This is fake right?

http://www.josephnewman.com/

saw a program on the Discovery Channel about his invention. No validity to it, right?

just answered my own question- crackpot

I'd say more of a pyramid scammer than a crackpot; he's been peddling this thing for so long now--"Get ready for the big demo next <insert arbitrary month>"-- that there is absolutely no way he is merely a deluded crackpot. You can get some rather lengthy discussion by googling, and randi.org has had plenty of commentary.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

The 11,400% Efficiency screams crackpot. You can only ever have 100% effeciency in a perfect isentropic world. And at best 99.999% in the REAL world, everything has a certain measurable amount entropy.

__________________
...what's so wrong with a little overkill?

'God awoke me at 4:00am this morning and told me how
to capture every bit of the massive back-spike
and simultaneously charge the battery pack.'

I just hate it when that happens, especially on weekends!
:wink:

__________________
N6MAA10816
Faber '62 ΔTX
Are you a Bright?

The bottom line is somewhere near the bottom of the page, namely:

The 8th Edition of The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman may be ordered by sending a check or money order for $150.00 to:

Sounds a bit pricey for paper to hang up in the little boy's/girl's room.

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

This guy is the poster child of Robert Park's book Voodoo Science. I recommend reading it for the full story. Basically all Newman's done is make a high voltage (about 2000 D-cell batteries connected in series), low current motor that really isn't all that efficient. He's been trying to market it for years. Of course one should have doubts about the motor's efficacy given that, as Park points out, Newman's house is still connected to the local power lines.

__________________
"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

The invention is a complete fake.

BTW, I might as well warn you not to trust anything on the Discovery Channel. It used to be good, but over the years it has gotten pretty crappy...

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

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

If the device produces more energy output than it takes to run, why has Newman never performed the simple demonstration of connecting the input to the output (with appropriate regulation, of course) and producing a machine which runs itself forever?

It's amazing that he's always been just a few years away from mass marketing his technology (or, for that matter, producing a convincing demonstration of his claims) ... for decades.

The following is interesting reading to consider:

http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/biss.htm

Sure, I've seen the seriously outdated website you've mentioned --- and I'm not impressed.

I've read Newman's book and I am impressed. I'm also impressed with the reports of those scientists and engineers who HAVE seen and tested the technology. Newman has described why you cannot simply "feed the output back into the input" since: 1) the system's commutator has to be very carefully timed and 2) Newman's biggest challenge has been to capture the back-spike while preventing it from over-charging the batteries.

Ample evidence exists that the system produces greater external energy output than external energy input. Newman is now using 400 watts input to power his newest energy machine which is mechanically coupled to a Grainger PTO conventional generator -- which according to Grainger Corp. requires over 3000 watts input just to achieve the required rpms to provide useful electrical output.

Newman then loads that PTO generator with another 1,000+ watts from TVs, lights, and fans.

Bottom line: 400 watts input and over 4,000 watts output.

Issue him his patent and let's get on with it.

Gary

As a professional electrical engineer, I see several very easy ways to get around this limitation. I'd be happy to design you a device capable of getting around this problem. Provided that it would lead to a demonstration of a self-running machine, that is.

For a good rundown on Joe Newman read Voodoo Science by Robert Park.

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Terrific. Now we're making progress.

Since you're a "professional electrical engineer" your explanations of "several very easy ways to get around this limitation" is most welcome.

However, I would like to offer the suggestion that you actually see the actual operating parameters of the newest energy machine (for instance) before you provide your helpful explanations. But, that's obviously up to you.

I understand that other "professional electrical engineers" who "knew" they had viable "solutions" found that such solutions were actually non-solutions when confronted with the system's dynamics.

Gary

I've read Park's book. It seems as though Park is aspiring to be the Simon Newcomb of our Age.

I also found of interest the following post on AMAZON.COM regarding Park's book:

"COMMISSION AND OMISSION IN THE ROBERT PARK'S BOOK:

"Robert Park decries media bias favorable to Joseph Newman, yet Park clearly demonstrates HIS bias against Joseph Newman. I find Robert Park guilty of commission and omission in his book. As an example of commission, he is factually incorrect when he claims that Joseph Newman never finished high school. In fact, Joseph Newman completed his Junior year of college. Moreover, if failing to finish high school and becoming self-educated in science insinuates an inability to become a scientist, then Michael Faraday and Thomas Edison were not scientists.

"Park commits commission and omission when he states that Joseph Newman "rented the Superdome in New Orleans for a week, where thousands paid to watch him demonstrate his energy machine." In fact, Joseph Newman did not rent the Superdome. He was invited by two individuals in New Orleans who themselves rented the Superdome, and Joseph Newman spoke at their invitation. Park also fails to mention that Newman had requested the event be free and open to the public, but that Superdome management insisted in charging at least $1.00 per person. Joseph Newman refused to accept any admission monies from the more than 9,000 people who attended the event. Those monies were paid to and retained by the management of the Louisiana Superdome.

"Park claims that Joseph Newman's technology is in conflict with the First Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Joseph Newman originally began his work in the 1960s specifically because he did not believe in "perpetual motion." The label "perpetual motion" was attached to his work by a patent examiner Donovan Duggan, who no longer works for the patent office, and whose "Knowledge of electrical theory may have been inadequate for his responsibilities," according to a Federal District Court in Texas. [See Lindsey v. United States, Civ. Action Nos. TX-79-60-CA, TX-81-39-CA]. Park fails to mention that fact.

"Specifically, Joseph Newman has stated that his innovation produces "greater EXTERNAL energy output than EXTERNAL energy input." Another way of stating it: the external input energy PLUS the internal energy produced by Joseph Newman's technical process is EQUAL to the output energy. That process is totally in keeping with natural law.

"Park also fails to mention that more than 30 scientists and engineers have signed Affidavits attesting to the validity of Joseph Newman's work and that it is not in any way related to "perpetual motion." Most recently, a distinguished Professor of Mathematics at Arizona State University [Dr. A. Swimmer, Ph.D.] has endorsed Joseph Newman's work as providing, for the first time, a mechanical model for the unification of the fields.

"The National Bureau of Standards test that Park mentions in his book has long been discredited, since -- among other deficiencies with respect to that faulty test -- those who conducted the test admitted to grounding the device even though their original schematic contained NO ground. Once again, Park fails to mention that fact in his book. (The A&E Network featured a special broadcast that documented such incompetence on the part of NBS personnel.)

"The original NBS test protocol schematic --- that was supplied by the NBS --- showed that the energy machine should NOT be grounded during testing. So why did the NBS later ground ALL tests conducted on the device? Why did they not have the curiosity to at least conduct ONE test without grounding the device?

"Park wrote a perversion of the truth when he said that Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson [of Microsoft lawsuit fame] engaged in "citing the laws of thermodynamics" with respect to Joseph Newman's technology. It was precisely because Jackson publicly admitted that he was technically incompetent to evaluate Joseph Newman's energy machine -- with respect to the laws of thermodynamics or on any other technical basis -- that Jackson ordered the appointment of a highly-qualified expert or Special Master with "superb credentials" (according to Jackson) to evaluate the energy machine.

"Special Master William E. Schuyler, Jr., (a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office and a technical expert in the field of electrical engineering), specifically wrote in his Report: "Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office and this Court is overwhelming that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external input energy: There is no contradictory factual evidence."

"According to a reviewer of Robert Park's book, Park states that it was disclosed in a Senate Hearing in Washington, D.C. that the Special Master was once a patent attorney for Joseph Newman, and thus the Special Master was engaged in a conflict of interest. That statement is yet another example of demonstrated bias and total ignorance of the facts. In fact, the Special Master was NEVER a patent attorney for Joseph Newman. Moreover, the Special Master testified under oath that he had NEVER met Joseph Newman.

"Actually, the above-mentioned reviewer is only compounding the distortion of facts initiated by Robert Park. In his book Park specifically claims that it was disclosed at a Senate Hearing that Joseph Newman once hired the services of an attorney that worked for the same law firm as William Schuyler, Jr. Park then concludes in his book that the Special Master only arrived at his endorsement of Joseph Newman's work as a result of a "conflict of interest."

"But in his book Park fails to disclose that William Schuyler, Jr. was nominated as Special Master by the Patent Office --- NOT by Joseph Newman. And more importantly, when Schuyler was nominated as Special Master, Joseph Newman went before the court and explicitly told Judge Jackson about his (Newman's) prior connection years earlier with another attorney who had also worked at the same firm employing William Schuyler, Jr.. Judge Jackson examined the facts and determined that there was NO "conflict of interest" and that William Schuyler, Jr. could proceed as the Special Master to the Court. Robert Park fails to mention that fact in his book.

"Knowing of Park's association with the American Physical Society (APS) -- many of whose members are on the receiving end of financially-lucrative federal grants and/or private investments for their proposed projects -- one can only speculate if his demonstrated bias could be also be the result of a conflict of interest on the part of Park. In fact, any proposed project connected with conventional energy research/production could be seriously jeopardized by a revolutionary technology that would totally replace our reliance on such conventional sources of energy.

"On January 13, 1920, The New York Times wrote that Robert Goddard, the pioneer of American rocketry, "lacked 'the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools,' and that space travel was impossible since a rocket could not move so much as an inch." In a similar vein, Robert Park's biased comments in his book are factually misleading and thus misrepresent the original work of Joseph Newman with respect to his new understanding of electromagnetism."

Gary

On his website, he says that he's invested 39 years of dedicated effort...

That's got to be some kind of record...Joseph Newman is the king of scam.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

No, Joseph Newman is not a "scam" --- and those responsible individuals who have seen, tested, and verified the technology underscore that fact.

Special Master William E. Schuyler, Jr. has been one of many experts who have endorsed the validity of Joseph Newman's technology. And, as quoted by Federal Judge Jackson: "Schuyler's technical credentials are superb".

Gary

Schuyler worked for the legal firm that prepared Newman's patent application. Basically, he worked for Newman which is why the Judge Jackson threw him out as a special master and called in someone else. This info came up at Newman's hearing in front of Congress, which is why Congress refused to grant his "energy machine" a patent. Can you say "Conflict of interest?" I knew you could. He may have claimed he never met Newman, but his name appeared on the patent application. I don't care how many Bibles he swore on, but it sounds to me like he perjured himself.

You claim the machine doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics and then go on to state that the machine creates "greater EXTERNAL energy output than EXTERNAL energy input." That sure sounds like it's creating energy out of nothing and therefore has an efficiency over 100% which most certainly is in violation of the laws of thermo. Read up on Carnot's work.

I don't care how many "eminent scientists" have said the work has validity. Frankly, if they've fallen for this quack, they lost any eminence they might have had. In any case, if I cared to I could probably produce a list of 3000 or more physicists who would state the obvious. Newman is not right.

As to the machine. Can you say "inductance" Do you even know what that means? Why did Newman refuse to let any outside organization test the machine and see if more energy came out that went in? Could it be that he knew he'd be exposed? Let NIST or another reputable government lab with no financial interest in the device test it.

Of course, you'll probably dismiss everything I say since I'm part of the conspiracy of physicists. Doesn't matter, I'm not really talking to you. Go ahead and post as long a message as you like, you'll still be "Not even wrong."

Edited once to modify a possibly inflammatory statement

__________________
"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

But with 10x the output as input, he's got lots of energy to waste doing the necessary conversions. If that EE can't do it, I can - I'm a mechanical engineer so I could use that 4000w output to power a steam engine driving a generator. There's enough inertia in a system like that to manually switch the input from his electrical socket to the generator.

But ehh, lets save some effort: with 39 years of development (and he's been claiming for a substantial portion of that time that his model works), he's had ample time to figure out how to make the machine run itself. With that much extra energy, it should be trivially easy. Why is his house still on the grid: indeed, why isn't he selling energy back to the power company (the power company is required to buy it from anyone who can sell it)?

Regarding those testimonials from engineers - if any of them are worth the title "engineer," why hasn't one of them helped him turn his device into something useful?

Bottom line, garnolyan, it takes more than testimonials to convince a scientist/engineer: scientists and engineers require that you show them actual evidence. And given the amount of money his device has generated (in that way, its a success), I'm a little surprised he's not in jail yet. He's not just a hoaxster, he's a fraud.

And it was Newman who sued to get his application reviewed, won, then refused to submit his device for testing, right? I guess people who still give him money just don't do their homework.

Edit: I was wrong, he did eventually get his device tested by the National Bureau of Standards in support of his patent application. Can anyone guess what the result was...?

Eta C wrote:

"Schuyler worked for the legal firm that prepared Newman's patent application. Basically, he worked for Newman which is why the Judge Jackson threw him out as a special master and called in someone else. This info came up at Newman's hearing in front of Congress, which is why Congress refused to grant his "energy machine" a patent. Can you say "Conflict of interest?" I knew you could. He may have claimed he never met Newman, but his name appeared on the patent application. I don't care how many Bibles he swore on, but it sounds to me like he perjured himself."

Actually, you have apparently made some inaccurate statements. I understand that Schuyler was over 100 attorneys in the law firm where one of the other attorneys was one of several patent attorneys for Newman -- but not the law firm that prepared his patent application. Moreover, Judge Jackson did not "threw him (Schuyler) out as a special master and called in someone else." On the contrary. Not only did Newman state UP FRONT to Judge Jackson and in advance of any Special Master proceedings of his (Newman's) indirect connection with Schuyler, but Judge Jackson formally stated that such an indirect association was NOT significant and that Schuyler (the patent office's nominee for Special Master) WOULD be the Special Master. Moreover, Judge Jackson said that Schuyler's technical credentials were "superb".

Another inaccurate statement:

"This info came up at Newman's hearing in front of Congress, which is why Congress refused to grant his "energy machine" a patent."

Congress never "refused to grant his energy machine a patent."

Two additional inaccurate statements you made: 1) "He [Schuyler] may have claimed he never met Newman, but his name appeared on the patent application." and 2) "Schuyler worked for the legal firm that prepared Newman's patent application."

Also, Newman did NOT object to his technology being tested --- but only in accordance with the groundrules established by the Court of Appeals. Those groundrules were later ignored by the NBS (now NIST -- see below).

Schuyler's name does not "appear on the patent application" --- moreover, his law firm had nothing whatsoever to do with the preparation of Newman's patent application.

Eta C wrote:

"You claim the machine doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics and then go on to state that the machine creates "greater EXTERNAL energy output than EXTERNAL energy input." That sure sounds like it's creating energy out of nothing and therefore has an efficiency over 100% which most certainly is in violation of the laws of thermo. Read up on Carnot's work."

The externally applied energy combined with the energy produced inside the motor/GENERATOR is EQUAL to the total output. That does not violate the law of conservation. Moreover, with the Newman energy machine there are TWO types of efficiency: PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY and CONVERSION EFFICIENCY. The latter can never exceed 100%, while the former has considerbly exceeded 100%.

Since the referenced page on Newman's website contains considerable detail regarding Newman's patent battle (and since, judging by some comments made here that information has not been read), I'll provide the information from the site's subpage:

"THE ORIGINS OF THE PATENT BATTLE

BACKGROUND:

1) Joseph Newman originally submitted his Patent Application in 1979 to an examiner (Donovan Duggan) who was later proven in a court of law to be technically incompetent in his own field of electrical engineering, and admitted under oath that he never really READ Newman's original patent Application.

2) That incompetent examiner told Newman that, "I will never be able to grant you a patent NO MATTER WHAT EVIDENCE YOU PRESENT." (So much for having an open mind to new technology.)

3) Newman then invited patent officials to come to his lab and see/test the technology for themselves. They refused.

4) Newman then invited patent officials to come to his lab ** at his expense ** and see/test the technology for themselves. They refused.

5) Newman then offered to bring prototypes to Washington, D.C. at his expense for them to test. They refused his offer.

6) Newman then transported an 800-pound unit on a flatbed truck over 1,000 miles to Washington D.C. (accompanied by Dr. Hastings), hoping that once he was they with the prototype they would agree to test it. They still refused.

7) The proven incompetent PTO examiner (Duggan) told Newman that his invention "smacked of perpetual motion." It was later determined in Federal Court that the examiner in question only briefly scanned his 70+ page Patent Application and admitted not having read it in detail.

8) Newman appealed the decision of the initial examiner to a committee of patent examiners. They told him: "We believe your invention works, but your technical description is inadequate."

9) So Newman appealed THAT decision to a still higher board of patent examiners. They told him: "We believe your technical description is adequate, but your invention doesn't work."

10) Newman repeatedly tried to get them to test one of his prototypes, but patent bureaucrats refused.

11) It was at that point that he went to Federal Court, whereupon a technical expert and Special Master William E. Schuyler, Jr., appointed by a Federal Judge specifically concluded in his Report:

"Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office and this Court IS OVERWHELMING that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external input energy; there is NO contradictory factual evidence."

Important note regarding Special Master William E. Schuyler, Jr.:

It has been claimed by one who has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of the history of this case that "it was disclosed in a Senate Hearing in Washington, D.C. that the Special Master was once a patent attorney for Joseph Newman, and thus the Special Master was engaged in a 'conflict of interest.'"

The above statement is an example of demonstrated bias and a total ignorance of the facts. In fact, the Special Master was NEVER a patent attorney for Joseph Newman. Moreover, the Special Master testified under oath that he had NEVER met Joseph Newman.

Actually, the above incorrect statement relies upon an erroneous conclusion published by a physicist-author in his book. In that book the author specifically claims that it was disclosed at a Senate Hearing that Joseph Newman once hired the services of an attorney that worked for the same law firm as William Schuyler, Jr.. The author then erroneously concludes in his book that the Special Master only arrived at his endorsement of Joseph Newman's work as a result of a "conflict of interest."

But the physicist-author fails to disclose that William Schuyler, Jr. was nominated as Special Master by the Patent Office --- NOT by Joseph Newman. And more importantly, when Schuyler was nominated as Special Master, Joseph Newman went before the court and explicitly told Federal Judge Jackson about his (Newman's) prior connection years earlier with another attorney who had also worked at the same firm employing William Schuyler, Jr..

Judge Jackson examined the facts and determined that there was NO "conflict of interest" and that William Schuyler, Jr. could proceed as the Special Master to the Court.

The above is but one example of misleading statements and erroneous conclusions by the physicist-author who demonstrates that he has no understanding of Joseph Newman's technology.



With such a Report from the Special Master (the Federal Judge's OWN technical expert), Joseph Newman and his attorney were certain that justice would finally be served and the patent would issue to Joseph Newman.

Not so.

According the Rules of Federal Court Procedures, IF a Federal Judge dismisses the findings of his OWN court-appointed expert, the Judge is required by law to clearly state his reasons why he finds the findings of his own expert to be "clearly erroneous".

Well, that Judge (Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson) declared the findings of his OWN expert to be "clearly erroneous".

However to this very day we are STILL waiting for the judge's reasons!

The judge then turned around and charged Joseph Newman over $11,000 for the Report of the Special Master which the judge then proceeded to ignore.



THE NBS TEST: A BUREAUCRATIC FIASCO

Following the dismissal of the findings of the court-appointed Special Master --- (who was a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office [with "impeccable credentials" according to Federal District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson & who was nominated as Special Master by the Patent Office] who said that the "evidence was overwhelming" that the Newman motor/generator worked), --- Federal Judge Jackson (who appointed the Special Master) ignored his own Special Master's findings and imposed upon Joseph Newman a fee of $11,000.00 for the Special Master's Report. (Judge Jackson [of Microsoft case fame] was the federal judge hearing the case brought by Joseph Newman against the Patent Office.)

Judge Jackson then remanded the case BACK to the Patent Office --- Joseph Newman's judicial adversary --- for further action. It was then recommended by the Patent Office that the NBS formally test Joseph Newman's invention. Under the original NBS test conditions, Judge Jackson:

1) refused to order the NBS to prepare a testing program in advance of delivery of the energy machine to the NBS,

2) refused to permit Joseph Newman the right to have an expert present for testing,

3) stated that the test results would be issued in secret to Judge Jackson who said in the court record that "it (the results) will be held under seal until we determine that it ought to be exhibited to the public.", and

4) gave the NBS an unlimited period of testing.



ACTION BY THE U.S. COURT OF APPEAL IN SUPPORT OF JOSEPH NEWMAN:

On behalf of Joseph Newman, attorney John Flannery filed a WRIT OF MANDAEMUS with the U.S. Court of Appeals, seeking to reverse Judge Jackson's unfair testing conditions in favor of those open testing procedures originally proposed by Joseph Newman.

On January 13, 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a court order upholding Joseph Newman's WRIT OF MANDAEMUS against Judge Jackson. The higher court sternly rebuked Jackson for ordering "highly irregular" testing procedures that denied Joseph Newman the "fundamental fairness" guaranteed him by the Federal Rules. Jackson had originally ordered Joseph Newman to surrender his energy machine of the National Bureau of Standards so that Office might dismantle or even destroy it. Instead, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected ALL of Jackson's conditions for testing and supported Joseph Newman's position.

[As it turned out, this did no good, because Jackson/NBS/Patent Office did exactly what they wanted to do anyway.]

The higher Court criticized Judge Jackson for authorizing the destruction of Joseph Newman's invention and giving "no reason for barring petitioner from observing all the tests on his device, or from knowing in advance what tests are to be conducted (by the NBS)," The higher Court concluded: "Such procedures are highly irregular, and taint the evidentiary value of the test results."

SPECIFICALLY, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED THAT:

1) the NBS tests be prepared in advance of the energy machine's delivery to the NBS,

2) Joseph Newman be present for testing as well as have an expert on his behalf,

3) the energy machine could not be dismantled or destroyed without Joseph Newman's consent,

4) the NBS would have 30 days AND NO MORE to test the energy machine, and

5) the results would be issued openly and publicly to all parties.



REFUSAL BY THE NBS TO FOLLOW THE ORDERS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS:

However, after Joseph Newman delivered his energy machine prototype to the NBS on January 24, 1986, the following happened:

During the authorized and original 30-day test period (from January 24, 1986 to February 24, 1986) the NBS did not conduct a SINGLE test! The Patent Office and the NBS asked the Court of Appeals to change its mind and let the NBS dismantle and destroy the energy machine.

On February 12, 1986, for the second time, the Court of Appeals said "NO: The NBS's representative, Dr. Hebner, has not attested to his inability to test the device, or that its structure is concealed, or that a test program cannot be reasonably conducted to ascertain whether the device performs as disclosed in the patent application and "on reconsideration, we affirm the prior order."

The NBS still refused the test the energy machine and to run a single test unless they were permitted to destroy the invention. They told the Court of Appeals BEFORE they ran the test that Joseph Newman's invention was a hoax! (Hardly the comment of an "unbiased" testing agency.)

The NBS then offered dozens of excuses --- each of which Joseph Newman answered --- in an effort to run the (30 day) clock while they waited for permission to destroy the energy machine, e.g., the NBS insisted on communicating by mail, rather than by telephone. In another instance, the NBS required Joseph Newman to travel 1,000 miles from Mississippi to Maryland to move a single wire a single inch. Apparently the wire had come loose while the machine was in the possession of the NBS. Joseph Newman flew to Maryland and reconnected the loose wire, but the NBS still refused to test the energy machine or even tell Joseph Newman when or how they would test it.



GROUNDING THE DEVICE:

During the 1,000 mile trip to connect the wire by moving it one inch, an event occurred WHICH WOULD HAVE GREAT SIGNIFICANCE LATER ON.

The approximately 135-lb energy machine delivered to the NBS would --- if not restricted --- "pump" back-emf into the battery pack and thus proceed to overcharge and damage the batteries by shorting them out internally. Normally, Joseph Newman placed 4-foot fluorescent bulbs in the circuit to act as a "release valve" to reduce this back-emf into the batteries. Since it was inconvenient to carry 4-foot bulbs to the NBS offices in Maryland the day Joseph Newman traveled there from Mississippi to reconnect in several minutes the loose wire, Joseph Newman simply grounded the energy machine to shunt away the back-emf and prevent it from damaging the batteries.

What is most ironic is that NBS officials saw Joseph Newman GROUND the energy machine and they ASSUMED that he ALWAYS grounded it --- even for testing!

The NBS officials were not interested in mastering Joseph Newman's technical process and understanding the principles involved.

Instead --- like "monkey see, monkey do" --- they later grounded the energy machine during ALL of their secret testing of the later confiscated energy machine (see below). This action would have important ramifications with respect to the validity of the actual NBS test.

[It should be added that Joseph Newman has NO intention of "educating the NBS personnel." They were supposed to be the experts; Joseph Newman's attitude was, "Let's see what the 'experts' do."]

Moreover, before the NBS ran any tests, Joseph Newman's attorney sent the NBS a NON-GROUNDED schematic of the circuit used to test the energy machine.

And the reader should be reminded that over five years earlier Joseph Newman transported an 800-pound unit from Mississippi to Maryland and asked the NBS to test the device. [That was done shortly after he had filed his original Patent Application.] The NBS refused to even look at the unit!

In addition, since Joseph Newman has over 30 Affidavits from physicists, electrical engineers and electrical technicians attesting to validity of the machine while the Patent Office had NOT ONE affidavit to the contrary, Joseph Newman's position was that the Patent Office's refusal to grant him a patent was groundless.

ADDITIONAL REMINDER: early in the application process Joseph Newman was told by a patent office examiner "Mr. Newman, we believe that your invention works, but your technical description is inadequate." Joseph Newman appealed this decision and was informed by the next higher examiner: "Mr. Newman, we believe that your technical description is adequate, but your invention does not work."

It was at that point that Joseph Newman initiated his lawsuit in the Federal Court against the Patent Office.



THE CONFISCATION OF THE ENERGY MACHINE BY THE NBS
AND VIOLATION OF THE ORDERS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS:

Well, the "experts" at the National Bureau of Standards did nothing during the court-ordered-and-authorized-30-day-test-period that expired on February 23, 1986.

Thus, on Monday, 10:30AM on February 24, 1986, Joseph Newman's attorney, John Flannery, appeared at the Maryland headquarters of the National Bureau of Standards where the energy machine was being held. Armed guards met John Flannery and refused to permit him to secure and return Joseph Newman's property. Mr. Flannery was informed that he had until 12 noon of that day to appear at an emergency meeting in Federal Judge Jackson's courtroom. Should Flannery fail to appear, Jackson would immediately issue a warrant for his arrest.

Attorney John Flannery did appear in the courtroom of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson by 12 noon. He was promptly informed by Judge Jackson that the energy machine of Joseph Newman was NO LONGER THE PROPERTY OF HIS COURT and that it was now under the COMPLETE CONTROL of the National Bureau of Standards and that the invention would NOT be returned to Joseph Newman --- even after the agreed-upon 30-day NBS test period had expired. Joseph Newman's attorney John Flannery then asked Judge Jackson to remove himself as the Judge in the case because of demonstrated personal bias and prejudice. Jackson denied that he was prejudiced and refused to tell Joseph Newman what authority permitted the Judge to violate the Court of Appeals Order (see above).

As Joseph Newman said, "Since when in this country can a court take away a person's property, seize it without even a hearing and in violation of a standing order from an appellate court? Something is very wrong here."

On March 3, 1986, as a result of the Court's questionable procedures, Joseph Newman made an Affidavit in support of a motion to disqualify Judge Jackson for his demonstrated bias and prejudice. On March 7, 1986, the District Court held a status conference to consider giving the NBS more time to test the energy machine in violation of the original 30-day time limit authorized by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Immediately before the status conference began, Jackson's law clerk handed Joseph Newman's attorney John Flannery an order denying Joseph Newman's motion to disqualify Judge Jackson as insufficient, but without any discussion as to why the pleadings were factually insufficient. Judge Jackson then held attorney John Flannery in contempt for merely mentioning the pending motion to disqualify him. Jackson then gave the PTO/NBS until June 26, 1986 to test the energy machine --- 150 DAYS AFTER THE ENERGY MACHINE WAS ORIGINALLY DELIVERED.

Joseph Newman could not financially afford to be present with counsel and expert for the 12-hour workdays the NBS "claimed" they worked each day on testing the energy machine. It would have cost Joseph Newman over $60,000 to attend the tests and is one of the reasons that the U.S. Court of Appeals authorized the original 30-day test period limit. Former PTO Commissioner Mossinghoff misappropriated $100,000 to run the unprecedented tests which were in violation of the original order of the U.S. Court of Appeals. And according to the Patent Office, the tests cost approximately $75,000.00.

Although Joseph Newman has the "right" to attend the later, unauthorized tests on his now-confiscated energy machine, it was a "right" that he could not financially afford to exercise. Joseph Newman is not a large corporation. He is an inventor who lives by what he invents. Worse, the Patent Office said that they expect Joseph Newman to reimburse the Patent Office for ALL NBS tests!

IT IS, IN FACT, JOSEPH NEWMAN'S POSITION THAT ALL PTO/NBS/JUDGE JACKSON ACTIONS TAKEN AFTER THE FEBRUARY 24, 1986 CONFISCATION WITHOUT-DUE-PROCESS OF HIS PROPERTY ARE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

As a result of that position and of the expense in attending 90 additional days of testing, Joseph Newman did NOT IN ANY WAY wish to appear to endorse the NBS proceedings by being present for their so-called testing. Also, it should be noted that BEFORE the NBS ran any tests, Joseph Newman's attorney, John Flannery, forwarded to the NBS a schematic of the circuit used to test the energy machine. It plainly showed NOT to connect the energy machine to ground.



*****************************************


MOST IMPORTANT: Prior to conducting their "testing," NBS personnel issued their OWN test/wiring schematic protocol: IN THEIR OWN TEST PROTOCOL DIAGRAM, THE ENERGY MACHINE WAS NOT GROUNDED!


*****************************************



HOWEVER: IN THE ACTUAL TESTS THEY FINALLY CONDUCTED, THEY GROUNDED THE ENERGY MACHINE FOR EVERY SINGLE TEST!

[One would think that they would have had the curiosity to conduct at least ONE test without grounding the device.]

Prior to the expected release of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) test (conducted by three individuals) results on June 26, 1986, Joseph Newman issued a national press release --- sent to over 1,500 members of the press --- which predicted that the NBS test results would be negative and that a "mockery of justice is expected to continue in the chambers of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson."

On June 26, 1986, the NBS unsurprisingly said that Joseph Newman's device did not work. Moreover, Jackson set a trial date for December 8, 1986. (Up to this point, Jackson had held a series of expensive hearings to determine if a trial was warranted. Jackson refused to relieve himself from the case due to bias, and Jackson refused to give Joseph Newman a trial by jury. In fact, a Patent Office attorney once told Joseph Newman's attorney, "We would hate to see this case tried by a jury.")

It is ironic that as a consequence of the Patent's Office disregard of the Court of Appeals requirement that the NBS notify Joseph Newman of what tests they intended to run, Joseph Newman did not know how the NBS "tested" his machine until AFTER the NBS issued its report.

Consequently, Joseph Newman discovered that the NBS DID NOT ACTUALLY TEST HIS INVENTION AT ALL.



PROVEN EXAMPLES OF PREVIOUS NBS BIAS AGAINST JOSEPH NEWMAN'S TECHNOLOGY:

In one of his press releases, Joseph Newman writes: "In his April 9, 1984 Statutory Declaration (nearly two years earlier) before a Federal Court, page 10, NBS expert Jacob Rabinow claimed the following: 'It is my opinion (that) since Mr. Newman does not use a tightly-coupled iron structure around his armature, that the efficiency of his motor should be very low when used purely as a motor.'"

Following the release of the June 26, 1986 NBS Report (which has been challenged by Dr. Roger Hastings and other scientific experts), NBS spokesman Matt Heyman boastfully stated to the newsmedia that: 'the energy machine invention was so inefficient that if one wanted to operate an ELECTRIC FAN, then don't use the Newman Invention hooked to a battery, but rather use a simple conducting wire from a battery to a conventional motor.' The above two statements by NBS representatives Rabinow and Heyman are ESPECIALLY IRONIC because on July 30, 1986 --- in conjunction with his appearance before the Senate Subcommittee Hearing --- Joseph Newman demonstrated his latest, portable energy machine prototype which operated as a MOTOR (without Rabinow's 'tightly-coupled iron structure around the armature') to power a home-appliance ELECTRIC FAN at an efficiency rate that proved the Patent Office and the NBS dead wrong. Again."



SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES IN THE NBS TEST:

Dr. Roger Hastings, Senior Physicist with a major research corporation concluded that the Patent Office's trial expert, the National Bureau of Standards --- the preeminent national testing laboratory --- failed to measure the energy in Joseph Newman's energy machine although it had the energy machine for 150 days. Dr. Hastings said that the NBS simply didn't know what they were doing. "The Court of Appeals gave the Patent Office 30 days to test the energy machine and required the Patent Office to tell us in advance what tests they were going to run during the 30-day test period authorized by the U.S. Court of Appeals," said John Flannery, Newman's counsel. "But their expert, the NBS, kept the device 150 days and never told us what tests they were going to run during this 30-day period," he concluded.

In his evaluation, Dr. Hastings wrote that the NBS "results reflect a total lack of communication between the NBS and Newman or any other expert on Newman's technology." "If they told us what they were doing, we might have been able to avoid this waste of time and resources of Joseph Newman and the taxpayers as well," said Flannery.

Dr. Hastings said in his evaluation that the NBS allowed energy to escape from Newman Energy Machine and then, instead of measuring the output energy from the machine, they measured the power consumed by resistors "placed in parallel with the Newman motor, and called this power the output." Dr. Hastings concluded, "The primary r.f. (radio frequency) power was shunted to ground." As for measuring output, Hastings said the NBS's test was "equivalent to stating that the output of an electric motor plugged into a wall socket is given by the power used by a light bulb in the next room which is on a parallel circuit."

"The NBS test results came as no surprise to me," said Joseph Newman, "I never expected that we would get a fair shake from the Patent Office's expert. What I am surprised about is how badly they did the job."

If the Patent Office and the NBS had complied with the Court of Appeals Order, Joseph Newman would have had a second opportunity to reinforce what was already obvious from the schematic diagram forwarded to the NBS --- that they should NOT connect Joseph Newman's energy machine to ground. Joseph Newman could have told the NBS that they were in error. But since the NBS and the Patent Office failed to give Joseph Newman any notice --- contrary to the U.S. Court of Appeals Order --- of the tests they intended to run during the 30-day test period authorized by the Court of Appeals, the Patent Office and the NBS wasted Joseph Newman's resources and, by their estimates, $75,000.00 of federal taxpayer's monies misappropriated by former Patent Office Commissioner Mossinghoff.

The Republican Study Committee of Congress wrote in its May 9, 1986 REPORT: "Joseph Newman has received arbitrary and unfair treatment at the hands of the Patent Office and Judge Jackson. Congress should act because the Executive and Judicial branches have failed this American citizen. In light of Congress' oversight responsibilities and the fact that it is empowered by the Constitution to issue patents, the fact that the preponderance of evidence is in Joseph Newman's favor, and the fact that this invention is potentially beneficial to hundreds of millions of people, it is totally in order for Congress to grant Newman a patent and to allow the American marketplace to decide the value of this invention."


SUMMATION OF ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS:

GROUND: The NBS shunted energy from the Newman invention to ground without measuring and lost this energy.

RESISTORS: The NBS measured energy spent in resistors but not in or by Newman's invention.

Dr. Hastings: "In the NBS testing, the Newman motor was connected directly to ground, thus eliminating the excess r.f. power from the system."

Dr. Hastings: "The NBS test is equivalent to stating that the output of an electric motor plugged into a wall socket is given by the power used by a light bulb in the next room which is on a parallel circuit."



Principal points concerning deficiencies of the NBS test conducted by three individuals:

1) The input voltage into the energy machine was restricted. This is exactly opposite to the Technical Process taught by Joseph Newman who teaches that the input voltage should be maximized and the input current should be minimized. The three individuals at the NBS did the opposite.

2) As Dr. Roger Hastings wrote in his statement: "In the NBS testing, the Newman motor was connected directly to ground." --- as a result, the excess output power was shunted away.

3) The NBS test did not measure the output of Newman's motor --- instead, he says, the tests measured the output of parallel resistors. As a result, Dr. Hastings says, "Their measurements are therefore irrelevant to the actual functioning of the Newman device."

4) No attempt was made by the NBS to measure the heat generated in the motor windings.

5) No attempt was made by the NBS to measure the mechanical output of the Newman motor --- only the electrical output.


FROM THE ORIGINAL COURT TRANSCRIPTS ....

The following are excerpts from the Deposition of U.S. Patent Examiner Donovan Duggan. Duggan is the original examiner who attached the label of "perpetual motion" to Joseph Newman's technology; Duggan is also the Examiner who told Joseph Newman that:

"I don't believe you will ever be issued a patent no matter what evidence you present."

[Note: On September 12, 1983, a Federal District Court in Texas found that Donovan F. Duggan's "knowledge of electrical theory may have been inadequate for his responsibilities." (See Lindsey vs. the United States, Civ. Action Nos. TX-79-60-CA. TX-81-39-CA.) This Texas case involved the same Examiner Duggan and another inventor, Ralph Lindsey. The Federal District Court in Texas also found that Examiner Duggan rejected the patent application of Ralph Lindsey because he (Duggan) "misunderstood" the nature of the device and therefore "carelessly and incorrectly perceived" it to be a "perpetual motion machine." The Court found that Duggan summarily rejected the Lindsey application with a "cryptic comment" failing to provide "such clear and full disclosure of reasons for rejection as required by the regulations." The Court found that once Duggan was "convinced" it was a "perpetual motion machine," he "seemed unable to consider the design on its own merits." The Texas Court concluded that, as a result of Duggan's negligence, Lindsey failed to receive a patent that was later issued instead to a Mr. Davis for a similar device.]

I have posted these Depositional excerpts in Duggan's own words, because this is the human being who saw fit to pass judgment upon Joseph Newman technology. This is the individual who, in general, had been passing judgment on new technology that came before him. Had Newman the good fortune to have his technology evaluated by a more intellectually honest individual --- or at least a more intelligent one --- Newman may well have had his patent issued to him as early as 1980. By refusing Joseph Newman his pioneering patent, an injustice has been perpetrated which continues up to the present.

THE EXCERPTS FROM THE DEPOSITION:



Q: = ATTORNEY JOHN P. FLANNERY, II (attorney for energy machine inventor Joseph Newman)
A: = PATENT EXAMINER DONOVAN F. DUGGAN



Q: Mr. Duggan, would you please state your background, your education, and employment in the Patent Office, for the record?

A: Education, you want from college, is that it?

Q: Yes.

A: I graduated from the Naval Academy in 1957; served a limited time in the Marine Corps, was honorably discharged; started to work at the Army Map Service, I believe in 1963. In 1964 I transferred to the Patent and Trademark Office, after having enrolled at Georgetown University Law Center at night. I worked during the days, went to law school at night. I ultimately graduated from the University of Baltimore Law School, I believe it was 1969. I've been at the Patent Office ever since 1964.

Q: What is your current position and what are your current responsibilities?

A: I'm a primary examiner with a so-called expert rating. I examine applications for patents.

Q: Do you have full signatory authority?

A: Yes.

Q: When you say you have expert rating, what are you expert at?

A: That's, so to speak, a man in the job designation that involves a particular class of art. In this case it would be motor and generator structure.

Q: Have you published anything about perpetual motion machines yourself?

A: No.

Q: Have you ever given any addresses or speeches about the subject?

A: No.

Q: Have you received any formal training or education relating to perpetual motion machines?

A: No.

Q: How did you gain this experience in perpetual motion machines?

A: Like I say, I never considered myself an expert, or I wouldn't term myself an expert in perpetual motion. How that came to be, I'm not quite sure, to be honest with you.

Q: Are you familiar with Maxwell's Field Theory of Magnetism?

A: I don't recall right offhand.

Q: Could you explain what you understand the theory of hysteresis --- electrical hysteresis --- to be?

A: I don't quite understand that question.

Q: Well, you're familiar are you not, that there is an electrical principle known as hysteresis?

A: I've heard of it.

Q: Do you know anything about it?

A: --- with magnetism --- it's associated with magnetism.

Q: All right. Do you know anything about it outside of what you just said, that it's associated with magnetism?

A: I --- I've --- I may know something about it.

Q: Could you define the term?

A: It's sort of a --- no --- I don't think I can, at the moment. Not off hand.

Q: Do you know what relationship, if any, it bears to magnetism?

A: I believe that over a certain cyclical magnetic --- for example cycling something from a magnetic field, it would tend to exhibit hysteresis. For example, iron to some extent can be magnetized by the hysteresis effect. Is that what you have in mind?

Q: Yes sir. Can you explain the theory more completely than that to me?

A: Not at the moment. I'd have to go to a textbook.

____________________________________________
(end of document)

Fortunately, Duggan is no longer with the patent office."

Sorry for the lengthy segment, but considering the inaccurate statements made, it has seemed appropriate.

Gary

He (Duggan) isn't an expert in perpetual motion machines because they don't exist. Neither is anyone else on this planet an expert in a mythical construct: there are really no UFO experts, no bigfoot experts, no psychic or telekinesis experts, no dragon anatomy experts, or anything else of their ilk, because they all refer to mythical, unproven, and speciously reasoned unsupported cojecture. There are experts in the myths themselves:a bigfoot myth expert, and that is about all. No bigfoot has been studied, no UFO captured, no perpetual motion machine hooked up to power even a single house.

If you insist that there still is such a designation, then I immediately lay claim to the title of "Expert in Right Handed Ventriloquist Automobiles." You are free to question me about them, but not to question my expertise.

Russ wrote:
"But with 10x the output as input, he's got lots of energy to waste doing the necessary conversions. If that EE can't do it, I can - I'm a mechanical engineer so I could use that 4000w output to power a steam engine driving a generator. There's enough inertia in a system like that to manually switch the input from his electrical socket to the generator."

As a general suggestion, I would recommend that one provide specific technial recommendations for "improvements" AFTER he/she has seen the technology in operation and thus has firsthand experience with its requirements.

Russ wrote:
"But ehh, lets save some effort: with 39 years of development (and he's been claiming for a substantial portion of that time that his model works), he's had ample time to figure out how to make the machine run itself. With that much extra energy, it should be trivially easy."

No, it is not easy. In fact I understand that it is very difficult given the significant back-emf produced as the system also outputs both electrical and mechanical energy. Many have attempted to "collect" that back-emf and thus obviate the timing problem by attempting many types of commutator designs --- from electronic to even vacuum tube. But the back-emf has fried both types of commutator designs. A mechanical system (so far) appears to remain the most practical.

However, I would say that with all the supposed "expert advice" floating around out there, it should be TRIVIALLY EASY to simply verify by using oscilloscopes/amp/volt meters that the external output exceeds the external input. That is the specific claim that Newman has made from the very beginning.

Russ writes:
"Why is his house still on the grid: indeed, why isn't he selling energy back to the power company (the power company is required to buy it from anyone who can sell it)?"

You assume he owns his house. Frankly, with the hundreds of thousands he has spent in his patent battles, I'd be suprised if he did own his own home. From what I can ascertain, with the limited financial resources available to him, he puts whatever he can into building newer and larger units --- and his latest system is capable of providing 4000 watts output with a 400 watt input.

Russ wrote:
"Regarding those testimonials from engineers - if any of them are worth the title "engineer," why hasn't one of them helped him turn his device into something useful?"

I understand that engineers and scientists have helped him, e.g., the support and endorsement of the Professor of Mathematics at Arizona State University --- Dr. Al Swimmer. Newman is focused on raising the capital to begin production of the technology. I understand that the principal obstacle to securing capital is that investors want to be assured of patent protection --- which he does not have. However, Newman has stated he will continue his battle for a patent for the technology.

Russ wrote:
"He's not just a hoaxster, he's a fraud."

My response:
I challenge you to PROVE that he is a "hoaxster" and a "fraud".

Russ wrote:
"And it was Newman who sued to get his application reviewed, won, then refused to submit his device for testing, right? I guess people who still give him money just don't do their homework."

Newman did not "refuse to submit his device for testing". See my earlier comment, above regarding the NBS fiasco.

Russ wrote:
"Edit: I was wrong, he did eventually get his device tested by the National Bureau of Standards in support of his patent application. Can anyone guess what the result was...?"

The report of the botched NBS "test" is provided above.

Gary

Duggan's ignorance was exceeded only by his stupidity.

Gary

Well gee whiz, that's one heck of a long post about nothing.


Just because Newman doesn't believe it to be a perpetual motion machine doesn't mean he isn't violating the laws of thermodynamics.

The man is a fraud. If you've invested money him then you're gonna be a long time waiting for miracles.

edited to add - And don't bother throwing out challenges for people to prove that he is a fraud. The onus is on him to prove that he can do what he claims to be able to do. End of story. Until he can do that every cent he takes from gullible people is from a fraudulent act.

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Ah. Another ad hominem. Not accusatory of the group, just a logical fallacy: dismissing him on unrelated grounds and one-sided testimony. And I also find it suspect that so many points NEEDED TO BE IN ALL CAPS. Shouting does not help get a point across. There are bold tags and italics tags for emphasis.

It's funny, but plenty of other ideas have had plenty of success finding volunteer households willing to hook their living spaces to solar, wind, hydrothermal, hydrogen fuel-cell, propane, and even 500 lb flywheels buried in the ground on their properties. Why is it so darn difficult for him to simply prove his design? If he's already filed, and it works, and he can prove it through a demonstration of powering one house for a year, he'd have prior art supporting his contention for being the first patent holder.

Why does he let such a simple element stop him when everyone else simply puts "Patent Pending" on their items? There has to be one of the people who believes in him - say you or a friend of yours - who would be willing to do this.

And I also hereby formally lay claim to the aforementioned title.

Out of fairness I feel I should re-post what I added to my earlier post by way of edit.

edited to add - And don't bother throwing out challenges for people to prove that he is a fraud. The onus is on him to prove that he can do what he claims to be able to do. End of story. Until he can do that every cent he takes from gullible people is from a fraudulent act.

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Pauli wrote:
"The man is a fraud. If you've invested money him then you're gonna be a long time waiting for miracles."

edited to add - And don't bother throwing out challenges for people to prove that he is a fraud. The onus is on him to prove that he can do what he claims to be able to do. End of story. Until he can do that every cent he takes from gullible people is from a fraudulent act.

No, Pauli, Joseph Newman is not a fraud. And I will challenge anyone who calls him a fraud to prove it. In fact, if you truly feel so strongly that he is a "fraud" then one would expect you to be willing to report his "fraudulent activities" to every appropriate legal governing authority.

But will you actually do that? I doubt it.

Moreover, Newman has repeatedly proven that his technology works as claimed. However, some would rather simply sit back and claim it is "impossible" or "perpetual motion" or "fraudulent" rather than see and test it for themselves.

However, there have been scientists and engineers who did test the technology for themselves and subsequently signed legal Affidavits attesting to its operability as claimed.

Gary

Duggan's ignorance is a documented fact.

Duggan's stupidity is my opinion (shared by others).

Additionally, a Federal District Court in Texas found that Donovan F. Duggan's "knowledge of electrical theory may have been inadequate for his responsibilities."

That's a significant understatement.

Gary

It's taken to the tack of addressing his "ignorance" of perpetual motion machines; something of which everyone is guilty, including Newman.

So, still no addressing of my other points? That perpetual motion machines still don't exist, so that there is no-one capable of expertise in a mythical construct? That Newman has simple routes to proving that his machines work? That these routes have been exploited by alternative energy scientists for decades, yet are somehow closed to him?

GM wrote:
"It's taken to the tack of addressing his "ignorance" of perpetual motion machines; something of which everyone is guilty, including Newman"

It is you who has introduced the topic of Duggan's "'ignorance' of perpetual motion machines."

Duggan's Deposition indicates that he is ignorant of some fundamental aspects of electrical theory:

Q: Are you familiar with Maxwell's Field Theory of Magnetism?

A: I don't recall right offhand.

Q: Could you explain what you understand the theory of hysteresis --- electrical hysteresis --- to be?

A: I don't quite understand that question.

Q: Well, you're familiar are you not, that there is an electrical principle known as hysteresis?

A: I've heard of it.

Q: Do you know anything about it?

A: --- with magnetism --- it's associated with magnetism.

Q: All right. Do you know anything about it outside of what you just said, that it's associated with magnetism?

A: I --- I've --- I may know something about it.

Q: Could you define the term?

A: It's sort of a --- no --- I don't think I can, at the moment. Not off hand.

Q: Do you know what relationship, if any, it bears to magnetism?

A: I believe that over a certain cyclical magnetic --- for example cycling something from a magnetic field, it would tend to exhibit hysteresis. For example, iron to some extent can be magnetized by the hysteresis effect. Is that what you have in mind?

Q: Yes sir. Can you explain the theory more completely than that to me?

A: Not at the moment. I'd have to go to a textbook.

____________________________________________
(end of document)

Apparently the Federal District Court agreed that Duggan suffered from ignorance of fundamental electrical theory.

IMHO, the only "perpetual motion" is the perpetual stupidity of PTO bureaucrats who perpetually attempt to claim that Newman's technology is an attempt at "perpetual motion".

Gary