I read your anectdote. I don't remember a lot of terminology on the spot: that's why we have reference books. The most that testimony did was establish that Duggan wasn't an expert in a mythical device, which is no surprise. None of us is, or can make that claim without telling a lie. No one is an expert in perpetual motion machines. They don't exist, so expertise in a nonexistant item cannot exist either.

You still, third time here, have not explained why Newman hasn't pursued the route of getting a volunteer to hook his machine to their house. That would be proof enough, pulling them off the grid. This is the route followed by many alternative home energy system providers. Why is he the exception? Please reply to this specifically without for a third time pulling up Duggan and that one-sided brief testimony.

Considering the discussion regarding the term "perpetual motion" and especially its relation to thermodynamics, I thought I would provide a short segment from Newman's writings:


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


"I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a PHYSICAL existence in that intermediate space." --- MICHAEL FARADAY


Gary

It really sucks that one person has the knowledge to improve the quality of life for so many people and won't share the fruit. Guess this gives a new meaning to "Knowledge is power." [-X

I'm surprised that with the potential world economy shaking technology that he has been advertising for 3 decades that TPTB or heck even Oil Barons of any nationality have allowed him to live.

__________________
Calvin: Sometimes when I'm talking, my words can't keep up with my thoughts. I wonder why we think faster than we speak.
Hobbes: Probably so we can think twice.

~Calvin & Hobbes~

<snip>

*Sigh*

So, for a third time I am ignored in my questioning. No answer, no rebuttal, no reply, just more effluvium. No explanation for his failure to go to proof of concept, the next step in most inventions. No answer to why he has eschewed the route taken by almost all other alternative energy purveyors. Nothing.

Have your podium while I wade back to my post of watching from a distance; there is no discussion here; only spew.

GM wrote:
"I read your anectdote. I don't remember a lot of terminology on the spot: that's why we have reference books. The most that testimony did was establish that Duggan wasn't an expert in a mythical device, which is no surprise. None of us is, or can make that claim without telling a lie. No one is an expert in perpetual motion machines. They don't exist, so expertise in a nonexistant item cannot exist either."

Duggan specifically claimed that Newman's technology was an attempt at "perpetual motion". As a patent examiner, Duggan's claim carries legal implications. If such an examiner attempts to make such a claim, then the legal presumption is that he can technically substantiate that claim. In order to make such a claim, Duggan would (presumably) need to have an understanding of what constitutes an attempt at "perpetual motion". However, Duggan had demonstrated that he lacked even the fundamental understanding of electrical theory to be capable of defining what was (or what was not) at attempt at a "perpetual motion" device.

GM wrote:
"You still, third time here, have not explained why Newman hasn't pursued the route of getting a volunteer to hook his machine to their house. That would be proof enough, pulling them off the grid. This is the route followed by many alternative home energy system providers. Why is he the exception? Please reply to this specifically without for a third time pulling up Duggan and that one-sided brief testimony."

Presumably, Newman would need an output greater than 4,000 watts to provide power to a standard home. 10kW comes to mind as being more realistic.

However, if one insists that hooking up his device to a house is the ONLY way it can be properly tested, then I would say such insistance is ridiculous. There is nothing magic about a "house".

Newman has mechanically coupled his present energy machine to the shaft of a conventional Grainger PTO generator. That generator, in turn, is producing useful electrical output upon which loads are placed.

The final challenge is to measure: 1) the electrical input and 2) the mechanical/electrical output.

The input to the system has been c. 400 watts and the output has been c. 4,000 watts (not including the back-emf spikes).

Using all their strength, for instance, two men can barely turn by hand the 1200-lb rotary shaft of the energy machine when no electrical input is applied. Yet, 400 watts input is capable of turning that 1200-lb shaft at 350+rpms and, despite pulley losses, the shaft of the Grainger generator will turn at over 800rpms providing electrical output sufficient to power lights, TVs, and home appliance fans. And, simultaneously as the system operates, it produces tremendous back-emf spikes.

Gary

AZ wrote:
"It really sucks that one person has the knowledge to improve the quality of life for so many people and won't share the fruit. Guess this gives a new meaning to "Knowledge is power."

What really sucks is that one person has the knowledge to improve the quality of life for so many people, is willing to share the fruit, but others are afraid to touch it because it might upset their paradigmatic applecart.

AZ wrote:
"I'm surprised that with the potential world economy shaking technology that he has been advertising for 3 decades that TPTB or heck even Oil Barons of any nationality have allowed him to live."

No need to kill someone and risk making them a martyr when you can simply deny them their basic rights to patent protection for the fruits of their labor.

Gary

Just a couple of random thoughts....

if this motor works as advertised, but there are problems with the output simply being re-channelled as input into the same device, then why not just set up a series of them?

400 watts goes into machine 1, which produces an output of 4000 watts. This output is then split with 400 watts is directed into machine 2, while the balance is referred to a grid. Likewise, the output from machine 2 is split to the grid and machine 3 and so on ad infinitum. Eventually, you could have the entire energy output of the entire cosmos at your disposal from the input of a single battery....

Secondly, if Newman had so much trouble with the US patent system & courts, why didn't he try to develop it overseas? There's a whole big world out there and I am sure many countries would not be so 'blinkered' - in fact, I am sure the opportunity to trump the US in the energy stakes would be hugely appealing to a number of nations. If the machine worked, he would have a queue of world leaders beating a path to his door, cash in hand.

Surely it couldn't be that the whole idea is just a load of baloney? (Why am I thinking of the quote, "They laughed at Copernicus, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown".) :wink:

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

AGN wrote:
"if this motor works as advertised, but there are problems with the output simply being re-channelled as input into the same device, then why not just set up a series of them?"

If there one thing I've noticed, it's that if one has 50 people one can come up with 50 different ways to configure the technology. Newman has used his available resources to hand-build a system that proves the technology. And I understand that he remains focused on producing systems that can be machine-built, operate at far higher rpm tolerances, and provide energy as individual home systems.

AGN wrote:
"Secondly, if Newman had so much trouble with the US patent system & courts, why didn't he try to develop it overseas?"

Newman does have a patent in Spain, but not in Germany, France, or England. I understand that at one point he was in contact with a Spanish company that was interested in producing the technology. A production agreement was reached in principle with the company, but the company's legal advisors said that since there was no patent protection in France or Germany, that a General Electric of France could simply purchase a finished unit produced by the Spanish company, thereby taking advantage of the R&D costs expended by the Spanish company to bring the unit to production, and proceed to market a GE-product in France, Germany, etc. The Spanish company was also concerned that a French corporation could even import the GE-product into Spain and the only recourse of the Spanish company would be to sue GE and engage in a lengthy legal battle. Conclusion: the Spanish company decided not to pursue production until more extensive patent protection could be assured since its pockets "were not as deep as those of GE".

Gary

A simple thought experiment.

Assume that the Newman motor can only be run off a battery pack and not the output of a generator. (If it could be run straight off the rectified DC output of a generator, the self-running demonstration would be trivial.) Assume also that the mechanical output of the motor can drive loads significantly in excess of the electrical power consumed by the motor.

Connect the output of the motor to a generator driving a battery charger, charging a battery pack identical to the one driving the motor. The charging pack should be fully charged well before the driving pack becomes discharged. When the pack driving the motor becomes significantly discharged, switch the packs so that the pack previously charging is now powering the motor, and the pack previously driving the motor is now charging. The pack switching could be done manually, but it should also be feasable to arrange a setup using relays and a voltage trip to do the pack switch automatically. The setup should run until some part of the mechanism breaks - motor wears out, batteries won't take a charge anymore - which should take months or years, long enough to convince any skeptic of Newman's claims.

That's a crude, but effective way of getting around the problem of closing the loop. In theory it should be possible to design some solid-state power feed and replace the batteries with capacitor banks, but it would take a lot of experimenting with the motor to figure out just how to do that.

I'm really suprised that in all these years Newman has never arranged this type of demonstration. If I found I'd discovered a overunity motor, setting up a closed loop (no matter how clunky and crude) if for no other reason than to make sure I wasn't fooling myself.

OK Gary, no more beating around the bush.

1) Does the machine produce more power than is put in?
2) If so, why isn't one attached to every house in the world?

Short answers are all that's required. No screeds about the greed of oil companies, the evil of physicists, etc. Give me references to the published papers that document the methodology of the tests, the full data on all the runs, the statistical and systematic errors. No, I'm not going to pay 150 for Newman's book. I want peer reviewed, independent investigations. If you can't produce these, then we have nothing to discuss.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

Better yet, here's another question for you Gary. Do you have a Newman machine connected to your house? If not, why not? Even if it's not in production you should be able to get a prototype.

Of course I can already predict the answer. The EVIL OIL COMPANIES AND PHSYICISTS WON'T LET IT GO INTO PRODUCTION. Sigh. The brain of the conspiracist.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

I find this thnig very strange indeed.

Either the machine does not work and therefore useless or it has been very badly marketed.

The has been enough mention and coverage of the device not to worry about having a full patent. Just slap patent pending on the side.

There are many, many worldwide organisations that would hapyly fund this device if it worked It could be used to run water purification plants in parts of the world that do not have clean water. It could be adapted as a power source for transport.

All you have to do demostrate that it works. A simple closed loop experiment would dismiss the skeptics and give it international coverage.

This if it worked would have the power to help all mankind. And the inventor is worried about losing his royaltys in France?

If you have put your own money into this device I strongly advise you to check it out and ask to see where all the money has gone. As an investor this is your right. Not sure what the situation is in the States but here in the U.K any shareholder is allowed by rights to inspect the companies books any time.

__________________
http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats...630/prj:6/.png

I imagine that we'll hear more from gary about how it's been proven to work, ("scientists" say so") but we'll never see a demonstration...and as long as Mr. Newman can collect money for something that doesn't work, why would he demonstrate it? I wish I had that "lack of ethics" that would allow me to do something like that, because it sounds like a pretty sweet deal.

"They didn't test my machine the right way."
"It's a conspiracy by the gummint/Big Oil/the scientific establishment."
"God wants me to share this with you."
"Those [engineers/NIST scientists/physicists/patent examiners/other critics] are too stupid too understand my work."
"Thermodynamics is wrong." (Then why the fervent insistance it doesn't violate thermodynamic laws?)
"Free energy for all is right around the corner."

Lather, rinse, and repeat for four decades.

My prediction is that this will continue until Mr. Newman passes on. Unless a believer with his energy and charisma steps forward, his "free energy" will become just another footnote in the history of pseudoscience.

I'll cheerfully eat my words if he ever comes up with a machine that works as he claims in the cold light of day. But that will never happen, and no amount of lengthy posts of court transcripts or laughable "physics" lessons will change that.

For the record, I think that Newman actually believes, more or less, that he's on to something - I don't think he believes he's fooling people, or if he does, he thinks it's for the greater good. Just my opinion.

Newman tries to deflect the obvious closed-loop test by claiming it is difficult to make a closed loop system with his device. However, by claiming such an outrageous gain in energy, he has undercut his own claims—at those efficiency levels it is ridiculously simple to design a system that captures the output energy and provides it as input energy. Bottom line, if you can detect the energy with scopes and meters as Newman claims, you can also close the loop. No hand-waving about “massive back-spikes” required.

Now this is amusing. If the device really did what Newman claims, any company would be happy to buy it from him directly, making him a very rich man with no fuss or worry. Of course, he’d have to prove it works…

Moreover, the situation described here does not exist anymore; the European Union handles patents for all member nations. However, the EU does not issue patents for perpetual motion devices (and is better at enforcing it than the US patent office these days), so it is a moot point.

Quote directly from www.josephnewman.com (which is an interesting example of writing the same sentence 1000 ways and making no more sense the 1000th time than the 1st):
Well, there we have it folks. It does not violate thermodynamics or common sense. :roll:

So, for this device to do what Newman claims, it must have an internal means of generating energy (duh). Where is this energy coming from? The obvious possibility is that the machine is an oversized capacitor or inductor, and Newman is simply not measuring the total power over time, but is merely measuring the instantaneous power output. Unfortunately Newman isn’t giving us enough details of his tests to say that conclusively. This explanation leaves open the possibility that Newman really is just deluded. Likewise, he could simply be making a measurement or setup error in his test—the lack of open, independent observation again makes it hard to rule this out. The third possibility is an additional power supply, be it batteries or induction from an out-of-sight power source (high voltage lines, etc). This would be outright fraud, however, and I’m sure Newman is above such things. (There is a fourth possibility, that the test results are completely fabricated, but I find that unlikely given the longevity of this mess; to delude others for so long, Newman would have to have something to demonstrate (though I may be putting too much faith into people’s reasoning abilities))

Of course, Newman claims (quite vaguely) that the device does not generate internal energy, it merely converts it. This is his response to questions about thermodynamics—though this is even more ridiculous than if he had claimed it was a generator. Energy conversion is always less than 100% efficient. Even if you don’t believe in the laws of thermodynamics, common sense would tell you that you could never convert energy more than 100% efficiently. If I were suspicious of Mr. Newman, my guess would be he is using this argument in combination with his oscilloscope measurements to delude non-engineers into thinking a simple increase in current or voltage is a sign of a gain in energy (if so, transformer manufacturers would be a lot richer). I think Newman is probably above such a simple deception, however.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.