Actually, I believe Joseph Newman has what he claims ... and as verified by more than 30 scientists and engineers who actually DID test one or more of his prototypes -- unlike Mr. Parks.

I'd recommend that one visit his website at

http://www.josephnewman.com

and read the testimonials by physicists and engineers who have verified that the technology works as stated.

Moreover, if the technology works, then it is no more a violation of the Law of Conservation than a conventional nuclear reactor. Newman states that the technology produces "greater external energy output than external energy input." And he states that the difference is a result of the transference of mass/energy from one domain (from within the atoms of the conductor) to another domain -- as output mass/energy (or "massergy" as he terms it) measurable as electrical and/or mechanical energy.

"Greater external energy output than external energy input" is not the same as saying it "produces more than it consumes". The latter statement WOULD be a violation of the Law of Conservation, while the former is not -- if the system is indeed "converting" (actually transferring) mass/energy from one domain to another.

And if someone has a problem with Newman charging $150 for his book (which I don't) then read it at the library for free.

Parks has amply demonstrated that he neither understands Newman's technology NOR has a clue as to the real facts regarding Newman's long battle for a patent.

It's interesting that Robert Goddard was once called a quack and a liar by the major newsmedia of his day and by many of the so-called "experts" of the time, yet Goddard had one thing going for him that the quacks and naysayers did not: he was RIGHT and they were full of uninformed hot air.

I say: issue Newman his patent and let him stand or fall in the marketplace.

Gary