Objectivity is not skepticism. Refusal to consider the very real possibility >that grave experimental errors and misconceptions have been made is less >than intellectually honest, and totally unobjective. If I am in error here, >I stand ready to be shown where. Is Mr. Newman so willing? Bob Shannon. __________________________ Reply: See Joseph Newman's Challenge of April 24, 1996. __________________________ Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 To reach Joseph Newman: (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452 From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 02:22:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA09607; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: brain wave stimulenter X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 17:42:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "Science wig. sig." To: freng Subject: brain wave stimulenter Hi, I'm working on a project and wondered if anyone one this list can help me. I need to find info on brain and mind control, in a way. To be right, I need info on ways to make a person fall asleep (unconscious) by radio or other long range systems. I do not want anything where the subject is hurt, just put to sleep. Something where the waves force the brain to let out a chemical that causes sleep. Please let me know right away if you know of anything like this. A book reference is fine. Thanks a lot for your time, Andrew Cantino -- Andrew Cantino--Sig Master for The Great World of Science sig. >>gopher://seorf.ohiou.edu:2001/hGET/seorf.stuff/Sci/xx053/Homepage.html My Free Stuff page: >>http://members.tripod.com/~cantino/magic.html From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 02:26:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA09901; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Closing the loop of the Newman device. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 23:19:19 -0400 From: bshannon To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Closing the loop of the Newman device. >Rectifying, the output into DC, and smoothing, before feeding back to >the input, should eliminate this problem. Or to completely satisfy Mr. >Newman, use the output to recharge one battery, while running from >another, and doing extra work as well. By regularly exchanging >batteries, it should be possible to run the motor indefinitely, and >the skeptics would be satisfied, when the extra work done, exceeded >the initial content of the two batteries, when new, by a large margin. Again, assuming that excess energy is being produced by the Newman invention, if we then use some of thsi excess power to close the loop and run the device, we may be altering some quantum vacuum topology currently unknown, and this may quench the flow of any excess energy. As current conventional theory does not describe such processes, we cannot say that this is, or is not a reasonable theroy. As Mr. Newman has stated this cannot be done, it's unfair to ask him again and again to do what he has said he cannot do. The energy that "recharges" the batteries is in the same circuit as the energy input, so seperating this would produce a quite different device. On the subject of recharging batteries, lets assume we puch ten watts into a lead acid battery during the charge cycle. How much of these ten watts can we expect to extract after the losses due to the heating of the electrolyte and chemical actions? If you guess ten watts, your in for a disappointment. The energy input while charging vs. energy stored is not even close to being equal, so if 100% of the energy input to a Newman motor was returned in the back current pulse, the device wil still grind to a halt due to the inefficiencies in charging the batteries. Now, would you giess that a rechargable lead acid battery would return 50% of the energy used to charge it? Much closer. A common rechargable NiCad cell is rated at a charge current of 35 ma at 1.25 volts, and charges for 10 hours to reach full capacity. We have 1.25 x .035 x 10 = 0.4375 amper hours of total energy input. Sadly, this same cell is only rated at a maximum capacity of 280 maH. So .28 / .4375 = .64 So this particular cell is only 64% efficient as a energy storage device. Now we must account for the energy used to produce this cell, and to dispose of it once it's no longer functional. How many more times the input power would have to be returned to this cell in order to overcome the recharge inefficiency, energy cost of production and reclaimation of this cell in order for it to compete with any other energy source? From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 02:28:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA10174; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: faster than light light X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 10:46:56 CDT From: meyersr@norand.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: faster than light light first of all, many thanks bill for this service. it is interesting and often mind opening, to say the least. now for my first listing. not a "contribution", but rather a question. last night's contemplation following meditation brought about the following "what would be observed": construct a "machine", such that at its center there is a rotating shaft off of which we reflect a light beam 90 degrees so that the beam will "scribe" a line of light around a inner circumference of a circle of some (large) diameter. now increase the speed of the shaft so that the angular velocity of the light beam is > c at the interface "point" with the circle. question: what is observed (or happens) as that reflected light "vector" approaches, and then exceeds the speed of light? simple frequency shift? something more complex? nothing at all? any difference between coherent and incoherent light? ... many thanks for any considerations, steve meyersr@norand.com From freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 02:34:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA10434; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Originator: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Sender: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: fnrg: Re: Newman Motor / Generator (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: --- FORWARDED --- from: Evan Soule >In response to several critical flaws I have pointed out, we receive >more of Mr. Newman's theory. Sadly, this is where it all falls down: __________________________ Reply: Hardly. __________________________ > >>As Joseph Newman states: > >>The prior teachings indicate that copper is non-magnetic and that the >>resulting magnetic field associated with current flow in copper is the >>result of the current. > >>Those teachings are totally wrong. Copper is extremely magnetic! It is so >>magnetic that it deceives the observer. See Figures 14-B1/14-B2. > >For a given coil, the magnetic field is due to the current alone, as is >shown by a revisiting of your two coil test. Copper is magnetic? Lets look >into this and see what we find... > >>Turn the current on as in Figure 14-B1 and a magnetic field will occur very >>quickly. Then turn the current off as in Figure 14-B2 and the magnetic >>field very quickly disappears with no remnant of the magnetic field >>observed in the copper material. If one then places a magnet close to the >>copper, it is not observed to be noticeably magnetic. Therefore, one is >>easily deceived since conventional, so-called magnetic materials generate a >>different result. See Figures 14-B3/14-B4. > >As Mr. Newman is using a small permanent magnet to test the coil, we must >assume >that Mr. Newman is refering to ferromagntisim being absent. Is is important to >remenber that ferromagnetisim only applies to three elements, iron, nicklel, >and cobalt. There are however two other, more common forms of magnetisim, >diamagnetisim >and paramagnetisim that Mr. Newman appears to be unaware of. ________________________________ Reply: He is quite aware of both. I suggest you read his book. ________________________________ > >>By placing an iron core within a copper coil (as in Figure 14-B3) and >>turning the current on, a significantly stronger magnetic field will be >>generated than in Figure 14-B1 [for the same energy input]. Now, turn off >>the current as in Figure 14-B4 and there will be a small, remnant magnetic >>field surrounding the iron core. If a magnet is palced near the iron core, >>the magnet will be visibly affected. However, one is easily deceived by >>these tests and can be mislead into believeing that copper is non-magnetic. >>This is exactly what happened to Hans Christian Oersted in 1820 when he >>first discovered than an electric current produced a magnetic field which >>would cause a magnet to align at right angles to the conducting wire. >>Oersted noted that the deflection of the magnet lasted only as long as the >>current was flowing through the conducting wire and hence, such magnetic >>action could not be caused by the (copper) wire, but must be a result of >>the current itself. This same incorrect conclusion is still rigidly taught >>to this day. > >Copper is known to be weakly diamagnetic. A fact that can be found in >many good >text books. Diamagnetisim is an interesting phenomema, as the repulsion of >a bit >of diamagnetic material from a region of higher magnetic intensity, reguardless >of the magnetic polarity of the more intense field appears to indicate that >the magnetic poles are notdifferent by handedness as a mechanical theory >would suggest. > >Paramagnetisim and Diamagnetisim seem to suggest the gyroscopic theory is >inaccurate at describing known magnetic interactions. ________________________________ Reply: Not at all. I suggest you read his book if you wish to understand his Theory. ________________________________ > >>The following facts will clearly prove that copper is highly magnetic >>relative to the speed of atom alignment/unalignment as well as the >>action/reaction effect of the energy release (in the form of gyroscopic >>particles previously discussed) fromt he atoms comprising the copper wire! > >(material deleted for lengh.) > >>Physically speaking, this simply means that the energy contained within the >>magnetic field --- when generated by positive ( + ) current flow in one >>direction --- is returned by the collapsing magnetic field as negative ( - >>) current flow when the current reverses direction. > >>The Prior Art also teaches Kirchhoff's Law which states: the same amount >>of current placed into a system (as a copper conductor) for a given instant >>of time has the same amount of current flowing from that system (copper >>conductor) for the same given-instant of time. (See Figure 14-D.) > >>The above facts of 14C and 14D totally contradict the prior teaching that >>the magnetic field generated by the current flowing in a (copper) conductor >>is solely a result of the current itself and that copper is non-magnetic. > >There is no contradiction here, even your two coil experiment proves that >the magnetic field is proportional to the current. You appear to be operating >under a sever misunderstanding of what conventional theory actualy states. ________________________________ Reply: Not at all. It is obvious that you do not understand Joseph Newman's Theory or you not have made these comments....especially the time factor in the larger coil's assumption of full magnetic strength. ________________________________ > >>The facts demonstrate the following: 14C above shows that if one inputs a >>given amount of current (X) into a copper coil during a given-instant of >>time then, as described in 14D above, the same amount of current (X) >>outputs from the copper coil during the same instant of time. In addition >>14C above also shows that if the current is then cut off and the coil >>shorted with meters in the line, then the same amount of current (X) will >>now come from the copper coil. > >>The facts therefore demonstrate: (X) current in and (X) current out PLUS >>(X) current out again when the (X) current input is stopped. These facts >>are therefore equivalent to 1 (X) amount of current into the coil (copper) >>and 2 (X) amount of current out of the (copper) coil. > >>Question: From where did the extra (X) amount of current coming from the >>copper coil emanate? > >>From a total misunderstanding alone. The current drawn while building the >magnetic field is not constant, but is proportional to the magnetic field >itself. The current flowing out of the coil is the same current in, and >cannot be counted twice, it's the same applied current while the field is >static. > >When the magnetic field collapses, the energy returned is always less than the >energy over time during the production of the magnetic field, due to the >fact that >the inductor is imperfect, having resistance as well as inductance. > >This is where Mr. Newman's theory is disproven by the actual facts! ________________________________ Reply: Once again, you have shown that you do not understand Joseph Newman's Theory. I would suggest that you read his book. ________________________________ > >>The facts clearly demonstrate that in Figure 14-E1, one "gallon" of current >>came from the copper coil itself and most definitely NOT from the initial >>one "gallon" of current put into the copper coil. > >Incorrect. Again, your two coil test disproves this if you make proper >measurments. ________________________________ Reply: Not at all....if you understand the significance of the two coil test vis-a-vis his Theory. ________________________________ > >>The Prior Teachings distort the above facts and would indicate that the >>analogy of one "gallon" of current has no pressure when coming from the >>coil in Figure 14-E1, and that one "gallon" of current has a pressure which >>is thereby equivalent to one "gallon" of current with the input pressure. >>Furthermore, such teachings would indicate that because of the resistance >>within the coil and other losses, not even the latter pressure will occur >>in reality. > >If pressure is equated to voltage, this shows the degree of Mr. Newman's >confusion. >If we open the circuit of an inductor with a large magnetic field, we get >a high >voltage (pressure) arc as we open the circuit. What Mr. Newman is >describing is not >conventional theory, but his mistaken interpretations of it. Check a good >text book first, then re-read MR. Newman's words here. _________________________________ Reply: Once again....you demonstrate that you do not understand his Theory. I suggest you read his book. _________________________________ > >>Even I was mislead by these teachings for many years, and I finally came to >>the realizatin that copper was highly magnetic by a completely different >>means than outlined above. These means included: (1) my general >>comprehension which originated with my recognition that the basic building >>block of ALL matter was the GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE, and (2) a test I conducted >>using a single piece of copper wire 800 feet long, which was doubled-back >>400 feet to the starting point and hooked to a meter and dry cell battery >>(See Figures 14-F1 and 14-F2.) > >>The test shown in Figure 14-F1 has the parallel positions of the wire 10 >>feet apart, with no "Unobvious Force" between the parallel portions of the >>wire. The test shown in Figure 14-F2 has the parallel portions of the wire >>extremely close, with an "Unobvious Force" between the parallel part of the >>single wire. > >>The results of these two tests demonstrated the SAME current input for both >>tests. > >What from conventional theory lead you to think this would not be the case? __________________________________ Reply: Same as above. __________________________________ > >>Returning to the above test of Figure 14-E1 and 14-E2: by my teaching, the >>facts clearly show that in the above analogy, one gallon of current >>"matter" (consisting of gyroscopic particles) was released from the atoms >>of the copper coil! > >This is incorrect Mr. Newman, and easily proven to be false. __________________________________ Reply: Not at all. I would suggest you read his book. __________________________________ > >>Question: How can this EXTRA one gallon of current exist? > >To date, you have not shown this extra gallon to exist in any way. __________________________________ Reply: It exists in the operational prototypes Joseph Newman has built. __________________________________ > >>Answer: The current input (gyroscopic particles) simply ACTS AS A CATALYST >>relative to the atoms comprising the copper coil --- atoms which align and >>unalign extremely fact compared to the atoms of conventional, magnetic >>materials --- thereby releasing virtually immeasurable portions of the >>gyroscopic particles comprising the atoms of the coil. This release >>generates the magnetic field. When the input current is turned off, the >>collapsing (gyroscopic particles of the) magnetic field within the coil >>results in the gyroscopic particles attempting to return to the atoms from >>which they initially emanated. SUch mechanical action results in the >>gyroscopic particles striking other atoms within the copper coil at some >>degree of a right angle and moving AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THAT FORCE. This >>gyroscopic motion explains the source for the additional "one gallon" of >>current (gyroscopic particles) discussed in the above water analogy. >>Because of the "conversion efficiency" of this process via E=mc^2, there >>will be NO observable change in the mass of copper even after decades of >>use. > >The energy returned by the coil as teh field collapses is always less than >that used to produce the field, while it is buillding to full intensity. __________________________________ Reply: This demonstrates that you do not understand the purpose of the special "timed sequences" on the Commutator. __________________________________ > >>Take a 40-gauge copper wire which has a resistance of 1,049 Ohms for 1000 >>feet with a total weight (of atoms composed of gyroscopic particles) of a >>mere .02993 lbs, turning same into a coil with a 10-foot interior diameter >>and 8.32 feet in height. One woudl therefore have approximately a mere >>31.8 turns of copper wire (copper atoms, i.e., gyroscopic particles). See >>Figure 15-A. > >>If 100 volts is connected to coil 15-A, then a current flow of >>approximately 95MA would occur with total power input of 9.5 watts and a >>resulting weak, magnetic field of .012 Gauss or a mere .000014 Joules of >>energy stored in this weak, magnetic field. > >Here's the problem Mr. Newman, The current will not reach 95 ma. as soon >as the circuit is completed, but will build to the value over time. You >must measure this power over time to correctly state how much energy is stored >in the magnetic field. This you never do, and therefore assign incorrect >power levels, and draw incorrect conclusions. ___________________________________ Reply: Not true. Read the book and you will see this addressed. ___________________________________ > >>An insignificant current flow would now occur if the current input was >>stopped and coil 15-A was shorted-out to collapse a weak magnetic field and >>provide an inductance of only .003 Henries. > >>Now, conduct another test with 5-gauge copper wire which has a resistance >>of .3133 Ohms for 1000 feet. However, to equal the same resistance as in >>15-A above, one must now use 3,348,000 feet of 5-gauge wire with a massive, >>total weight (of atoms composed of gyroscopic particles moving and >>traveling at the speed of light, i.e., the mechanical essence of Einstein's >>Equation of E=mc^2) of 335,469.6 lbs. or 16.77 tons. Such wire is turned >>into a coil with a 10-foot interior diameter and 8.32-foot height. This >>structure would have approximately a phenomenal 90,000 turns of 5-gauge >>(copper atoms). If 100 volts were now connected to coil 15-B, then a >>current flow of approximately 95MA could occur with a total power input of >>9.5 watts and a resulting, phenomenally larger magnetic field of 23.7 Gauss >>or 1,905 times larger for coil 15-B than for coil 15-A, and 116 Joules of >>energy stored in the magnetic field of Figure 15-B. This represents a >>phenomenal 8 millions times more energy than in the 40-gauge coil of 15-A. > >Completely wrong. In this case, the time to full magnetic field strengh >is far far longer, and so, much much more power is stored in the magnetic >field, not the same 9.5 watts claimed. This error is indefensible. __________________________________ Reply: Once again, you fail to understand the nature of Joseph Newman's technical process. As in the case of the larger coil in the 2-Coil demonstration, the time to reach maximum magnetic strength is SHORTER than in the smaller coil. This is very significant. __________________________________ > >>A phenomenally larger current flow would now occur if the current input was >>stopped and coil 15-B was shorted-out as a result of the collapsing, much >>greater magnetic field of the 5-gauge wire in coil 15-B. Such shorting >>would generate an inductance of 25,700 Henries, which is better than 8 >>millions times the inductance of the 40-gauge coil in Figure 15-A. > >Actually, a higer voltage is induced, as in a standard induction coil. The >energy in this discharge is still less than that energy lost while the field >reaches full strengh. So much for the evidence for gyroscopic particles. ___________________________________ Reply: Hardly. The key word in your statement is the word "while." See comment on above re SHORTER time. ___________________________________ > >>Clearly these facts, combined with the earlier facts, prove beyond any >>doubt that Oersted's conclusion in 1820 (which is still taught to this >>day): "that the magnetic field came only from the current and not the >>conductor" to be totally false. [Although his conclusion is incorrent, I >>remain grateful to Hans Christian Oersted for being the first to notice and >>attempt to explain an observed connection between an electric current and a >>magnetic field.] > >Clearly these facts show where the error lies in the formulation of your >theory. >You have provided no evidence against standard theory, but have set forth a >good deal of evidence against yours. ___________________________________ Reply: Not at all. By virtue of the evidence of your remarks demonstates that you do not understand Joseph Newman's Technical Process. Suggest you read his book. ___________________________________ > >>The above clearly proves that the phenomenal difference in strength for the >>resulting magnetic fields (implying great differences in stored energy) and >>additional current flow when the input current was stopped (inductance), >>had to come from the gyroscopic particles comprising the component parts of >>the atoms within the copper coil. > >No such evidence is given, due to the errors made. ___________________________________ Reply: Not true since errors have not been made. ___________________________________ > >>The current flow input was the SAME in both tests, but the number of atoms >>(lbs. of copper) varied considerably from test 15-A to 15-B correlating >>precisely with the phenomenal difference in the strength of magnetic fields >>produced, the extreme difference in the stored energy (gyroscopic >>particles), and the great difference (inductance) in the additional current >>flow produced when the input current was stopped in test 15-A and 15-B. >>These phenomenal differences represent the mechanical essence of E=mc^2: >>GYROSCOPIC PARTICLES. > >False, the magnetic field levels are at all times proportional to the net power >over time as the field builds, and at all times the magnetic field is >proportional >to the applied current as predicted by conventional theory. ____________________________________ Reply: Once again, the significant words are "over time." And.... ____________________________________ > >I hope you agree that the total power over time is much larger for the larger >coil, hence the larger magnetic field. In your two coil demonstration, the >appearance that the larger coil reaches full strengh in less time has been >shown to be due to the excessive current demand placed on the batteries by >the smaller coil, artificially increasing the time to full magnetic field >strenght. ____________________________________ this comment is simply not true. ____________________________________ > >I have made the test methods used to prove this effect available to all on >this forum. As Mr. Wall has also pointed out, you are given oublic notice that >your tests shows nothing like what is claimed. Your product is apparently >quite deffective. ____________________________________ Reply: What is apparently defective is not the product. An understanding of Joseph Newman's Theory and Technical would be helpful. Suggest that you read his book on the subject. ____________________________________ > >>The above facts scientifically establish the position that the mathematical >>formulas employed in the calculation of the energy within a magnetic field >>(intended to represent the potential energy or stored energy of Joules in a >>magnetic field) are totally incorrect. The facts above clearly indicate >>that the magnetic field consists of gyroscopic-type particles which are the >>mechanical essence of E=mc^2 and represent an orderly flow of kinetic >>energy. > >This is untrue, and shows your lack of understanding of the conventional >theory. ____________________________________ Reply: Not at all. The electromagnetic field DOES INDEED consist of "matter in motion" --- kinetic energy. ____________________________________ > >>I will go further and state that "potential" energy, as such, does not >>exist! ALL energy is KINETIC in nature, since the gyroscopic particles >>continue, under all conditions, to move and spin at the speed of light in >>accordance with E=mc^2. > >I'll guess that Mr. Newman is not aware that the magnetic field is now >known not >to be primary, but a compsite of two more basic fields. One of these >fields, the >A field, is a potential field, yet is observably real. ____________________________________ Reply: Suggest you read the Chapter on "Useful Work, Force, and Power Equations" where this concept is addressed. ____________________________________ > >>I leave the task of determining the nature of such equations to a thinking, >>questioning mathematical mind, as I do not have the mathematical expertise. >>It should be noted, however, that the mechanical comprehension of a >>natural phenomenon has often historically preceded a mathematical model. >>James Clerk Maxwell acknowledged the importance of Michael Faraday's >>mechanical and experimental abilities. Maxwell also recognized that such >>mechanical aptitude constituted a major intellectual input to his later >>mathematical theories. > >>Joseph Newman, >>copyright 1984-1996 >>____________________________________ > >>josephnewman@earthlink.net > >I strongly suggest you revisit the conventiona theory as reguards the total >power >in an inductor while charging. You have apparently made a grave error >here, and >with this resolved, the support for your theory disappears. ______________________________________ Reply: Quite the opposite. Once again, a key word is the term "while." ______________________________________ > >I also ask again, will Newman Energy Products stand behind it's product? >The two >coil test has been shown to be fully understood by conventional theory >alone, and >the effect Mr. Newman used to build his theory has been shown not to exist. > >Rather than simply posting additional theory by Mr. Newman, will you admit >the possibilty of a grave theoretical error, and objectivly concider that >possibility under the terms of intellectual honesty as set forth by Mr. Soule? > >I've not known Mr. Newman to back away from a fight, but this is one he >cannot win. ______________________________________ Reply: On the contrary. This is one he cannot lose. Refer to his challenge which has been issued in regard to this subject. ______________________________________ Evan Soule josephnewman@earthlink.net (504) 524-3063 P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, LA 70157-7684 To reach Joseph Newman, contact: (601) 947-7147 Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, MS 39452