note: please see  a real discussion of Newmans free energy claims Evan Soule's response to Eric's mention of the Newman Machine

Dear Eric,

I did note the following on your site:

"Joseph Newman in 1984 claimed to have a free energy machine based on alternative physics. Like many perpetual motion inventors, he sued the US patent office (and won!). Many people wrongly measured the true power output of this machine, (they didn't realize you must specially calculate power for non sinusoidal current consumption) Ten years ago, inventor Joseph Newman gave a open week-long demonstration of his technology in the Superdome in New Orleans. Over 9,000 people attended from across the country (including Dennis Lee who reportedly wanted to join his ideas with Newman.)"

If I may I would like to make some corrections:

Joe has never claimed to have a so-called "free energy" machine --- this was a term sometimes applied by other enthusiasts of the "free energy movement." For me, the term "free energy" is both economically and scientifically incorrect. It is economically incorrect because the energy obtain from the system is not economically "free" in any sense: someone has to pay for the parts, the construction, and the knowledge. Scientifically it is not "free" because, like nuclear fission reactors whose uranium rods are degraded over time, so does the integrity of the copper coil in Joseph Newman's system also diminish over time --- so one is not obtaining "something for nothing" -- one is consuming the copper mass just as the fission system consumes the mass of the uranium rods.

In fact, as Joseph Newman states and proves in his original book published in 1984, his system is _totally_ in keeping with the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Also, his patent application with the U.S. patent office is still pending as are many continuation-in-parts patents that have been subsequently filed.

In addition, his invention is _not_ perpetual motion and he has never claimed it was _perpetual motion_. The irony is that over 30 years ago it was because he realized that any form of "perpetual motion" (at least in a macroscopic sense) was impossible that he was led to question certain assumptions -- ESPECIALLY THE IMPLICITNESS OF FLEMING'S RULE --- which resulted in his innovation of the first, explicit mechanical explanation in history for magnetic attraction/repulstion which replaces the implicit assumptions inherent in Fleming's Rule. One specific result was the integration of Fleming's Rule with explicit, mechanical gyroscopic motion.

It was the original stupidity and ignorance of such later discredited patent examiners such as Donovan F. Duggan who attempted to label Joseph Newman's work as "perpetual motion." Duggan has since been discredited both in Federal Court (which cited that 'Duggan's responsiblities exceed his knowledge') and under Deposition. Duggan was incapable of understanding Joseph Newman's technology so he therefore sought to label it as "perpetual motion" which relieved him of the intellectual responsibility to conceptually understand and master the technology presented by the Patent Applicant.

I found it interesting that you state that you are a libertarian. I have been involved with libertarian-type activities since Goldwater's campaign of 1964. I suppose I'm a bit proud of the fact that I was one of the founding members of the original Libertarian Caucus which split from the conservative Young Americans for Freedom at the National YAF Convention in St. Louis in 1969. It was shortly after 1969 that myself and Jim Blanchard formed the National Committee to Legalize Gold. It took us four years to legalize private ownership of gold in the United States.

Best regards,

Evan Soule' Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS email: websites:

A Brief discussion of Newmans claims by Malcolm:

Hi Eric, I don't have a great deal of time, but here is a valid objection to the operation of Newman's machine. His literature states that it produces energy by converting the mass of copper atoms to energy (electrical). Further, the huge mass of the machines is used as an excuse to claim the mass difference is unmeasureable. Be that as it may, no explanation is forthcoming as to how one can extract what is in essence a _continuous_ flow of energy from the machine when particles are supposedly disappearing. We know that the mass defect in a U-235 fission = 200MeV = 1/3 mass of a proton approx. That is _not_ to say that a third of a proton disappears. But the claim is made for Newmans machine that protons (amongst other "particles") do indeed disappear. What then is the nature of this process that allows energy to be extracted while the proton is still present and then suddenly winks out of existence? Understandable if it winks out of existence first but the one has to explain why output is not measured as being non-quantized. I think you can see some contradictions buried in there. I haven't had time to exhaustively read his literature but at least one EE I know (Ed Philips) has grave doubts about the efficacy of what is contained therein. Cheers, Malcolm -------- REPLY, End of original message --------

Back to Eric's Dennis Lee page

  • FAQs
  • The logical Fallacies: Index