Jump to content

Newman's energy machine: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext 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 →top: further cleanup of WP:OR in lead
Line 9: Line 9:
|controversy=[[Perpetual motion]] machines violate the laws of [[Conservation of Energy]] and the [[Laws of Thermodynamics]].
|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
'''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 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

Revision as of 06:01, 13 January 2018

Template:Infobox controversial invention 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 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 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.[1] Thus, the patent was again denied.[2][3] The scientific community has rejected Newman's ideas about electricity and magnetism as pseudoscientific and his claims as false.[4]

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. 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.[5][6]

U.S. patent application

In 1979, Newman submitted an application for his device to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.[6] The application was eventually rejected in 1983,[7] 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.[8]

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.[2][3]

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.[9]

Perpetual motion controversy

See also: Mass–energy equivalence and 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.[6] 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

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.[10]

See also

References

Bibliography

  • Newman, J. (8th ed.).(1998). The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. Scottsdale, AZ: Joseph Newman Publishing Company. 0-9613835-8-5

Notes

  1. ^ US National Bureau of Standards (June 1986). "Report of Tests on Joseph Newman's Device". The National Capital Area Skeptics. Retrieved 12 January 2008.
  2. ^ a b US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Case #88-1312, Newman v Quigg.
  3. ^ a b Peterson, Ivars, (5 July 1986). "NBS report short-circuits energy machine - National Bureau of Standards". Science News. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Park, Robert L (2000), Voodoo Science: The road from foolishness to fraud, Oxford, U.K. & New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 8–9, 102–106, ISBN 0-19-860443-2, retrieved 14 November 2010
  5. ^ "Perpetual Motion: Still Going Around". The Washington Post. 12 January 2000. Retrieved 1 January 2007.
  6. ^ a b c Peterson, Ivars, (1 June 1985). "A patent pursuit: Joe Newman's 'energy machine'". Science News. Retrieved 1 December 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ Newman, Joseph (17 March 1983). "Patent Application: "ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEM HAVING HIGHER ENERGY OUTPUT THAN INPUT" (failed)". Retrieved 1 December 2015.
  8. ^ Kramer, Bruce (1988). "In Re Newman: The Federal Circuit Dismantles An Obstacle For Perpetual Motion Patent Applicants". Akron Law Review. Retrieved 1 December 2015.
  9. ^ 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
  10. ^ Alabama Securities Commission (26 September 2008). "Administrative order C0-2007-0024 Consent order" (PDF).
Claims
Skeptical

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Newman%27s_energy_machine&oldid=820127654"