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
'Forensic anthropologist! That's why no gun'
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.

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...?