Jump to content

Newman's energy machine: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→top: Newman never claimed it to be a perpetual motion machine, no reliable source claims it's anything more than just a motor, so neither should Wikipedia say it's a perpetual motion machine.
m →Claims by the inventor: the original link on the washington post website is not dead
 
(47 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Type of machine}}
{{Infobox controversial invention
⚫
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2020}}
|image=[[File:Newman Motor Diagram.gif|200px]]
⚫
[[File:Newman Motor Diagram.gif|upright|thumb|right|alt=caption|A diagram of the device]]'''Newman's Energy Machine''' was a [[DC motor]] which the inventor, [[Joseph Westley Newman|Joseph Newman]], claimed to produce mechanical power exceeding the electrical power being supplied to it. In 1979, Newman attempted to patent the device, but it was rejected by the [[United States Patent Office]] as being a [[perpetual motion machine]].<ref>{{cite court | litigants = Newman v. Quigg |vol=681 F.Supp 16 |reporter= |opinion=83-0001 |pinpoint= |court=United States District Court, District of Columbia |date=17 February 1988 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16083607426021457478&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1 }}</ref> When the rejection was later appealed, the [[United States district court]] requested that Newman's machine be tested by the [[National Institute of Standards and Technology|National Bureau of Standards]] (NBS). The NBS concluded in June 1986 that output power was not greater than the input.<ref name="NBS">{{cite web
|caption=Diagram of a Newman Motor
|name=''The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman''
|topics=[[physics]]<br />[[mechanical engineering]]
|claims=''Electromagnetic energy can be rendered useful by means other than atomic or chemical chain reactions. Specifically, a rotating permanent magnet spinning inside an electromagnetic pulsating conducting coil utilizes the coil's [[Mass-energy equivalence|mass-energy]] and turns it into torque.''
|origyear=1984
|inventor= [[Joseph Westley Newman]]
|controversy=[[Perpetual motion]] machines violate the laws of [[Conservation of Energy]] and the [[Laws of Thermodynamics]].
}}
⚫
'''Newman's Energy Machine''' was a [[DC motor]] which the inventor, [[Joseph Westley Newman|Joseph Newman]], claimed to produce mechanical power exceeding the electrical power being supplied to it, hence making it an over-unity or perpetual motion device. In 1979, Newman attempted to patent the device, but was rejected by the [[United States Patent Office]]. When the rejection was later appealed, the [[United States district court]] requested that Newman's machine be tested by the [[National Institute of Standards and Technology|National Bureau of Standards]] (NBS). The NBS concluded in June 1986 that output power was not greater than the input, and it was not a perpetual motion machine.<ref name="NBS">{{cite web
| url=http://www.ncas.org/nbsreport/index.html
| url=http://www.ncas.org/nbsreport/index.html
| title=Report of Tests on Joseph Newman's Device
| title=Report of Tests on Joseph Newman's Device
Line 22: Line 14:
|authorlink=Robert L. Park
|authorlink=Robert L. Park
|title=Voodoo Science: The road from foolishness to fraud
|title=Voodoo Science: The road from foolishness to fraud
|place=Oxford, U.K. & New York
|place=Oxford, UK & New York
|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]
|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]
|pages=8–9,102–106
|pages=8–9, 102–106
|isbn=0-19-860443-2
|isbn=0198604432
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xzCK6-Kqs6QC
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xzCK6-Kqs6QC}}</ref>
|accessdate=14 November 2010}}</ref>


== Claims by the inventor ==
== Claims by the inventor ==
By adding rolls to the armature of a motor, a larger and larger [[counter-electromotive force]] is generated on the motor.
By adding rolls to the armature of a motor, a larger and larger [[counter-electromotive force]] is generated on the motor.
Newman outlined his claims about there being a fundamental electromagnetic interaction in all matter ultimately derived from only one type of force particle propagating at the speed of light. Newman claims that the motor derives its power by converting some of the mass of the copper in the coils into usable energy, in application of Einstein's [[Mass–energy equivalence]]. According to proponents of the Energy Machine, the most crucial part of the design concerns what happens as a result of mechanical commutation.<ref name="Perpetual Motion: Still Going Around">{{cite web
Newman outlined his claims about there being a fundamental electromagnetic interaction in all matter ultimately derived from only one type of force particle propagating at the speed of light. Newman claims that the motor derives its power by converting some of the mass of the copper in the coils into usable energy, in application of Einstein's [[mass–energy equivalence]]. According to proponents of the Energy Machine, the most crucial part of the design concerns what happens as a result of mechanical commutation.<ref name="Perpetual Motion: Still Going Around">{{cite news
| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/2000/01/12/perpetual-motion-still-going-around/287246ed-1425-487c-bc94-7354e360db77/
| url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-499664.html
| title=Perpetual Motion: Still Going Around
| title=Perpetual Motion: Still Going Around
| publisher=[[The Washington Post]]
| newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]
| date=2000-01-12
| date=2000-01-12
| accessdate= 2007-01-01
| accessdate=2024-08-06
}}</ref><ref name="patent pursuit">{{cite web
}}</ref><ref name="patent pursuit">{{cite web
| url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+patent+pursuit%3A+Joe+Newman's+'energy+machine'.-a03794102
| url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+patent+pursuit%3A+Joe+Newman's+'energy+machine'.-a03794102
| author=Peterson, Ivars,
| author=Peterson, Ivars
| title=A patent pursuit: Joe Newman's 'energy machine'.
| title=A patent pursuit: Joe Newman's 'energy machine'.
| publisher=[[Science News]]
| publisher=[[Science News]]
Line 49: Line 40:
In 1979, Newman submitted an application for his device to the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]].<ref name="patent pursuit"/> The application was eventually rejected in 1983,<ref name="patent application">{{cite web
In 1979, Newman submitted an application for his device to the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]].<ref name="patent pursuit"/> The application was eventually rejected in 1983,<ref name="patent application">{{cite web
| url=https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO1983000963
| url=https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO1983000963
| title=Patent Application: "ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEM HAVING HIGHER ENERGY OUTPUT THAN INPUT" (failed)
| title=Patent Application: "Energy Generation System Having Higher Energy Output Than Input" (failed)
| author=Newman, Joseph
| author=Newman, Joseph
| date=1983-03-17
| date=1983-03-17
| accessdate=2015-12-01
| accessdate=2015-12-01
}}</ref> which set off a lengthy court battle.
}}</ref> which set off a lengthy court battle.
The [[United States District Court]] requested a master of the court to make the final decision. William E. Schuyler, Jr, former Commissioner of U.S. Patent Office, Washington, DC was chosen by the court to make the final decision to award the patent or not award the patent to Newman. Schuyler supposed that evidence to support Newman's claim was overwhelming and found no contradictory factual evidence.<ref name="kramer">{{cite web
The [[United States District Court]] requested a master of the court to make the final decision. William E. Schuyler, Jr, former Commissioner of U.S. Patent Office, Washington, DC was chosen by the court to make the final decision to award the patent or not award the patent to Newman. Schuyler concluded that evidence to support Newman's claim was overwhelming and found no contradictory factual evidence.<ref name="kramer">{{cite journal
| author=Kramer, Bruce
| author=Kramer, Bruce
| title=In Re Newman: The Federal Circuit Dismantles An Obstacle For Perpetual Motion Patent Applicants
| title=In Re Newman: The Federal Circuit Dismantles An Obstacle For Perpetual Motion Patent Applicants
Line 65: Line 56:
}}</ref>
}}</ref>


However, the judge ordered Newman's machine to be tested by the [[National Institute of Standards and Technology|National Bureau of Standards]] (NBS). The National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now known as the [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]] (NIST), by request of the patent office, tested the device for several months and got negative results. In every case presented in the NBS report, the output power was less than power input from the battery pack, and therefore the efficiency was less than 100%. The court therefore upheld the rejection of the patent application.<ref name="appealtext">US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Case #88-1312, ''Newman v Quigg''.</ref><ref name="NBS_science">{{cite web
However, the judge ordered Newman's machine to be tested by the [[National Institute of Standards and Technology|National Bureau of Standards]] (NBS). The National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now known as the [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]] (NIST), by request of the patent office, tested the device for several months and got negative results. In every case presented in the NBS report, the output power was less than power input from the battery pack, and therefore the efficiency was less than 100%. The court therefore upheld the rejection of the patent application.<ref name="appealtext">{{cite court |litigants=Newman v. Quigg |vol=877 F.2d 1575 |court=US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit |opinion=88-1312 | url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12975401061441893941&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr |date=5 July 1989}}</ref><ref name="NBS_science">{{cite web
| author=Peterson, Ivars,
| author=Peterson, Ivars
| title=NBS report short-circuits energy machine - National Bureau of Standards
| title=NBS report short-circuits energy machine – National Bureau of Standards
| publisher=Science News
| publisher=Science News
| date=5 July 1986
| date=5 July 1986
| url=https://www.thefreelibrary.com/NBS+report+short-circuits+energy+machine.-a04305182
| accessdate=2007-12-24
| accessdate=2019-03-25
}}</ref>
}}</ref>


Newman argued that he had been mistreated by the patent office, and tried to have his motor legalized directly by the US Congress. He obtained a hearing on 30 July 1986 in front of several senators, but he was unsuccessful. During the hearing, Newman refused to have the machine tested by independent experts, and senator [[John Glenn]] pointed out that his supposedly-independent expert actually had a prior business relationship with him.
Newman argued that he had been mistreated by the patent office, and tried to have his motor legalized directly by the US Congress. He obtained a hearing on 30 July 1986 in front of several senators, but he was unsuccessful. During the hearing, Newman refused to have the machine tested by independent experts, and senator [[John Glenn]] pointed out that his supposedly independent expert actually had a prior business relationship with him.


The case is now cited in the USPTO's [[Manual of Patent Examining Procedure]] as an example of an "inoperative" invention that can't have any utility, concretely as a perpetual motion machine.<ref name="incredible">{{Citation | title = 2107.01 General Principles Governing Utility Rejections (R-5) - 2100 Patentability. II. Wholly inoperative inventions; "incredible" utility | publisher = [[U.S. Patent and Trademark Office]] | url = http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_01.htm }} [[Manual of Patent Examining Procedure]]</ref>
The case is now cited in the USPTO's [[Manual of Patent Examining Procedure]] as an example of an "inoperative" invention that can't have any utility, concretely as a perpetual motion machine.<ref name="incredible">{{Citation | title = 2107.01 General Principles Governing Utility Rejections (R-5) – 2100 Patentability. II. Wholly inoperative inventions; "incredible" utility | publisher = [[U.S. Patent and Trademark Office]] | url = http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_01.htm }} [[Manual of Patent Examining Procedure]]</ref>

==Perpetual motion controversy==
{{See also|Mass–energy equivalence|First law of thermodynamics}}
Newman claims that his device derives its power by converting a small fraction of the mass in the copper coils into energy, and that it is therefore not a perpetual motion machine.<ref name="patent pursuit"/> Many scientists don't think this theory is correct, and still classify it as "just another impossible perpetual motion machine". Skeptics argue that regardless of the exact mode of operation, if the output power is higher than the required input electrical power, the device should be capable of running "closed-loop", producing excess power without external batteries.


==Cease and desist order==
==Cease and desist order==


In August 2007 the Alabama Securities Commission issued a [[cease and desist]] order to the "Newman Energy Corporation", alleging it had sold unregistered stock in the company. In January 2008 the company tendered [[rescission|offers of rescission]] to its nine Alabama investors, offering to reverse the sales. Eight of the investors declined the offer, electing to retain their investment; the ninth did not reply. The company agreed to pay the State of Alabama $7,000 in administrative assessments and investigative costs.<ref>{{cite web|title=Administrative order C0-2007-0024 Consent order|author=Alabama Securities Commission|date=26 September 2008|url=http://www.asc.state.al.us/Orders/2007/CO-2007-0024.pdf}}</ref>
In August 2007 the Alabama Securities Commission issued a [[cease and desist]] order to the "Newman Energy Corporation", alleging it had sold unregistered stock in the company. In January 2008 the company tendered [[Rescission (contract law)|offers of rescission]] to its nine Alabama investors, offering to reverse the sales. Eight of the investors declined the offer, electing to retain their investment; the ninth did not reply. The company agreed to pay the State of Alabama $7,000 in administrative assessments and investigative costs.<ref>{{cite web|title=Administrative order C0-2007-0024 Consent order|author=Alabama Securities Commission|date=26 September 2008|url=http://www.asc.state.al.us/Orders/2007/CO-2007-0024.pdf}}</ref>

==In popular culture==

The device is referenced in the [[Big Black]] song "Newman Generator", recorded for their 1987 [[John Peel#Peel sessions|Peel Session]].


==See also==
==See also==
{{col-begin}}{{col-break}}
{{div col|colwidth=22em}}
* [[Ferranti effect]]
* [[Gyroscope]]
* [[Gyroscope]]
* [[Inductor]]
* [[Inductor]]
* [[Singly-fed electric machine]] {{nb10}}
* [[Singly-fed electric machine]]
* [[Voltage]]
* [[Voltage]]
* [[Orgone]]
* [[Free energy suppression conspiracy theory]]
* [[Free energy suppression conspiracy theory]]
{{col-end}}
{{div col end}}


==References==
==References==


===Bibliography===
===Bibliography===
* Newman, J. (8th ed.).(1998). ''The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman''. Scottsdale, AZ: Joseph Newman Publishing Company. 0-9613835-8-5
* Newman, J. (8th ed.).(1998). ''The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman''. Scottsdale, AZ: Joseph Newman Publishing Company. {{ISBN|0961383585}}


===Notes===
===Notes===
Line 104: Line 98:
==External links==
==External links==
; Claims
; Claims
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20140325193447/www.josephnewman.com "The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman"] (Official site: archived copy of the site as at the last complete date - March 25, 2014) ''Retrieved March 12, 2017''.
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20140325193447/http://www.josephnewman.com/ "The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman"] (Official site: archived copy of the site as at the last complete date – 25 March 2014) ''Retrieved 12 March 2017''.
* [http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/qmmv11.htm "The Newman's Energy Machine"] by Jean-Louis Naudin and M. David
* [http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/qmmv11.htm "The Newman's Energy Machine"] by Jean-Louis Naudin and M. David


Line 113: Line 107:


{{Electric motor|state=collapsed}}
{{Electric motor|state=collapsed}}
⚫
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2011}}


[[Category:Electric motors]]
[[Category:Electric motors]]

Latest revision as of 01:17, 7 August 2024

caption
A diagram of the device

Newman's Energy Machine was a DC motor which the inventor, Joseph Newman, claimed to produce mechanical power exceeding the electrical power being supplied to it. In 1979, Newman attempted to patent the device, but it was rejected by the United States Patent Office as being a perpetual motion machine.[1] When the rejection was later appealed, the United States district court requested that Newman's machine be tested by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The NBS concluded in June 1986 that output power was not greater than the input.[2] Thus, the patent was again denied.[3][4] The scientific community has rejected Newman's ideas about electricity and magnetism as pseudoscientific and his claims as false.[5]

Claims by the inventor

[edit]

By adding rolls to the armature of a motor, a larger and larger counter-electromotive force is generated on the motor. Newman outlined his claims about there being a fundamental electromagnetic interaction in all matter ultimately derived from only one type of force particle propagating at the speed of light. Newman claims that the motor derives its power by converting some of the mass of the copper in the coils into usable energy, in application of Einstein's mass–energy equivalence. According to proponents of the Energy Machine, the most crucial part of the design concerns what happens as a result of mechanical commutation.[6][7]

U.S. patent application

[edit]

In 1979, Newman submitted an application for his device to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.[7] The application was eventually rejected in 1983,[8] which set off a lengthy court battle. The United States District Court requested a master of the court to make the final decision. William E. Schuyler, Jr, former Commissioner of U.S. Patent Office, Washington, DC was chosen by the court to make the final decision to award the patent or not award the patent to Newman. Schuyler concluded that evidence to support Newman's claim was overwhelming and found no contradictory factual evidence.[9]

However, the judge ordered Newman's machine to be tested by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), by request of the patent office, tested the device for several months and got negative results. In every case presented in the NBS report, the output power was less than power input from the battery pack, and therefore the efficiency was less than 100%. The court therefore upheld the rejection of the patent application.[3][4]

Newman argued that he had been mistreated by the patent office, and tried to have his motor legalized directly by the US Congress. He obtained a hearing on 30 July 1986 in front of several senators, but he was unsuccessful. During the hearing, Newman refused to have the machine tested by independent experts, and senator John Glenn pointed out that his supposedly independent expert actually had a prior business relationship with him.

The case is now cited in the USPTO's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure as an example of an "inoperative" invention that can't have any utility, concretely as a perpetual motion machine.[10]

Cease and desist order

[edit]

In August 2007 the Alabama Securities Commission issued a cease and desist order to the "Newman Energy Corporation", alleging it had sold unregistered stock in the company. In January 2008 the company tendered offers of rescission to its nine Alabama investors, offering to reverse the sales. Eight of the investors declined the offer, electing to retain their investment; the ninth did not reply. The company agreed to pay the State of Alabama $7,000 in administrative assessments and investigative costs.[11]

[edit]

The device is referenced in the Big Black song "Newman Generator", recorded for their 1987 Peel Session.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
  • Newman, J. (8th ed.).(1998). The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. Scottsdale, AZ: Joseph Newman Publishing Company. ISBN 0961383585

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Newman v. Quigg, 681 F.Supp 16 83-0001 (United States District Court, District of Columbia 17 February 1988).
  2. ^ US National Bureau of Standards (June 1986). "Report of Tests on Joseph Newman's Device". The National Capital Area Skeptics. Retrieved 12 January 2008.
  3. ^ a b Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 88-1312 (US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 5 July 1989).
  4. ^ a b Peterson, Ivars (5 July 1986). "NBS report short-circuits energy machine – National Bureau of Standards". Science News. Retrieved 25 March 2019.
  5. ^ Park, Robert L (2000), Voodoo Science: The road from foolishness to fraud, Oxford, UK & New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 8–9, 102–106, ISBN 0198604432
  6. ^ "Perpetual Motion: Still Going Around". The Washington Post. 12 January 2000. Retrieved 6 August 2024.
  7. ^ a b Peterson, Ivars (1 June 1985). "A patent pursuit: Joe Newman's 'energy machine'". Science News. Retrieved 1 December 2015.
  8. ^ Newman, Joseph (17 March 1983). "Patent Application: "Energy Generation System Having Higher Energy Output Than Input" (failed)". Retrieved 1 December 2015.
  9. ^ Kramer, Bruce (1988). "In Re Newman: The Federal Circuit Dismantles An Obstacle For Perpetual Motion Patent Applicants". Akron Law Review. 21 (1). Retrieved 1 December 2015.
  10. ^ 2107.01 General Principles Governing Utility Rejections (R-5) – 2100 Patentability. II. Wholly inoperative inventions; "incredible" utility, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
  11. ^ Alabama Securities Commission (26 September 2008). "Administrative order C0-2007-0024 Consent order" (PDF).
[edit]
Claims
Skeptical
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Newman%27s_energy_machine&oldid=1239039469"