The following link is an account of someone who volunteered a lot of time and money to help Newman build a machine:
I got the following review from someone who wishes
to be anonymous:
First working hypothesis -- Newman seems to be
sincere. He has
a web page, with all kinds of tales and position
papers.
He has communicated with UFOs by blinking flashlights
at them. He encourages
people who see UFOs to do their own "scientific"
testing by blinking lights
at them in repeated groups of seven flashes,
indicating our willingness to
communicate and join the universal community
of intelligent races.
He wants to be President of the United States.
A typical plank of his
platform is that he will turn over the Federal
Reserve to the People, which
will instantly eliminated all debt -- his reasoning
for that, apparently, is
that you can't owe money to yourself. One
wonders what the bond holders
will think of that line of thought.
When Newman sued the Patent Office for rejecting
his application, the Patent
Office got the National Bureau of Standards to
run a test on a Newman
machine. They concluded that it was, essentially,
a DC to AC converter,
running at about 70% efficiency. The efficiencies
varied based on the
testing conditions -- which included some insulating
tape that kept burning
up as the machine sparked through it. The efficiencies
varied over a range
of about 15% as the condition of the tape changed.
Given that inverter
technology exists that runs at 90% and better,
they weren't impressed.
Newman claims that the tests were not done in
accordance with his written
and verbal instructions -- including the fact
that the NBS test apparatus
was grounded, and Newman says that his machine
must *not* be grounded to run
at better than 100% efficiency.
So, reading between the lines, and guessing a
lot, what we have here is some
kind of electromechanical device that uses rotating
masses and rotating and
stationary coils and switches to interrupt a
DC current flow through
inductors, thus generating big voltage spikes.
Those spikes feed back to,
and sometimes damage, the batteries, which Evan
Soule triumphantly calls
"overcharging" them. There is a general
consensus in the commentaries that
because of the oddball shapes of the voltage
spikes, the high voltages, and
the high impedances involved, there are multiferous
difficulties in making
accurate measurements, which lead to the erroneous
conclusion that there is
better than 100% efficiency.
I feel vaguely embarrassed writing the statement
"Better than 100%
efficiency." It feels almost exactly the
same as saying, "I occasionally
download pornography from the internet."
It should be noted that one of the things that
Newman objected to in the NBS
tests was their inclusion of a shunt resistor
across the output coil as a
means of measuring the power output. <grin>
Apparently actually measuring
the output power by integrating the current and
voltage through a known
resistance is against the rules.
As for reports that it can run motors for extended
periods of time without
draining batteries -- well, I'd like to see it.
And I'd like to hear what
James Randall thought of it.
I am probably completely wrong in the details,
but that's what this thing
feels like. I am going to see if our library
system has a copy of "The
Energy Machine of Joseph Newman", since I am
damned if I want to pay $75 for
a copy from "Joseph Newman Publishing". Maybe
then I'll feel competent to
comment publicly -- but as I say, I tend to doubt
it; a *lot* of noise has
already been generated about this, and unless
I feel compelled to build and
study a machine for myself, anything I'd say
would just be additional noise.
I must say that I am only idly curious.
Anybody willing to believe this
kind of outlandish claim without testing it for
themselves isn't going to
listen to anybody saying that it is silly.
Eric,
Well my conversation with Evan is finished. From our lengthy
correspondence I have gleaned a few tips when debating Evan:
1) Apparently "massenergies" imply a completely predetermined universe,
free will is dead.
2) Newman holds that quantum mechanics is wrong, they avoid discussing
this at all costs.
3) Diffraction patterns are very problematic for them, since light
is
"particles moving in a wave" any questions about the resultant inverse
diffraction pattern is ignored.
4) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is the Anti-Newman ask about
it
frequently.
Still I think these people
are well meaning but after 15 years, books
that sell for 79.95, exhibitions galore Joe Newman still gets an
electric bill. I asked why and the answer was a Newman machine capable
of powering his house would cost 750,000$. (Well first it was because
the skeptics wouldn't accept it as proof. I said, Screw proof we're
talking about saving dough) Well if the damn thing costs that much,
even
if it worked it is price prohibitive for the foreseeable future.
Any mail that you get from me is freely copyable by you to whatever
list
you so.
I really enjoy answering
these questions and puzzles submitted by
the credulous crowd, and had a blast with Evan.
I should point out that
you were right when you noted that if the
machine really works it would provide interesting new insights into
physics. I added that bit because it is marketed as a device to run
your
toaster instead of "fascinating new physical principal"
The bit about the price
coming down if the device is mass produced
is a good point. Economies of scale dictate this. Still looking over
a
materials list this thing is expensive no matter what (a big
one anyway,
little ones are cheap)
Still Joe doesn't have to
pay himself for labor, and he has built
some big ones, so why not use a few of those to power his house? This
seems
to be the way of things, the most intelligent questions come from a
skeptic.
Thanks for the excellent stuff,
Chris Seibold
Evan is well known for his long responses
- he won't allow any criticism
of Newman to go unchallenged. Here is his
response in blue to
the above:
I add some embedded counter response in green:
I have noted that
the above commentary is unsigned and that you state at
the very beginning
of your post to me that you received a 'review' written
by "someone who wishes
to remain anonymous."
My initial response
is that I have no respect for an "operational coward"
who demonstrates
such cowardice by the fact that they write a series of
comments to which
they are unwilling to publicly sign their name. Since the
writer chooses to
initiate insulting and juvenile remarks, I can understand
why the writer would
wish to remain anonymous. Evan,
I doubt they
really insist on anonymity. The questions
are valid even if the source is shy
If the writer's conclusion
is that Joseph Newman is "a completely sincere
nutcase," I would
expect that Joseph Newman --- considering the cowardly,
anonymous source
of the above comments --- would take such a comment as a
compliment.
Semmelweis was also considered a nutcase, a lunatic --- and
ditto for Goddard.
They had their share of detractors and insult-artists
whose claim to fame
is a well deserved oblivion.
granted, plenty of geniuses have been misunderstood
The above anonymous
writer also demonstrates his ignorance of the facts
surrounding the now-discredited
test performed by the NBS. [For anyone who
would wish to receive
a detailed discussion of their inaccurate testing
protocol, please
write me at: EvanSoule@josephnewman.com]
The NBS
_themselves_ prepared
a wiring schematic IN ADVANCE of any conducted tests
in which there was
NO ground to the unit. Yet, IN EVERY SINGLE TEST
conducted by the
NBS, the unit was grounded. One would think that the NBS
"experts" would have
had the intelligence to follow their own test protocol
or the curiosity
to try at least ONE test without grounding the unit. The
"ground" issue is
only one of several methods by which the NBS performed
incompetent testing.
my sources on the testing shows Newman to have been at fault. Do you claim
to have a device that produces significantly more energy than consumed?
and are you willing to demonstrate it for a well publicized audience?
The anonymous writer then states:
"So,
reading between the lines, and guessing a lot, what we have here is some
kind
of electromechanical device that uses rotating masses and rotating and
stationary
coils and switches to interrupt a DC current flow through
inductors,
thus generating big voltage spikes. Those spikes feed back to,
and
sometimes damage, the batteries, which Evan Soule' triumphantly calls
"overcharging"
them. There is a general consensus in the commentaries that
because
of the oddball shapes of the voltage spikes, the high voltages, and
the
high impedances involved, there are multiferous difficulties in making
accurate
measurements, which lead to the erroneous conclusion that there is
better
than 100% efficiency."
My response:
Judging from the inaccurate
comments made by the above anonymous writer, it
is understandable
why he chooses to indulge in "guessing a lot." Once
again the anonymous
writer demonstrates his ignorance of the facts. It was
company officials
from Ray-O-Vac battery corporation who stated that the
Newman Motor/Generator
"overcharges" the batteries. And I was not aware
that I had "triumphantly"
stated this fact as well. I would postulate that
this subjective,
"triumphant" interpretation of my comment resides only in
the mind of the anonymous
writer. I have a greater degree of respect for
those many scientists
who HAVE both tested and signed their names to legal
Affidavits attesting
to the successful operation of the Newman
Motor/Generator than
for the ignorant comments of an anonymous writer. again,
a open test would seem to be in order here.
The anonymous writer then states:
"I
feel vaguely embarrassed writing the statement 'Better than 100%
efficiency.'
It feels almost exactly the same as saying, 'I occasionally
download
pornography from the internet.'
My response:
Considering the above
writer's lack of understanding of efficiency and how
it relates to Joseph
Newman's technical process, one would be inclined to
believe that the
anonymous writer already spends too much of his time
"downloading pornography
from the internet."
The anonymous writer then states:
"It
should be noted that one of the things that Newman objected to in the NBS
tests
was their inclusion of a shunt resistor across the output coil as a
means
of measuring the power output. <grin> Apparently actually measuring
the
output power by integrating the current and voltage through a known
resistance
is against the rules."
My response:
The above comment
does indeed indicate that the anonymous writer has no
understanding of
the deficiencies in the NBS testing procedures.
As Dr. Roger Hastings
stated, "The NBS failed to measure the output of the
Newman Motor, and
instead measured the output of parallel resistors. This
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."
The anonymous writer then states:
"As
for reports that it can run motors for extended periods of time without
draining
batteries -- well, I'd like to see it."
My response:
I would suggest to
Joseph Newman that he not even waste his time
demonstrating one
of his units to an intellectually-dishonest individual
who hides behind
his anonymity. I find many such lame
excuses to not openly demo FE claims
The anonymous writer states:
"I
am probably completely wrong in the details, but that's what this thing
feels
like. I am going to see if our library system has a copy of "The
Energy
Machine of Joseph Newman", since I am damned if I want to pay $75 for
a
copy from "Joseph Newman Publishing". Maybe then I'll feel competent to
comment
publicly -- but as I say, I tend to doubt it; a *lot* of noise has
already
been generated about this, and unless I feel compelled to build and
study
a machine for myself, anything I'd say would just be additional noise.
"I
must say that I am only idly curious. Anybody willing to believe
this
kind
of outlandish claim without testing it for themselves isn't going to
listen
to anybody saying that it is silly."
My response to the anonymous writer:
You are more than
only "probably" completely wrong in the details about the
technology.
Your comments above are indeed typical of the generated
"noise" which you
describe. I feel that nonsequitor debates
about "the technology" have no end - the only real question is "does
it work?"
In conclusion ---
The following is what
William Schuyler --- former U.S. Commissioner of the
Patent Office (with
"superb technical credentials" according to
representatives of
the Patent Office) and hired as a Special Master by the
Federal Court hearing
Joseph Newman's suit against the Patent Office ---
had to say about
Joseph Newman's "outlandish claims":
"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." I ask for his phone number,
does he still feel this way today?
These words speak for themselves.
Evan Soule'
EvanSoule@josephnewman.com
josephnewman@earthlink.net
_______________________________________
To Eric:
Thank you for having
the integrity to offer me an opportunity to respond to
the "comments" of
the anonymous individual. well
it was from 2 separate people and I
ask you to have the integrity and belief in open
debate to post a link from your web
site to this one - Eric Note: EVAN
WILL NOT ALLOW ANY REFERENCE OF ME ON HIS PAGES - so much
for open mindedness!
Regards,
Evan Soule'
I took
Evan Soule's advice and tried to call Newman directly. I
got
a hold of his wife and she was very nice (one investor told
of
Newman cussing him out over the phone). She agrees the show
was
a disaster but insists the people who made the machine were
incompetent
and that something was lose and dragging and that
Newman
has been working with people to get it right. She said
a few
independent engineers would make measurements (couldn't
put
me in touch with them or the scientists who have looked at
it
in the past). She didn't know if Newman would be willing to
have
me look at it. She says he may do another show in Phoenix
and
have a local radio show involved. I'd certainly be willing to
do
a debate on the air if anyone can get me on (same offer goes
for
Dennis Lee ) Stay tuned, I'll try to directly call Newman next week.
The
following are notes from Mikko:
---------------------------
Hi!
Why
not use a capacitor instead of a battery? With high enough capacitance,
it
would suit newman purposes better than batteries (handling of higher
voltages
etc.).
Have
you ever troubled yourself with thinking about the money he's making
with
the books and trinkets and all that... in my opinion he's just too keen
on
making a few dollars with the phenomena than really giving humanity
anything
for free. He want's to be a hero and saver of mankind, so the
conspiracy
theories just promote his cause (though some of them are probably
true
with all things considered). But inventors have always had certain
mental
disorders :) ...
Great
thing this converter, but as you mentioned, the "indisputable proof"
has
not yet been given. Test should be done by a neutral research center of
some
kind or for example the university of stanford (in which my sister was
working
for 1 month last summer, by the way :)... Then the real scientists
could
get their research on the phenomena started, and some completely
different
discoveries and applications could be made based on the research.
Yours,
-Mikko
--------------
Hello my
name is Michael Jones,
I was
at the phoenix "demonstration" and saw nothing, as did about 200
others.
I
was in shock and disbelief, I was angry at the time, but I was still
shaking
off the faith I had had in Joe Newman I could not yet bring myself
to think
ill of him or his "technology". I realized soon that we had all
just been
taken for the ride of our life. Or Joe just had some really
bad
luck.
As days
past I realized that this matter would not die with me and that I
would
need to confront Joe Newman, So I e-mailed him and got no response but
a general
one from Evan Soule. Apparently I was not the only one with this
Idea because
Evan rebuffed all that criticized Joe Newman and proclaimed
that all
that do usually do so behind his back and this means nothing to Joe
Newman.
I decided
that he was probably right so I called Joe Newman and told him Hi
my name
is Michael Jones. He then asked for my phone number (which I
probably
should not have given him) I gave it to him and then proceeded to
make my
case to him. I told him that I thought it was wrong that he asked us
all to
come to phoenix AZ. Spending hundreds of dollars getting and staying
there
that would have been better spent on our families. To see the
"demonstration".
And that all we got was 2 hrs of the same old talk that we
all have
seen in his writings. (All his suffering, all his dedication to the
human
race and of course the conspiracies that of course we are all suppose
to be
just as mad as he is about. conveniently taking the focus off his own
shortcoming).
He then told me that on Monday ten people had stayed to see
the motor
after he fixed it and that they were thrilled. I said to him that
I did
not buy that. He proceeded to tell me that he would see to it
personally
that I never received his technology. Then he said that he had
dedicated
his life to humanity and "I ain't never done shit". He then
repeated
this expletive phrase several times (by now in a fit of rage)
And said
that he would tell me so to my face. To which I replied "got ya"
meaning
I understand human nature and when you nail someone with the truth
about
themselves they usually resort to personal attacks. In my opinion Joe
Newman
has discovered that the idea of free power is a good hook to get you,
then to
keep you he makes it a religious pursuit of righteousness with him
the suffering
un sacrificed martyr. He now even looks the part, he and Evan
Soule
with their long pony tails. This is as much a cult as it is a scam
Michael Jones
Anyone
blind copied to this can get on the free_energy email list from:
http://www.onelist.com/archives.cgi/free_energy
go back to the Newman page
or to Eric's skeptic page or Free
Energy FAQ