>(Michael Olson asks whether Newman's electical model of his energy machine
>is correct. Gary)
>
>Gary Vesperman
>vman@skylink.net
>
>
>Hi Gary,
>I've been reading quite a few posts about Newman on Keeley net, Vortex,
>and the free energy mailings. The whole thing has so many people giving
>their ideas and theories and on top of the whole thing newmans own input
>that it is very convoluted. It would be nice for everyone to come clean
>and start using some honor.
>Is Newmans electrical model correct? Or just an assumption of his
>behalf? When I was younger (about 15 years ago)I thought an ideal way to
>make a motor was to place a permanent rotor in the center of a magnetic
>field. It seemed obvious as to why, and its benefits are twofold. First
>no electrical power is being used to create the permanent magnets field,
>it already exists.Secondly by putting it in the center of the
>electrically created field, is to put it in the region most dense, or
>the region with the greatest magnetic flux.I understand Newmans motors
>are built the same way.Now although I am very creative and inventive, I
>am not stating I am the greatest scientist who ever lived.
>What really gets me is the new testing done in germany and france,
>verifying Newmans motor ( at least according to Newman)
>If anything these guys have not verified Newman but Tesla.They state
>quite emphatically that the reason it works like it does is because of
>the pulsating current and the white spark.This has all been recorded and
>experimented on in depth over 100 years ago. Tesla also stated he
>discovered an energy source (never before seen) experimenting with a
>very large coil and his disruptive discharge coil. I think its time for
>real information on this whole affair to come forward.
>
>Take Care,
>Michael Olson
Dear Michael,
I would say that Joseph Newman's theoretical explanation for his
invention's operation is based in part upon Einstein's work rather than
that of Tesla's. This is not to say that Newman does not respect Tesla's
accomplishments. It is just that on the point regarding our ability to
harness the energy within the atom, Einstein and Tesla had strong
differences. On this particular (and important point) it turns out that
Einstein was right. In one sense, Newman's work represents the integration
of the work of Joseph Black, Michael Faraday, and Einstein --- combined
with his mechanical insights.
Newman constructed his first prototype YEARS AFTER he first developed his
Theory of the Gyroscopic Massergy. He also would maintain that the source
of the energy produced by his machine is NOT the "spark" -- which is a
MANIFESTATION of the energies being released via the electromagnetic
conversion of mass to energy [or, more precisely the mechanical
_transference_ of gyroscopic massergies from one domain to another] which
occur in the conductor coil.
To claim that manifestations of such "sparking" are _themselves_ the source
of the energies, it roughly analogous to claiming that the "spark" at the
spark plug of an internal combustion engine is the source of the output
energies involved. Obviously the gasoline is the source of such energies,
as is the conductor coil employed in the Newman Motor/Generator. Does
Joseph Newman deny the possiblity of an "aether"? No, in fact he has
stated that the entire universe is, in effect, a
mechanically-interconnected "ocean" of gyroscopic massergies.
I will separately forward the discussions from "A NEW PARADIGM, PARTS I AND
II" which discusses the origin and forumlation of Joseph Newman's concepts
(based upon observations/experiments) that led to his Theory of the
Gyroscopic Massergy.
Sincerely,
Evan Soule'