Fortis wrote:
" Sorry, but heat is most certainly not electromagnetic energy."
No, Fortis. Heat IS most certainly electromagnetic energy.
However, we need to define what we each mean by "electromagnetic energy".
Since you (or others) may have missed the earlier post on this subject, I will post it again:
HEAT & THE THREE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
Regarding Nikola Tesla's dream of a "totally new source of power":
Tesla would only say that ".... the apparatus for manufacturing this energy and transforming it would be of ideal simplicity with both mechanical and electrical features." Tesla said, "The preliminary cost might be thought too high, but this would be overcome, for the installation would be both permanent and indestructible."
Of course, the disagreements between Einstein and Tesla over the nature of "atomic energy" are known. What is interesting as a speculation would be Tesla's view (were he alive) on the relationship between his proposed "totally new source of power" and the Three Laws of Thermodynamics and how such would relate to Einstein's concept of E = mc^2. With such a speculation in mind, the following is offered:
NOTE:
The following is "out of context" from the detailed information featuring charts, diagrams, and photographs that are presented in Joseph Newman's fundamental book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman.
From the Chapter entitled, HEAT & THE THREE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS:
"....Heat is electromagnetic energy (consisting of gyroscopic massergies*). Gyroscopic massergies* (or electromagnetic energy) comprise all Matter. Alterations in the heat (gyroscopic massergies*) of Matter cause a change in the amount of (gyroscopic massergies*) of Matter in accordance with E=mc^2."
*Nomenclature note:
It's been said that "learning is a result of understanding which is a result of good communication which is a result of a consistent language which is a result of good NOMENCLATURE."
For over 30 years, Joseph Newman has referred to the fundamental 'entities' creating (electro)magnetic fields as "gyroscopic particles."
Over the past 14 years, some individuals have expressed to their problem with the word "particle(s)." That word sometimes causes them to wonder "to what "particle" the "gyroscopic particle" belongs?" Some individuals have wondered how does the "gyroscopic particle" relate to protons, photons, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc...
Several years ago, I began substituting the term "masergy" for "particle." More than anything it represents a 'refinement' of one aspect of Joseph Newman's paradigm. To employ a completely new word has the advantage of disassociating its old usage from previously used words and their connotations.... especially when Joseph Newman has described his "gyroscopic x" as being the fundamental unit out of which the larger units and sub-atomic "particles" are constructed.
The new term also immediately suggests the ongoing, simultaneous equivalence between "mass" and "energy" and that the important point (within the context of Joseph Newman's technology) is to focus on the word "gyroscopic," not the word "particle" or even the word "masergy."
A gentleman named Ben (with whom I've had several private email discussions) has acted as a "catalyst" to encourage me to pursue this new nomenclature.
Anyway, I have had a subsequent discussion with Joseph Newman about this issue of appropriate (and perhaps more explicit) nomenclature and he agrees with the new usage, with one slight correction (i.e., the addition of a second "s" to more explicitly indicate the "mass" involved). In other words, this "entity" is simultaneously both "mass" and "energy" --- and that its most important mechanical characteristic is its GYROSCOPIC nature.
So, henceforth, it is suggested that the "gyroscopic particle" be referred to as the:
Gyroscopic Massergy.
ERS
To continue quoting (out-of-context) from Joseph Newman's fundamental book:
32.
"I shall now proceed to constructively refute the negative doctrines that are a result of the present "Three Laws of Thermodynamics."
A. FACTS:
1. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived without an understanding of the relationship between heat (gyroscopic massergies/electromagnetic energy) and Matter.
2. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived without an understanding that there is an energy relationship other than the simplicity of Work = Force X Distance, Power = Work/Time, and Force = Mass X Acceleration.
3. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were originally conceived without any knowledge, understanding, or anticipation of Einstein's equation of E = mc^2.
4. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics were originally conceived without an understanding of Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism, Inertia, Matter, and Planetary Motion.
32-B.
QUESTION: If none of these things were understood at the time that the Three Laws of Thermodynamics were conceived, how can these three laws be so "all encompassing" as to be capable of predicting --- on a seemingly "infallible" basis --- the "Doom of the Universe" and the "Total Impossibility of Perpetual Motion?" Those who made such predictions must have understood the mechanical workings of the Entire Universe.
QUESTION: Did they?
32-C.
The "First Law of Thermodynamics" (1850) states:
"Energy can be exchanged in the form of heat or of mechanical work, but its total quantity remains constant."
The First Law of Thermodynamics is one of the most positive scientific statements ever made, although this was not the initial intent of this Law.
QUESTION: What does this Law say?
ANSWER: If one cannot destroy energy, this means that energy always exists. If energy always exists, one can always use it. The Facts have indicated to me that the gyroscopic particle composition of all Matter is totally in accord with the First Law of Thermodynamics since it appears that the energy (spin speed) of the gyroscopic particle cannot be consumed.
32-D.
The "Second Law of Thermodynamics" (1850):
The First Law of Thermodynamics proves that the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are incorrect!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics represents a conclusion concerning the use of heat, based upon primitive, 19th century mechanical devices. The "Second Law of Thermodynamics" may well apply to such primitive mechanical devices, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the implications of E = mc^2.
As I have demonstrated earlier, many of the 19th century scientists believed heat to be only the result of motion. They did not understand that heat was simply the conversion of Matter into gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy (heat) as implied by the brilliant work of Joseph Black. Nor did they realize that heat (consisting of gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy) was convertible into Matter. They were completely ignorant concerning E = mc^2. In their ignorance, they would have said that anyone claiming such a statement was stupid. In my opinion, Joseph Black would have readily accepted the implications of E = mc^2.
In 1824, Sadi Carnot published a paper entitled "Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat." Carnot had discovered that heat must flow "downhill," i.e., heat must change from high to low temperatures to perform work. Such a conclusion was based upon the observation of primitive inventions and has no real connection with the essential nature of heat or E = mc^2. Joseph Black understood the nature of heat as early as 1760 --- others did not.
By 1850, it was concluded throughout the scientific community that Carnot's discovery of a definite direction for heat flow laid the foundations for one of the basic laws of physics: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The law was first formulated in 1850 by the German physicist, Rudolf Clausius, who stated, "It is impossible for a self-acting machine, unaided by any external agency, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature."
The essence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is this: heat will not flow of its own accord from a cold place to a hot one. Again, I repeat that this statement has absolutely nothing to do with the essence of heat and demonstrates a total lack of understanding that heat is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) which comprises all Matter and that E = mc^2.
In physics it is presently believed that this unidirectional flow of heat, as stated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, implies the "Doom (or heat death) of the Universe." I vigorously disagree with this unfounded statement! All of the facts now presented in science prove this close-minded statement to be totally incorrect! This negative statement has been an extreme hindrance to the diligent progress of science since it closes one's mind to creative thought and has succeeded in unjustly influencing young minds that were taught to accept it.
Electromagnetic energy is perpetually changing from energy to Matter and from Matter to energy. [While I fully realize that the use of the word "perpetual" violates current scientific taboos, I will do so anyway!] The gyroscopic entity I have described in this Book perpetually spins and travels at the speed of light in accordance with E = mc^2. Even if all physical Matter could become exactly the same temperature, the gyroscopic massergy (electromagnetic energy) within Matter is still moving at the speed of light. Any Matter could still be caused to release its incredible electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergy) composition!
A chain reaction could be induced within a mass the size of a planet, thereby causing the mass to release its electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergy composition) at a rate as rapid as that of the Sun. The mass would then cause a source of heat greater than its surroundings which were retaining the major portion of their gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) composition within the physical boundaries of the materials. All heat is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy). All Matter is gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy). All Matter can release its gyroscopic massergies in the form of heat, light, electrical current, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic radiation, or in smaller quantities of its total physical form. However, it makes no difference in what form Matter is released, since it is always composed of gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy).
The reverse is also true: all gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy) can be converted into physical Matter! Having a basic understanding of the ingenious properties of the gyroscopic massergy (electromagnetic energy) composition of all Matter in the Universe, the mathematical law of probability tells me that the probability of the Universe undergoing a "heat death" is zero.
One of Joseph Black's important discoveries was that different substances have different capacities for absorbing or emitting heat (electromagnetic energy)!
EXAMPLE:
If 1 kg. of iron at 80 degrees C. is immersed in 1 kg. of water at 40 degrees C., then the equilibrium temperature is found to be 43.7 degrees C. In other words, the same amount of heat (electromagnetic energy) has resulted in a much greater temperature change in the iron than
in the water.
The same unfounded statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also used in present physics to have stamped the final label of "FUTILE" on the quest for "Perpetual Motion." I would agree that "Perpetual Motion" would be futile as long as one accepts the validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as explaining everything in the Universe for all time. However, I challenge such validity. It is easy to recognize that in this sense, the Second Law has operationally been a deliberate attempt to close young minds who would be otherwise willing to question the "finality" of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I am sure that there are many who read this Book who have been so unjustly influenced. Please recognize that the conversion of physical Matter to electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) and from electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) back to physical Matter is "perpetual" throughout the Universe and this phenomenal energy change can be conceptually understood and technologically harnessed in the immediate future for the incredible benefit of humanity!
32-E.
The "Third Law of Thermodynamics" (developed 1888-1902):
In 1902, measurements of the heat reaction of various substances were examined, and it was found that the free energies experienced an increasingly small variation as the reaction approaches absolute zero.
This line of thought was initiated in 1848 by Lord Kelvin (William Thompson). Knowing that when cooled one degree from 0 degrees to -1 degrees C. a gas loses 1/273 of its pressure, Kelvin reasoned that at -273 degrees C., gas should have no pressure and he called -273 degrees C. "absolute zero". Scientists at the time further reasoned that if "cold" is simply the absence of "heat," then there should be a point when there is absolutely no heat. This reasoning demonstrates a complete lack of understanding that heat is actually electromagnetic energy (gyroscopic massergies) which comprise all Matter and that E = mc^2. [Kelvin's knowledge is valuable, however, in terms of designing my Pioneering Invention where atom unalignment is important since heat causes random motion and rapid atom unalignment.]
In accordance with the above concept regarding the absence of heat, the Third Law of Thermodynamics was proposed. It states that every substance known to man undergoes entropy, i.e., a measure of the availability of energy to perform work that approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero (-273 degrees C. or -459.69 degrees F.).
Einstein's equation of E = mc^2 and the work I have accomplished prove that this statement concerning entropy is totally incorrect.
Kelvin's results are explained by my prior discussion that heat (gyroscopic massergies/electromagnetic energy) loss from Matter causes the atomic entities to demand a smaller area. This is why gases lose pressure at low temperatures since they are becoming a liquid state.
The concept that cold is the absence of heat should be corrected as follows: Cold is simply a condition of less gyroscopic massergies or electromagnetic energy (heat) in Matter. As long as one has Matter, one still has gyroscopic massergies (electromagnetic energy or potential heat). Matter at -459.69 degrees F. STILL contains tremendous electromagnetic energy (or heat if properly released) or vast quantities of gyroscopic massergies spinning at the speed of light. Only when Matter is gone, is all potential heat gone. The mechanical essence of E = mc^2 is the gyroscopic-action-massergy which is the basic building entity of all Matter.
32-F.
It is totally amazing to me that these three laws of thermodynamics have been so long accepted, knowing that their total premise is one of negativism which completely stops the creative thinking processes of a student who is motivated to question or discover a method for a better energy invention that would ultimately be of service to humanity. However, in spite of the negative intentions of those who developed it, THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS PROVES JUST THE OPPOSITE!
It is a most positive, scientific statement.
Although this may seem superficially paradoxical, I will make the positive statement that:
"there is NO PLACE in science that negativism should be allowed to exist!"
The entire history of science has proven over and over again that, whenever it has been thought that something was not possible, it later turns out to be possible. Therefore, as the facts have proven, science should put forth positive statements of hopes and dreams that will perpetually stimulate the creative processes of the human mind. In contrast, throughout my sincere, scientific efforts of nearly two decades, I have had to fight against many negative "scientific statements" that were and are wrong. Such injustice has not been unique to my efforts, but, on the contrary, it has been the common fate of most creative individuals throughout the History of Science......"
Joseph Newman
_______________________________________________
swan wrote:
ditto my comments above regarding the fact that heat IS electromagnetic energy.
"Making up new words is one of the hallmarks of crackpottery. If one wants to be understand by scientists, one has to speak the language of science. When in Rome, and all that."
I could frankly care less if you have a hang up about "new words" --- which are coined all the time. In this case, the new terminology precisely describes the mechanical "x" described by Joseph Newman ... hence, it is most useful.
_______________________________________________
Demi wrote:
"And the original document with the entire text of Mr. Spellman's purported quote (for the sake of context and of avoiding the mangling of meaning by selective quotation) is provided where?"
The full REPRODUCED letter from Ray-O-Vac is published in Joseph Newman's book, THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN, editions of which are freely available via the library system.
_______________________________________________
Alan wrote:
"But not useful enough to run one of his units? Or can the new configuration run (power) itself or another unit? If not, why not? What makes dc voltage from a battery different from dc voltage from a well regulated power supply or a relay switched set of another battery? Can the unit run from an array of solar cells instead of chemical batteries?"
Yes, Newman has run an earlier version of his energy machine from a solar panel array --- and the same results were obtained: the system produced greater external energy output than external energy input.
I understand that Newman has recently discovered how to harness 99%+ of the huge back-spike generated by the machine. He apparently plans to post on the internet videos of recent tests conducted.
Realize this: Newman has very specifically claim the following -- from the very beginning: that his technology generates greater external energy output than external energy input. Now, let's talk about measuring: a) the INPUT and b) the OUTPUT. Then: c) COMPARE. I do not believe that is an "impossible" task. In fact, to the contrary.
With only 400 watts he is powering a 10kW Grainger conventional PTO generator with losses inherent in the gear connections, turning a 1200-lb rotar at over 300rpms, producing a 3.5-foot back-spike (that he has now discovered how to harness), AND powering a load of lights, appliance fans, and TVs. Those results verify that the system is performing as stated.
_______________________________________________
Sammy wrote:
"I'm not strong on theoretical physics but does this mean that Mr. Newman has also solved the issue of unified field theory?"
Newman has provided a specific MECHANICAL explanation for field unification. I belive that is a precursor to a mathematical understanding of such unification. As the history of science has demonstrated, the first step in major scientific understanding has been the development of a mechanical model (explanation) for observable phenomena.
_______________________________________________
And, a little bit extra:
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
FOR ROTATING MAGNET
NEWMAN MOTORS
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
(C)opyright 1991-2004
by
R. M. Hartwell II
*
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.
NOTE: Since this document was prepared, many advancements, improvements, and/or variations have been made to the Newman Motor designs.
OVERVIEW
The rotating magnet Newman motor is deceptively 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 severely 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 per 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 separate 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. The 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 connected 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.
That 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 Newman 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 (neos). 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 fiberglass to prevent the assembly from flying apart due to centrifugal force while in high-speed 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. That 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 coil 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. That 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. That 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 upon 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, that would make the winding thickness about 3 to 4 inches. That 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 that, 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. Therefore, 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; let's allow an extra 15%, so 720 X 1.15 = 828 turns. 828 turns X 50.25 inches 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. That is the reason I suggest starting with relatively low voltages. It also makes the commutator design easier.*
Copyright 1991-2004, R. 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. Those 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 witin the context of this discussion 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. In general, there are many possible designs using the pioneering technology innovated by Joseph Newman.
"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."
--- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL
________________________________
JOSEPH NEWMAN'S STATEMENT TO UNIVERSITIES
The great 19th century innovator of electromagnetism, Michael Faraday, gave personal praise to Professor Thompson of Glasgow as being almost the only one who understood him, when Michael Faraday wrote:
"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."
Michael Faraday recognized that the lines of force of a magnetic field are real, kinetic, physical, and mechanical in nature. This has been ignored in the past 150 years.
Now, ironically and appropriately, history repeats itself in this century.
The following is quoted from Professor Yun Li of E&EE of Glasgow following information sent to him about my work:
"Thank you for sending me such an interesting article (SPECIAL REPORT). I have forwarded the following information to some 100 colleagues. You may get queries from them. If you send further details regarding the motor, I'd be very interested in receiving them."
The following letter was sent to approximately 100 colleagues of Professor Li in response to the article about my work:
"What an interesting article to read! The following mentioned two Glasgow Alumni. One is "Thompson of Glasgow", i.e., William Thompson (Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907, who entered Glasgow University at age of 10). The other is James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879).
"The article described that an electric motor provides an energy as high as the nuclear energy. Do you believe it? You may not believe, probably correctly, that Maxwell's conclusion that electricity, magnetism and light were part of the same phenomenon is true for static (not steady-state) magnetism. Have magnetic mono-poles been found? We know that permanent magnet comes from the aligned gyroscopic self-spin of iron atoms. Owing to the absence of monopoles, the PM can magnetize (almost without losing its own energy) many steel iron pieces (since the flux can always close its loop on its own without the help of further external energy). On contrast, electricity cannot do static charges like this. So I believe in this article, for the energy the motor generates perhaps comes from the coil or PM losing a couple of their spinning atoms.
"The underlying engineering point that this article tries to make is that atoms of a copper wire are aligned by the input voltage and thus the voltage, not the current, should be the driving force of a motor. Thus the motor needs zero current at steady-state. I remember in Wen Soong's PhD thesis, he also mentioned that in an optimal operation the back e.m.f. would be as high as the input voltage at steady-state, which means zero current and power consumption.
Happy reading,
[Signed]
Dr. Yun Li"
Professor, Electrical Engineering, Glasgow
*A return letter was sent to Professor Li, thanking him for his sincere efforts on behalf of this important technology. Professor Li responded:
"You are welcome. That was at least what I as an academic engineer should and could do, as I believe new inventions should not be dismissed before people understand them.
Thanks again,
Professor Yun Li, Glasgow"
FACT:
I now have constructed a prototype of my new energy Motor/Generator such that with a load of a 42-inch fan blade, would cause the voltage within a battery pack consisting of 6-volt dry cell batteries to increase. That has been verified by oscilloscope readings measured properly across the battery pack.
FACT:
All conventional teachings state that the battery voltage should decrease with such a load being placed upon a conventional motor.
In light of the courage and scholarly honesty of Professor Li of Glasgow, I thank Professor Yun Li for his overseas support.
[Signed]
Joseph Westley Newman
Additional Note:
Conventional motors are designed with small coils and operate on HIGH CURRENT, low voltage.
Joseph Newman's Motor/Generators have generally been designed with the optimal purpose of "achieving the LEAST amount of current inputted to have the GREATEST amount of atom alignment in the conductor material (which causes the GREATEST magnetic field)."
It is Joseph Newman's position that because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of electromagnetism, all conventional motors have been designed with built-in inefficiencies.
"I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a PHYSICAL existence in that intermediate space."
--- MICHAEL FARADAY
________________________________
COMMENTARY REGARDING EINSTEIN'S EQUATION OF E = mc^2
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
Most physicists are unaware that Einstein's famous equation was originally written by Einstein as EL = mc^2.
Since all things happen for a reason, it is interesting to speculate on why Einstein originally used that nomenclature.
With respect to the importance and implication of that ORIGINAL description of Einstein's famous equation, I am suggesting that the use of such nomenclature demonstrated Einstein intellectual linkage to the work of James Clerk Maxwell and Michael Faraday --- both of whom preceded Einstein and for whom Einstein had great respect.
When one begins to understand the work of Joseph Newman, one realizes that something very important regarding the fundamental nature of ELectricity and ELectromagnetism has been overlooked in the past 100 years.
The article which described the nature of the original EL equation was published in 1996 in The New York Times under the by-line of Robin Pogrebin and it was entitled, "Einstein Paper Shows Science Can Be Artwork" --- subhead: "It's expected to fetch $6 million."
The Einstein manuscript was scheduled to be auctioned by Sotheby's in 1996.
To quote from The NY Times article:
"The manuscript in which Albert Einstein elaborated on his special theory of relativity is both momentous as one of the central scientific tenets of the modern age, and captivating as a window into how the gears turned in one of the greatest minds in history."
"The 72-page untitled manuscript was written in 1912, seven years after the 'special' theory was first published. the manuscript's further insights were widely disseminated, but the paper itself was not published; and except for a fleeting moment when the document was put up for auction in 1987, it has never been available to scholars or the public.
"Today, at Sotheby's the manuscript is to be auctioned once more. It is expected to bring $6 million, more than what a classic example of Monet's Water Lilies sold for last fall.
"Its value lies as much in its form as in its substance. In addition to offering a detailed review of Einstein's ground-breaking thesis on the relationship between mass and energy, E (equals) mc (squared), the document is also thought to be one of the few remaining Einstein rough drafts, rich with extensive revisions in the scientist's graceful handwriting.
"And in perhaps the manuscript's most striking example of Einstein's scientific gymnastics, he takes the equation EL (equals) mc (squared) and crosses out the "L," thus rendering the historic special theory of relativity -- energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light -- right before the reader's eyes."
I specifically contacted Sotheby's [telephone number: 1-212-606-7385, Book & Manuscript Department] and spoke with Ms. Jean Griffin-Borho. She informed me that the manuscript by Albert Einstein from 1912 was put up for auction at Sotheby's on March 16, 1996 and was designated LOT 1. It was expected to realize a sale of $4-6 million, but since the minimum amount acceptable to the seller was not realized, the book was not auctioned on that date. It was subsequently sold privately and is now on view at the Museum of the Book in Israel. She added that the manuscript was later published in facsimile, but she did not know the publisher. She also showed in her records that it was successfully auctioned earlier in 1987 for $1 million.
________________________________
THE MAGNETIC CURRENT AND SINGLE MAGNETIC CHARGES
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
THE RESEARCH OF DR. FELIX EHRENHAFT
BACKGROUND:
Regarding lectures concerning Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft's experiments with Photophoresis:
There exists microphotographs of a Photophoresis phenomena for which there is no general explanation. The microphotographs were most interesting in their depiction of the activity of submicroscopic particles suspended in liquids and/or gases.
What is most unusual about the activity of these small particles is the following:
During the course of the experiment, the motion of the particles traced out a "spiral" path. However, upon magnification of a given section of a given spiral, one saw a "spiral" path within the path of the larger spiral. When a section of that second order magnitude spiral path was magnified, one saw an even smaller "spiral" path comprising that second order magnitude spiral path..... and when the third order magnitude spiral path was magnified, an even smaller spiral path was detected.
Continuing "spirals with spirals" paths were detected down to the limits of the magnification technology available to Dr. Ehrenhaft.
Are these "spirals within spirals" are related to the hypothetical motion* of the gyroscopic particle throughout the "shells of force" comprising magnetic fields, as pictured on pages 10/11 of the book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman? [*spiraling helix and/or 3-dimensional toroid?]
Also curious is the fact that the winding shapes of some of these spirals in the microphotographs reminds one of the shapes described by Nikola Tesla with respect to Plate XLVIII in which Tesla wrote:
"One of the streamers is wonderfully interesting on account of the curiously twisted and curved appearance. It is hard to conceive how a discharge can pass through the air in this way when there exists a strong tendency to make it take the shortest route."
In viewing these microphotographs by Dr. Ehrenhaft, one has the distinct impression that something phenomenal was occurring, but no definitive explanation for the observations is known at this time.
____________________________________
The following is a paper (one of many) written by Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft:
*
THE MAGNETIC CURRENT
[Published in SCIENCE, Volume 94, No. 2436]
Not only electric current but also magnetic currents flow through the universe.
I reached this conclusion by consecutive and persistent observation of single submicroscopic particles suspended in gases.(^1) Using this method in my small condenser, I can measure forces of an order of magnitude down to 10^-10 dynes. Therefore, my measurement of forces is more sensitive by the factor of 10^4 than any direct measurements of forces made so far. I was able to find new facts because methods of the highest possible sensitivity were used.
These observations can be summed up in two sentences:
(1) PARTICLES OF MATTER, IRRADIATED BY A CONCENTRATED BEAM OF LIGHT, MOVE IN A HOMOGENEOUS ELECTRIC AS WELL AS MAGNETIC FIELD IN OR AGAINST THE LINES OF FORCE.
(Electro-photophoresis, magneto-photophoresis). I have therefore concluded that these particles are charged under the impact of light. There exist not only electric, but also magnetic charges.
(2) PARTICLES OF THE SAME KIND AND SIZE MOVE SIMULTANEOUSLY TOWARD AND AGAINST THE PROPAGATION OF THE LIGHT.
I called the movement away from the light, lightpositive, and that toward the light, lightnegative longitudinal photophoresis.(^2) I have therefore concluded that the light beam has potential differences along its propagation which cause the particles on which charges are induced to move in or against the direction of propagation. To the well-known oscillating fields in the beam of light have to be added these stationary electric and magnetic fields.
Before such fundamental conclusions can be drawn, one must first see if there is no other explanation possible in accord with existing theories. Working for decades on the experiments and their interpretation, I was forced to believe that only such an electromagnetic interpretation can be in accordance with all observable facts.
Heat or mechanical effects --- so-called radiometer forces (Crookes) --- cannot account for these phenomena for the following reason: There is a photophoretic force in liquids which is of the same order of magnitude as in gases, although no radiometer forces exist in liquids. Silver or copper particles in gases which are reflecting strongly exhibit a tremendous lightnegative movement, though they ought to be most heated on the side toward the light, and one would expect a movement away from the light. It seems impossible to explain the reversibility of the particles with corresponding reversals of the field. The energy of the fields alone is responsible for the orientation of the particles and is a quadratic function of the potentials. One therefore should not expect a change of direction in the motion of uncharged particles if the field is reversed.
Were the movement due to heating effects, one could not explain why the particles move across and along the inner part of the beam instead of going entirely out of it. It would also seem strange that the movement of nickel particles under the influence of the geomagnetic field, as
it was observed in my Institute in Vienna, Austria, could be compensated by a superposed magnetic field of about 0.4 gauss.
Furthermore, the movement of the particles always follows the lines of force, no matter from which direction the light may come. This would be impossible if the movement were due to heating effects. That some particles start to move suddenly from rest, that the photophoretic movement suddenly disappears and sometimes increases or decreases gradually, and many other observations cannot be explained by mechanical or heat effects.
When I came to the conclusion that there are single magnetic poles (magnetic charges), it was therefore not necessary to ask if this agreed with existing theories, but rather whether there are any experimental facts that contradict it. It can be stated here that so far there are no experimental facts which contradict this conclusion of the existence of single magnetic poles. A study of the literature made with Leo Banet showed the following situation:
It has been the predominating opinion up to the present time that a real quantity of positive or negative electricity can be enclosed within an arbitrarily chosen geometric surface. But no matter how the surface is chosen, it will always enclose the same amount of south and north magnetism. In other words, there are true quantities of electricity of either sign, but no true magnetic ones. This statement has been made quite clearly by James Clerk Maxwell in his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism." Maxwell tried to prove that there was no such thing as
true magnetism. May I remind you here that in principio it is impossible to prove from experiments that something is non-existent. Furthermore, the two experiments which Maxwell quotes are not conclusive:
The first one states that a broken magnet gives two entire magnets with equal poles. If a non-magnetic piece of iron is broken, it can be observed that the fragments become magnetized in various ways on the broken ends. The effect is the same when a non-electrically charged glass or sulfur rod is broken, and shows at the ends various kinds of electric charges. This phenomenon is easily explained, since each breaking creates constriction. Each constriction, however, creates electricity and magnetism. The breaking experiment therefore, does not prove that true magnetism does not exist, as Maxwell stated.
The second experiment, which probably originated with the ancient Chinese and is quoted by P. Peregrinus (anno 1269), indicates that a magnet floating upon water directs itself, but does not move. From this has been concluded that the amount of north and south magnetism is
equal in each magnet. It is easy to perceive that the mobility of such a big floating magnet is much too small to show slight differences of charge. The particles on which my observations were made have a mobility a million times greater than that of the floating magnet of
Peregrinus. Such particles irradiated with light move in a homogeneous magnetic field in the lines of force. Thus my sensitive experiment gives evidence of the existence of true magnetism. In other words, the Peregrini-Maxwell experiment turns out to be positive in my small condenser, when light is used.
My interpretation not only explains all observations in a rather simple manner, but also makes a number of new conclusions possible. One of these is that light magnetizes matter. Leo Banet and I succeeded in magnetizing small pieces of iron by means of irradiation with ultraviolet rays. Lilly Rona has expressed the idea that, concluding from these experiments, it should be possible to extract electricity from the beam of light originating from these stationary components. I believe that she is right, and that it could be done without the use of the photoelectric effect, that means with deteriorating and decomposing matter itself.
Under the influence of the light, matter coagulates more readily because of the induced poles (charges). Sometimes the light separates amorphous and crystalline particles, and sometimes it makes crystals grow toward it (heliotropism of crystals).
Light causes irregularities in Brownian movement and therefore also in diffusion because of photophoresis.
Light causes ponderomotive forces to act upon matter apart from the effects of the light pressure. These ponderomotive forces are produced by the stationary components and induced charges. The latter have attracting or repelling effects.
I determined the magnitude of the charge of the magnetic ion and found it to be of the same order of magnitude as the electric one.
A new phenomenon which I called the trembling effect found a simple explanation, the frequent change of the magnetic charge occurring predominantly in weak magnetic fields in the beam of light.
Leo Banet has drawn important conclusions in regard to the effects on the sun and the earth that will be described in another paper.
Now I shall say a few words about the MAGNETIC CURRENT.
We have shown the existence of unipolar magnetic charges, which flow in a homogeneous magnetic field in or against the direction of the lines of force. This can be observed directly by means of a microscope. Therefore we have to deal with magnetic currents in a physical and technical sense. Around a magnetic current there exists an electric field. Furthermore, a magnetic current produces heat in a medium conducting magnetism.
I have attempted to show that a beam of light causes or induces not only heat and electricity, but magnetism at the same time.
--- Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, New York, N.Y.
(^1) F. Ehrenhaft, Annalen der Physik, 56: 81, 1918; Philo. Mag.,11: 141,1931; Annales de Physique, (Paris) 13: 151, 1940; Phys. Rev., 57: 562 and 659, 1940; Jour. Franklin Inst., 230, 381, 1940; Nature, 147: 25, January 4, 1941; F. Ehrenhaft and L. Banet, Nature, 147: 297, March 8, 1941; F. Ehrenhaft, Philosophy of Science, 8, No. 3, 1941, "The Microcoulomb Experiment" (charges smaller than the electronic charge), see p. 36; F. Ehrenhaft and Leo Banet, Philosophy of Science, 8, No. 3, 1941. The older references about photophoresis are given in Annales de Physique, 13: 151, 1940.
(2^) I have constructed the apparatus on which the above-mentioned phenomena could be seen at C. Zeiss, Inc., New York. Descriptions of the apparatus and of the experiments are given in Annales de Physique, 13: 151,1940.
FURTHER FACTS CONCERNING THE MAGNETIC CURRENT
Published in the Journal of the American Physical Society
The hypothesis of the electric current was founded chiefly upon three facts: The existence of electric ions, the decomposition of water (electrolysis), the circulation of the single magnetic pole around the constant electric current. Now those three facts have been observed in magnetism as well: the existence of magnetic ions, the decomposition of water through the magnet (magnetolysis), the circulation of a single electrostatic charge around the constant magnetic current.
In the microscope one observes that different gas bubbles as well as solid particles move in circles around the axis of the magnet simultaneously in opposite directions. Each of them reverses its direction of motion with the reversal of the magnetic field. The bodies carry positive or negative electrostatic charges. The existing laws of electrodynamics (Biot-Savart, H.A. Lorentz) cannot explain the new facts because the electrostatic charges in question are resting ones, etc. Just as the line integral of the magnetic force defines the intensity of the electric current (Ch. Oersted, A. M. Ampere), the line integral of the electric force defines the intensity of the magnetic current. Electricity and magnetism represent an indivisible union, reaching far above the union established by Faraday, Maxwell, and Hertz.
The electrodynamic equations must be extended to include the term of magnetic current. These theses will be illustrated by microphotographs of the experiments.*
*The experiments could be seen at C. Zeiss, Inc., New York City.
--- Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, New York, N.Y.
*
See also:
Physical Review, Vol. 65, Nos. 9 and 10, May 1 and 15, 1944, page 287 for letter entitled, "The Decomposition of Water by the So-Called Permanent Magnet and the Measurement of the Intensity of the Magnetic Current" by Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft.
See also:
"Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science" --- Ten Lectures delivered at the University of Vienna during the summer semester of 1947 by Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, U.S. Visiting Professor [compiled with the assistance of Professor Ehrenhaft, and Dr. Schedling, by J. Ferber and P.K. Feyerabend].
See also:
Lectures delivered in 1949 at the European Forum Alpbach by Felix Ehrenhaft, Karl Popper, Rosenfeld, M.H.L. Pryce, Max Hartmann, Duncan Sandys, Von Hayek, and Hans Thirring.
The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman
E-mail:
josephnewman@earthlink.net