About one year ago, Joe Newman approached my company, and conned us into building a prototype of his "Energy-Machine" at a cost of over $31,000. On the night before final testing, Joe Newman stole the motor to prevent the test results from being made public. Had other victims of "Newmanism" had the courage to publish their dealings with Joe Newman, we would have been saved from his scheming. It is my intent to give all the information I can, which will enable others to judge for themselves the validity of Joe Newman's claims for his "Energy Machine".Here are independent comments embedded in Newman's release. Because some of the people did not want their names mentioned, I am withholding the names of all the authors. I will designate them by Alphabetical Letters, and color-code their responses.
THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN
11445 East Via Linda, Suite 2416
Scottsdale, Arizona 85259
(480) 657-3722
josephnewman@earthlink.net
www.josephnewman.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (July 8, 1999)
NEW, SOLAR PANEL TEST OF
JOSEPH NEWMAN'S ENERGY MACHINE TECHNOLOGY ! ! !
A comparison test was conducted between a conventional motor and the Newman Motor: each was connected to a series of solar panels. NO BATTERIES were used in either test !
The manufacturer of a 1/14 H.P. Grainger magnetic motor (geared down to a 170 rpm motor) claims that it is 70-80% efficient. Six (6) solar panels, delivering 4 watts each were connected IN PARALLEL in order to multiply the current capacity of .25 amp. The results:
When operated, this conventional motor turned very slowly, drew 1.7 amp and 2.4 volts. Thus, only 4 watts were produced by the 6 solar panels connected in parallel. Yet there should be at least 24 watts produced by the 6 solar panels. (Joe Newman's Quote).
AA Responds: He is really getting good at this. First, I went to the Grainger online catalog and found they only have a 1/14th hp dc permanent magnet motor listed. It is a Dayton (Grainger Item Number 4Z144) and 12 vdc motor rated at 8.1 amps at maximum load. I don't need to tell you what will happen when you connect a 12 volt D.C. motor to a 2.4 volt D.C. source, it doesn't work very well. However, let's continue. . . .The 1/14 hp (equivalent to 53.3 watts) motor does draw 1.7 amps with no load showing that the photovoltaic system is providing 4 watts of input power, apparently enough to still turn the rotor, but less than a tenth of the power needed to have the motor meet full load. At 4 watts, the motor (given 80% efficiency) can only supply about .15 lb ft of torque. The 2 lb weight on the 3 inch diameter (1.5 inch radius) pulley requires 2 lb x 1.5 inch/12 in = .25 lb ft of torque to move it. So no mystery why the Dayton doesn't work
Newman has tried to be very clever. The current through the windings is dependent on two parameters: one is the voltage supplied, and the other is the resistance of the windings themselves (current = voltage/resistance). Well, the resistance doesn't change much except to get higher due to heating under load, so the current is very dependent on the voltage. The real mystery is why the voltage is only 2.4 vdc and not the (4 watts/.28 amps) 14.2 volts that would be expected. The motor to produce the torque required to move the 2 lb weight with the 150 R.P.M. gearing would only require 1.62 amps at 12 volts. The solar cells in parallel, if rated at 4 watts each, should easily produce 1.62 amps at 14.4 vdc with at most a 10% drop in the voltage at full load. I visited several photovoltaic manufacturers and these numbers are very reasonable. Whatever he did to force the voltage to 2.4 volts is beyond me. Which also shows that he put some effort into making sure the Dayton motor would not work.
BB responds: This is a very common mistake made by folks trying to use any source of power. ANY GENERATOR, whether it is a solar panel or a portable AC generator or a radio transmitter, will deliver it's maximum rated power output ONLY when the load's electrical impedance is the complex conjugate of the source impedance. In other words, a solar panel will deliver it's rated full power output over a small range of load impedances. The motor is obviously not the optimal load for the solar cells and thus the cells won't deliver 24 watts. And, by the way, the 24 watt rating is also for a given value of solar flux density.
CC Responds: The use of solar cells as a power source in a side-by-side comparison test is unfortunate. Solar cells, as power sources go, have a relatively high impedance, and their power output varies greatly with the "environmental factors" that Mr. Newman claims are not an issue. When the cells were connected in parallel and loaded by the Grainger motor, they were being taxed well beyond their rated capabilities in that configuration. The motor, as far as the solar cells were concerned, just looked like a resistive short circuit which they simply didn't have the ability to drive.
If we assume that the cell's open-circuit output voltage is at least 17.3 volts, a quick calculation shows that the internal series resistance of each cell must be at least 53 ohms. Hence, in addition to the .68 watts each cell was delivering to the motor, each cell was dissipating at least another 4.16 watts in internal resistive losses. So, it is seen that the six solar cells were generating 29 watts -- more, apparently, than their rated capacity, which Mr. Newman says in passing is 24 watts. But they were wired in such a way that 84 percent of that energy was being dissipated as heat in the solar cells themselves.
DD Responds: Solar panel rated 4 watts at 0.25 amps = 16 volts each. Short circuit current is rated 0.28 amps. Six solar panels in parallel to Grainger 1/14 hp motor produced 2.4 volts at 1.7 amps is 2.4 volts x 0.28 amps ea. = 0.68 watts each.......too much current for best efficiency.
(Continuing Joe Newman's explanation of his tests.)
Note:
The conventional Grainger magnetic motor had
a 3-inch diameter pulley connected to it and, when a 2-pound load device
was placed over the 3-inch diameter pulley, just the 2-pound load by itself
was sufficient to instantly stop the conventional motor from turning.
These results conclusively prove that conventional motor designs are very detrimental to the efficiency of the solar panels being used.
The same 6 solar panels were then connected IN SERIES to my production motor, and the results of the next test instantly proved that what I teach is correct.
My 400-pound Motor includes a 140-pound rotary which turns at 50rpm when a torque device having a 5 pound load is connected via a 12 inch diameter pulley.
When connected in series, the 6 solar panels produce 104 volts and .15 amps or 15.6 watts.
......RESULTS:
My Motor dramatically increased the efficiency
of the 6 solar panels in comparison to their very low efficiency when connected
to the conventional Grainger 1/14 H. P. magnetic motor.
Note:
[Equation for horsepower: 2 (times) pi
(times weight in foot pounds (times) rpm (divided by) 33,000 (equals)
horsepower; then multiply that quantity (times) 746 to convert to
watts.]
thus:
6,28 x 5 lbs = 31.4 x 50 rpm = 1570 divided by 33,000 = .047 H.P. x 746 = 35.06 watts output on the shaft of my Motor.
(Norm's comments)
Mr. Newman goes on to try to prove how much more efficient his motor is, over the 1/14 H.P. Grainger motor. He also claims 416% efficiency. Well, he really "cooked" the numbers, this time.
First of all, he calls his motor (Quote) "my production motor" (End Quote) [Emphasis mine.]
Mr. Newman came out in early July, and stated that there were NO production motors.
Secondly, he got his formula wrong.
Thirdly, he "forgot" to factor in all the differences between the two motor tests.Now, back to the responses.
AA responds: Well how about his machine? If the modules were connected in series the voltage is 6 x 14.2 = 85.2 vdc. But he claims it was 104 vdc. I realize he is claiming his machine is producing extra energy but this makes no sense when it is showing up on the input and not the output. Of course, by raising the voltage his motor will draw less current for the same power requirements. But he goes further in his deception. He gears his motor down to 50 r.p.m. which will produce 3.6 times the torque as the Dayton motor working at 150 r.p.m.
Next he claims the losses in his motor is 30 watts. Given load of 5 lbs on a 12 inch diameter which he miscalculates (it's 17.90 watts, not 35.02 watts) because he uses the diameter of the pulley, not the radius, and also makes a math mistake as well. Given these numbers, his machine would be 37.4% efficient : (17.90 / (17.90 + 30) x 100%)
But let's look at the input he claims which is 104 vdc x .15 amps = 15.6 watts. This is much closer to 17.90 watts (That is the actual load) than he would lead you to believe. And even at 85.2 vdc x .28 = 23.86 watts, there is more than enough power to supply the required torque, and the efficiency of the motor would only have to be (17.90 / 23.86) x 100% = 75.05%.
BB responds: By connecting the cells in series, the source impedance of the cells was increased by a factor of 36 over the case where the six were connected in parallel. What is proven here, is that more actual power is being delivered to the Newman motor simply because the source and load impedance are more closely matched.
Mr. Newman has simply demonstrated what every EE knows, and that is that every electrical source can be modeled as a voltage source with a series impedance. Maximum Power can only be extracted when the load and source impedance are the same. At which instance the power dissipated in the load and the source are identical.
What Mr. Newman has proven, is that he has a very fundamental lack of knowledge of physics as it relates to electrical theory.
CC Responds: Mr. Newman has left out an extremely important piece of information -- he says that the six solar cells, in series, produce 104 volts at 0.15 amps. But he neglects to tell us what load the cells are driving. That information would let us calculate the all-important internal series resistance of the solar cells.
Any electrically powered device needs to have a power supply that matches the needs of the device. Attach 120 VAC to a 6 volt flashlight bulb, and it will be instantly destroyed. Attach a 6 Volt Lantern Battery to an ordinary 120V lightbulb, and the bulb will just sit there behaving like a short circuit -- but won't glow at all. It appears, from the data available, that trying to drive the Grainger motor with 6 solar cells in parallel is as grave a mismatch as driving a 120VAC lightbulb with a 6 VDC Lantern Battery.
In any event, there is a MINOR problem with the numbers. Mr. Newman describes a 5 pound force and a 12 diameter pulley. If interconnected in the ordinary way, that means that the force is operating at a six inch radius. Thus, the equation is 2 x pi x 5 lbs x 1/2 foot x RPM x 746 / 33,000 WHICH IS 17.75 HORSEPOWER -- NOT 35.06 !
DD Responds: Mr. Newman's formula
is wrong. Correct answer should use "Radius", not diameter to compute.
This would give an answer of 17.75 watts.
This is added by another who felt that people should know about efficiencies.
(I Quote) "It is unfair to test an itty-bitty motor against a huge motor and say the big one is stronger."
"I rewound electric motors for 25 years and feel that qualifies me to add this little knowledge to the situation. LARGE MOTORS ARE MORE EFFICIENT THAN SMALL MOTORS. Large ones can be 92% efficient, while your washing machine motor is more like 50% efficient and a little record player motor may be 15% efficient. There is even a wider range for Transformers. Large ones can be above 99% efficient, but that little thing for your phone may be 10% efficient.
I'm sure that someone there with Newman knew that (I won't accredit him with that much knowledge) and they are trying to make use of it.
Norm Biss
Erie, Pa. special
thanks to all who helped provide information
7-27-99
>TEST:
>1. In 2 seconds the
newest and original Newman Motor
> operating while connected to
Solar Panels lifts 14 lbs
> 2 feet high while
drawing ONLY .2 amps!
RESPONSE: At
what voltage? .2 amps at 1000 volts is 200watts. At 12 volts I
might be impressed.
>2. While connected to
the same Solar Panels (for maximum
> current production),
the 1/14 HP Grainger Geared Motor
> for High Torque that
is designed to lift 24 pounds will
> NOT lift said
14 lbs when connected to the Solar
> Panels. The
1/14 HP Grainger Motor draws a maximum
> current from
the Solar Panels of 6.4 amps and the
> Grainger Motor PRODUCES
NO LIFT!
RESPONSE: Joe
is still playing the undervoltage game again. Low voltage at
high amps
still means underpowered. After 15 years Joe still hasn't learned
basic electricity.
>3. The MinnKota Motor (representing
technology stolen from
> Joseph Newman) draws a maximum
current of 6.4 amps and
> DOES NOT LIFT said
14 lbs. The MinnKota (Newman) Motor
> is equivalent to 3HP
combustible engine when pushing an
> aluminum boat
and it draws maximum current from the
> said Solar Panels,
but produces NO LIFT!
RESPONSE: This
whole statement makes little sense. Also Joe's older
technology
is classified as worthless. This is what everyone found out when
they did real
testing on his earlier machines. Joe has verified the results.
>Conventional motor inefficiencies
are CLEARLY PROVEN BY
>THE USE OF SOLAR
PANELS IN THAT THEIR HIGH CURRENT
>DRAW DESTROYS OR WORKS
AGAINST BATTERIES, GENERATORS,
>SOLAR PANELS, ETC.,
ABILITY OF A SOURCE OF POWER THAT
>PRODUCES VOLTAGE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH E = mc^2, RELATIVE
>TO THE CONVENTIONAL MOTOR
TO BE OPERATED!
RESPONSE: I don't see the proof, only the disception.
>My recent demonstration
on 14 August 1999 in the Phoenix
>area so proved and was attended
by over 300 people. The
>demonstration caused
technically competent individuals
>to state:
>"ANYONE WHO CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE
> DEMONSTRATION IS AN IDIOT!"
RESPONSE: This is Joe's statement not the witnesses.
>As a result of the demonstration,
many good individuals
>are now joining me in my production
efforts.
RESPONSE: Actually
many are trying to get their money back as Joe could not
deliver a
working model as promised.
>So that you do not blindly think
the Newman Motor results
>stated above will
not lift more than 14 lbs stated in
>results of Solar
Panels above: I used the SAME voltage
>with a battery pack as voltage
of said Solar Panels. THE
>NEWMAN MOTOR LIFTED
100 LBS 2 FEET HIGH IN LESS THAN 1
>SECOND! The Motor
now drew 1 amp of current, but the
>BATTERY VOLTAGE DID NOT NOTICEABLY
FALL!
RESPONSE: A
battery pack? How many batteries, and what are the amp-hour
ratings. Joe
continues to show his lack of technical skills (or proves his
dishonesty)
by leaving out important information like this.
>NOTE: The test
3 Minnkota Motor in sharp contrast when
>connected to a DEEP CYCLE TROLLING
12-VOLT BATTERY ---- IT
>DREW MORE THAN 50 AMPS (Pegged
out 50 Amp Meter) and WOULD
>NOT LIFT SAID 100 LBS!
RESPONSE: Why
just one battery and not a battery pack!! Also 50 amps at 12
volts is nearly
a one horse power it should have at least moved the weight.
Of course
few batteries can sustain 50 amps for very long. I bet the "DEEP
CYCLE TROLLING
12-VOLT BATTERY" is made to put out a few amps at most.
>NOTE: The NEWMAN
MOTOR HAS NO MECHANICAL GEAR and ITS
>POWER COMES FROM ITS "MASS" ---
"E = mc2"!
RESPONSE: Nonsense.
>NOTE: Motors IN THE REAL WORLD START OFF UNDER-LOAD.
RESPONSE: So what else is new.
>FACT: Motors that
don't perform well under load from
>dead start are BLOWING SMOKE.
RESPONSE: Or they are deliberately underpowered to look bad.
>FACT: These TESTS & FACTS PROVES THE TRUTH!
RESPONSE: The
truth being Newman has only continued to mislead the
lay-person
about the validity of his tests.
>NOTE: The power broker
motors are drawing 32 times more
>CURRENT than the Newman UNLEASHED
MOTOR when using Solar
>Panels to run all 3 motors.
RESPONSE: Only when they have 32 times less voltage.
>NOTE: Since 1820,
those who have taught conventional
>teachings have wrongly claimed
that the magnetic field of
>the conductor came
from the current. This is WRONG!
>THERE IS NO LIFT!
RESPONSE:
More stupidity. The magnetic field is proportional to the current
but the power
input is still voltage x current.
>FACT: Of all the
electric motors sold in the Grainger
>Catalogue of 1998-1999 (Catalogue
No. 389), NONE WILL LIFT
>SAID 14 LBS WHILE OPERATING
ON THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED SOLAR
>PANELS.
RESPONSE: Maybe
he should try the thousands of other suppliers of motors. He
might just
get lucky.
>IN CONTRAST, THE REVOLUTIONARY
NEWMAN MOTOR OPERATES ON
>VOLTAGE NOT CURRENT! ALL
FUTURE NEWMAN ELECTRIC MOTORS
>WILL NOW BE DESIGNED TO OPERATE
ON THE MASS (E = mc2.) NOT
>CURRENT or WATTAGE!
Now ponder the TREMENDOUS BENEFICIAL
>EFFECT THIS WILL HAVE FOR
THE ENVIRONMENT, THE PEOPLE OF
>THE WORLD, BUSINESS,
FARMS & INDUSTRIES, AS WELL AS FOR
>THE SHEER ADVANCEMENT OF THE HUMAN
RACE.
RESPONSE: Does
this mean his new machines will draw zero current? I still
see a current
draw in all his experiments that when multiplied by the
voltage gives
enough wattage to provide the lift necessary to move the
weight. What
is REVOLUTIONARY is that Newman is still unaware of this after
15 years of
research.
>FACT: As I make the Newman Motor
larger and larger it uses
>LESS and LESS current and wattage
and PRODUCES MORE AND
>MORE POWER!
RESPONSE: I
don't see any test data that verifies this. Thought large motors
are in general
more efficient than small motors. This has been known for at
least one
hundred years. Why is Joe just discovering this?
GLORIA
normpems@erie.net
Additional notes by Eric Krieg: On the heavily censored official Newman email list, I noticed many sincere Newman supporters make perfectly reasonable inquiries and observations about Joe's test. Many of the inquiring people have spent years trying to duplicate Joe's claims. They seemed to all be shot down in a very rude way. I for one feel that an extraordinary claim should be supported by extraordinary evidence. The long history of fraud in free energy claims justifies the need for independent observation. It should be obvious that if Joe really has overunity, he should merely supply his input power from excess output power and obviate the controversial comparisons of input and output power. Any suggestion that he provide input power from excess output power is met with quick evasion or ad hominens. More independent information on free energy claims is available on the free energy email list