Yesterday, Saturday, was a very long and interesting day
for me... traveling by car about 800 miles round trip from
my cabin high in the San Bernardino mountains to see the
Newman demo of the production prototype in Phoenix, Arizona.
Hah...
Instead of driving my motor home or car to Phoenix alone,
I went to Phoenix with some friends. I got up at three AM
Saturday, got myself down the mountain about 62 miles to Doug
Walker's house in Banning (just west of Palm Springs in the
pass area, and went with him and his wife, Maria, in their
new '98 red Buick-- on to Phoenix...
Using printouts from the computer aided Atlas5 program, and
with thanks to Jeff and Judy, I had detailed maps of the
Newman demo area in West Phoenix. We arrived before noon,
had a fabulous luncheon near the golf course, and talked
excitedly about the great historic event which we were about
to witness. Hah...
About two PM, we went into the classy demo room and met
Evan who recognized me immediately from sight. I also spoke
to Joe and introduced myself-- and gave him Matherne's
best wishes, etc. He was pleased.
Then, we sat down in the front row and awaited for the start
of the demo as the room filled up with several hundred people...
full, actually. Yet, there were no obvious members of the
media present... But, the demo program was video-taped.
Evan played a well-edited color video on a 30" TV set to start
the program. In one part of the video, Matherne made an
interesting comment about how big the motor could be made...
noting instead, that if the machine could be made SMALL enough,
perhaps it could be contained within each small household
appliance or tool ... rather than using one larger unit with
all the wiring, etc. I hadn't thought about that before.
After Evan gave an introductory speech, relying periodically
on written pages, Joe talked, extemporaneously, and was
surprisingly good, coherent, and natural.... better than I
had seen him "do" on the various videos I have watched before...
But, then came a monstrous disappointment....
He was unprepared to give any sort of demo of the prototype.
And, he did not give one.... nor seem embarrassed about it.
He told a story of how some outfit he hired to build it
in the east, delayed and "sabotaged" the construction...
and yet, the unit was there, a tube about 10 inches in
diameter almost four feet long, with no protrusions, only
a one-inch diameter shaft sticking out of one end...
He described how much torque it had-- in terms of men
trying to stop its rotation with gloves-- or by standing
on wooden boards which "pinched" the rotating shaft;
but he never connected it to any batteries-- which I
presumed were in the cardboard box on the floor...
Only later, in private questioning, did he tell me that
the batteries put out about 100 volts... and he had said
in answering earlier questions that the unit would handle a
100 amp house wiring box at 120 volts. That sounded great
to me; but, there were some other people's remarks that
most western US houses used wiring rated at 240v at 200amps.
I finally got him to tell me that the unit on display on the
stage, to his right, WAS the prototype, and later he said
that it would put out about 10-20 Horsepower; and, that
the shaft rotated at about 100 rpm, nominally.... It took
repeated questioning to get that basic information ...
He would have needed a some pulleys, belts, shafts, and
bearings, and housing, or a gear box to get some typical
outputting alternator to run at about 3600 rpm to produce
120AC at 60 cycles.... not to mention speed control.
But, there wasn't anything like that anywhere to be seen.
There wasn't even one used automobile alternator out there--
or any mountings to produce even DC voltage from it... even
at that slower speed. Nor was there any setup comprised of
several such alternators or commercial generators available
to provide any kind of shaft load of the prototype motor...
to demo its claimed torque and power capabilities....

There was no pulley on the shaft or any laying around anywhere.
And there were certainly no alternator(s), no bank of bathroom
heaters or any batch of say, twenty 250watt light bulbs to connect
to the missing alternator/generators--- Nor were there any meters
seen anywhere to measure voltage or current.... input...
Quite simply, there was NO demo setup at all.... just the motor
sitting, unbolted, on some old stands. He might as well have
used two sawhorses.... Frankly, for a while, I expected that
the "real demo setup" was behind the curtains... and that it would
be dramatically revealed to us.... Nah, that was it...

OKAY, so what DID Joe have to show us?
Now, separate from it, he had what was purported to be, a
brand new, never used before, shaft-driven dynamometer,
very roughly, about 12x12x12 inches in size.
This small dynamometer and its accompanying digital
control box about half that size, with switches on it
and connected to 120vac, sat on the podium table... not
connected mechanically in any way (at that time) to the
prototype Newman motor.
He said he paid five grand for it and that it just arrived,
but didn't seem to work... being unable to get past the
setup.
He tried to calibrate it in front of us (the audience)
and to get it to give a proper calibration reading;
With some guy's help, he read the instruction manual,

word for word, and we all watched the one-inch bright LED
numbers (pointed at the audience) fail to respond as the
manual said they should. Several of us made some suggestions
about releasing the reset on the machine, and I even mentioned
the possibility that altitude changes might have affected
the water brake gadgets-- as it seemed to have some diaphragms
on it... nah... The numbers weren't right and that was the
end of it all ... after five minutes of trying.
But, I didn't even see any shaft couplings anywhere.
And, he said that the eastern outfit messed up the wiring
inside the prototype motor... YET, he said he WOULD rewire it
(right there) to get it going.... But, he never did try...
The shaft of the motor never moved-- never even being
connected to any power source (the batteries) at any time.
The end cap was removed by an assistant after Joe's speech--
and I thought the re-wiring was going to occur... But, all
that seemed to happen was that a group of people came up on
state and gathered around it peering inside the one open
end... on stage while Joe answered questions-- instead of
re-wiring it to show us that the shaft would turn.
I asked him on stage later, about WHEN it was, how long
ago, did the "sabotage" happen, expecting it to be very
recent... but, he replied that it was over a month ago!!!
In other words, he has had plenty of time to fix it, and
to make that prototype motor run, and put on a decent demo,
even one without any dynamometer... just using automobile
alternators and bathroom type electrical heaters and some
voltmeter/ammeters, for example.

But, he did not.... So, perhaps he had planned to use the
dyno and when it didn't work the night before the demo,
he just gave up on doing the re-wiring, and he didn't
bother to connect the equipment up at all.... figuring
he would just have to "wing it" for this, just another
one of many demos. But, this was supposed to be the
production prototype and I finally got Joe to admit that's
what it was.... Now, that meant to me that it ought
to put out the power he claims it does... or nearly so,
even if it was "hand-built" and rough, compared to
future production units....

Or, something very strange is going on that I just
don't understand....
He apparently waited until he got the dyno, which came
just a few days ago, maybe on Friday, even that late, and
when it didn't work, and the 1-800 help number rang busy,
which a guy told me it did, then he/they decided they
couldn't do their planned dyno demo.
And, maybe they didn't have time or the stuff to rig up a
pulley and an alternator/generator to the shaft of the
"fixed/repaired" prototype... If they had done that, they
might have at least shown a couple of kilowatts of light
bulbs burning, with say, maybe only 500 watts of battery
power being drawn as indicated by some reliable d'Arsonval
ammeter/voltmeters... I would have been pleased to see
something like that... from the prototype unit... (I would
prefer that to some dyno unit I don't know anything about.)
But, there was no sign of any flex-shaft coupling to connect
the dyno to the motor, or any clamps, or a stand for the
small dyno, or nuttin' --from where I sat in the front row.

So, it was a terrible disappointment for which he didn't
seem to apologize for at all, except to mention twice
that he realized some people had come hundreds of miles
to see the demo today...
Now, Joe knew the motor needed rewiring--- saying he
even planned to do right there on stage after his speech.
But, if it was that simple a job, then why didn't he just
do that? He didn't. Why hadn't they gotten the motor
running for sure BEFORE the demo ???????
Apparently, he had made no provisions (allowing the time
and the effort, and getting the parts/materials needed)
whatsoever to have had it running, say several days, or at
least during the morning of the demo held at 2pm... before
the time of the demo. I saw no evidence that he could connect
that one-inch prototype motor shaft to some pulley or shaft-
coupling to anything... even a standard electrical generator
or alternator, and a bank of light bulbs... or a couple of
bathroom heaters... to show us that it actually put out
power.
Now, this was the thing purported to be able to replace
the local power company !!!!!
It would have been impressive even without any consideration
for its cost or projected future pricing... had it been
demonstrated....

Yet, after the dyno calibration failed, he still repeatedly
told the members of audience that they could come down and
put on some gloves and try to stop/slow the shaft rotation.
But, no gloves were seen (or needed) because the motor shaft
never rotated at any time during-- or even hours after the
meeting ended-- as we stayed there talking to Evan and others
until SEVEN pm.... So, Joe can't even say-- that after people
went home, he did get the prototype motor running...
Gadzooks, it looked like a fraudulent affair... And, that
observation is coming from me, and I'm one of Joe's boosters !!!!!
So, Joe was either very indifferent towards this
group, with it being just yet another group, or something
was very much amiss that I don't understand.
Somebody paid some real bucks for the hall, parking, and
all the seating, and it was set up nicely... with materials
and tables for registration, sale of the new book, videos,
etc...
Hey, and this was a classy place.... with carpet and
upholstered chairs in the marble walled men's room,
gold fixtures, chandeliers in the hall... well-kept
grassy areas and palm trees all around, a water pond
(in that desert), superb parking, truly a "rich people's"
place.... in Del Webb's Sun City.
Yet, there was no demo of any kind, let alone one befitting
of the facility and location and the advance publicity
with its claims... Sadly, there was just talk--
and a view of the prototype whose output shaft never turned
even one degree...
So, that was it.... the show was a big disappointment to
me ... I didn't say so right then, and nobody booed ...
I wouldn't have been surprised if someone had done so...
Maybe we were all in a state of shock.
But, here's something else that is news... Joe told me
that he can make the motor run without (without) any MAGNETS....

Now, that affects its cost... and if that's truth, it
means he can use aluminum wire, lighter and cheaper, and
that he can produce the electricity to smelt the bauxite
ore, (or even reclaim old aluminum) "cheap." That would
make aluminum the preferred choice for the many miles of
wire needed in every Newman energy machine....

He apparently has a Mexican patent (1998) and noted that the
NAFTA agreement between USA, Canada, and Mexico results
in the US honoring all Mexican patents, and vice versa.
So, he responded to some audience remark about not
having a patent with that information and saying that
he has a patent. But, he fears the output of his production
will be sabotaged by the motor builder(s) being bought off,
like the eastern outfit who built the prototype was--- or
that every motor will be bought by the "power brokers"
and will never get to YOU the people. He is not
paranoid, just facing the fact that somebody "got to" the
outfit which built this prototype... delaying it, and
finally, screwing it up. Also, they called the FBI to
have him arrested, and to get the motor confiscated, or
whatever...
He has (and told) many stories about being thwarted....
Yet, he is not afraid of death and said that such evil
acts as he has experienced just make him stronger and
fight even harder. He also reported that he is moving
to Phoenix after just moving to Colorado from the South!
Evan offered no further explanations, invited Doug,
Maria, and me to go to dinner with Joe and himself,
and presumably some others; but, we declined with
thanks, noting that we had a long way to go to get
home. I would like to have asked Evan many questions,
and personally, I would have readily stayed overnight,
making it a two (preferably three) day trip, myself;
but my friends had numerous reasons to get back to
Southern California.
So, I was surprised to find that I could still handle
being up for a full 24-hours without sleep and
driving maybe 800 miles in that same time period....
I took a few .JPG's images with my Sony digital still
camera and will attach some to a future e-mail. If
the list server can't distribute one or two of the
prototype, I will send interested people a .JPG
in a reply e-mail if you send me one directly..
Hey, and more needed than ever before, I note here
that I may be wrong about all of this... Joe may
be so certain that his motor works as claimed that
he wasn't as interested in proving it to us as some
of us felt he should be... His other remarks sort
of indicate that might be the case... eh?
Most sincerely,
 
 

t 11:18 PM 11/5/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>  this is the voice the powerful FE conspiracy has tried to silence.
>There is a significant disagreement between the Newman people
>and Norm Biss who claims to have mostly built the motor Newman
>is accused of stealing.  Interesting that both sides accuse the
>other of theft and incompetence.  You can see Evan's earlier rebuttal

>on behalf of Joe at:
http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/biss.htm

Evan Soule wrote:

> ...
> You initiated a comment about our earlier interchange, I am responding.
> Thank you for the invitation BTW, but my interest in entertaining
> camaraderie with Skeptics is of the same magnitude as my interest in
> entertaining camaraderie with Atheists.  While I do not hate, dislike, or
> fear either, neither are my personal "cup of tea."  For instance, an
> "atheist" teaches the "nonexistence of god" -- well, for me, this is like
> teaching (preaching?) the nonexistence of 'green-fire-spitting dragons'.  I
> personally accept deism as the most rational approach to this particular
> subject.

I don't know of many atheists that are going around teaching the "nonexistence of
god" - why should they?

> >> The above comments show your lack of information concerning Faraday,
> >> Maxwell, and Maxwell's recognition of Faraday's ability.
> >
> >I concede, I don't know everything.
>
> ...
> >> "The way in which Faraday made use of his lines of force in co-ordinating
> >> the phenomena of electric inductions shows him to have been A MATHEMATICIAN
> >> OF HIGH ORDER, and one from whom the mathematicians of the future may
> >> derive valuable and fertile methods."  --- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL
> >
> >Can you please cite the source of this quote so that I can pull it up - in the
> >full context?
>
> I originally sourced this Maxwellian quotation over 14 years ago; if memory
> serves me correctly, it was from JAMES CLERK MAXWELL: a Biography, by Ivan
> Tolstoy.
>
>

I seem to remeber that book. Let me see if it is hiding out on my shelves
somewhere...

> >Besides, Maxwell may have been simply patting Faraday on the back in a
> >congenial
> >way. My point is is that Faraday did not know or understand Vector
> >Calculus well
> >enough to convert his ideas into the ACCEPTED mathematics of the time so that
> >OTHERS may understand his work. Maxwell understood Faraday and did this
> >"translation" for him. But the fact still remains that Faraday's idea ARE
> >representable in the language of standard mathematics.
>
> If Maxwell had simply said:
> "The way in which Faraday made use of his lines of force in co-ordinating
> the phenomena of electric inductions shows him to have been A MATHEMATICIAN
> OF HIGH ORDER." and ended his statement at that -- then I would say, yes,
> it is possible that Maxwell was being 'congenial.'  However, Maxwell more
> than simply "applauded" Faraday, he explicitly _recommended_ Faraday's
> paradigmological approach to _future_ mathematicians which IMO constitutes
> a proactive endorsement of Faraday's methodology.
>
>

Even Stephen Hawking (and I think to some extent Roger Penrose) came up with
diagrams - space-time diagrams - to help expain General Relativity. Just like
Feyman's diagrams for particle interactions in Quantum Mechanics. And yet even these
are tied back to mathematical equations.

> And my point is that Michael Faraday produced a "scientifically-acceptable"
> MECHANICAL MODEL which could be described with the utilization of
> precision.  It was Maxwell that added accuracy to the equation. (pun
> intended)

But without proper mathematical representation for this "mechanical model" as you
like calling it, it still would've gone nowhere. "Lines of force" at best is just a
mere metaphor for what really goes on in magnetic fields. It is a simple model that
is easy for the less mathematically-inclined mind to grasp. And I'll even give you
that that representation may even lead to insights and possibilities not so readily
apparent from the eqations alone. You need them both -- the metaphor and the
equations. And you have to understand your metaphor well enough to know when it
starts breaking down.

> ...
> >And of course, those who disagree with you are conveniently labeled
> >"negativists/pathological skeptics" so that you can avoid having to deal with
> >our rather probing and revealing questions, yes?
>
> Well, you can certainly draw this conclusion if you wish.  And, not
> surprisingly, my conclusion would be 1) yours is incorrect and 2) I
> honestly find negativists/pathological sceptics.... boring. This concluding
> word is quite relativistically subjective in nature -- but for me it
> remains operational reality.
>
>

Yeah, I know. Sometimes the plain truth IS boring, non-interesting, and not
awe-inspiring. This is why the news media will never print or show the _plain_
truth. Gotta spice it up a bit, add a little inunendo where non existed before, and
toss in baseless but emotion-jerking "speculations" to grab our attention. I find
these types annoying, for they obscure the simple dispassionate unadultureated truth
that I am interested in. I hate it when they try to play my emotions like a base
fiddle.

> ...
> >All I ask for is a simple URL. Sheesh. So tough. You should have the entire
> >theory posted on the web anyway so everyone can look at it. If you have it
> >patented, this should not be an issue, because patents are public records
> >anyway. So help me out here, Evan. I'm having a really hard time understanding
> >why you can't supply me with a simple URL that will answer all of my questions.
>
> Fred, the day "all of your questions" would be answered, would be the day
> you "would be dead."  At least I would hope this would be the case.  [I
> trust you understand what I am saying here.]
>
>

If it takes my death to answer all my questions about Joseph's theories, then I
would say something is terribly amiss, yes?
<tongue in cheek>

> As I believe I've stated before, if you wish to understand what Joseph
> Newman has innovated, then read (and hopefully 'master') his book.

The only tiny problem with that is the book costs $75.00 and is not on any store
bookshelf that I know of where I can pick it up and spend a few minutes browsing
through it before I make you two $75 richer.

> There are far more sincerely curious, open, and --- in the final analysis
> --- truly _friendly_ people out there with whom I enjoy communicating....
> where "hostility" -- overt or suggested -- is not our communicative
> platform.

"Friendly" people, of course, defined as those willing to make you $75 richer before
they can determine if you have anything of substance. "Hostile" people are those who
would like to verify that their $75 is not being wasted. Now $75 is not a lot of
money, and there have been scams for much bigger sums. I don't think I ask for too
much when I want to actually see the book and browse it before I plunk over the
cash. And I still don't consider it too much to ask for to see a web page that
covers the gist of Joseph's theories in enough detail that I and others can
determine if they are good or not.

> ...
> >> I 'ain't' interested.  For the nitpicker and quibbler, this is some sort of
> >> little "debate game."
> >
> >Just supply the URL, and leave the nitpicking to me. sarcastic words such
> >as the
> >above will not hide and protect you from the Scientific Method, of which peer
> >review is a necessary part. If you are not willing to subject your / John
> >Neuman's ideas to the Scientific Method, then understand that I am hard pressed
> >to consider what you have science.
>
> Yes, I certainly will leave you ... with your nitpicking.

Why? Can't convince me to blow away $75?

> ABTW, the above was certainly not "sarcastic".  This is your
> interpretation, obviously.
>
> Honestly, I must state that your lack of precision -- and attendant
> insensitivity to information is apalling.  This is precisely why I stand by
> my earlier comments.  The individual in question is named "Joseph Newman"
> -- not "John Neuman".  Amazing ... yet also expectable.

While the innaccurate mistypings of a man in the middle of the night is "truly
inexcusable", the fact that you are so quick to jump on it and attack an obvious
typo speaks volumes about yourself. Volumes of which I will not even bother to
expouse, being as glaringly obvious as they are.

> Far from needing "protection" from the Scientific Method -- I "embrace" it.
> Of course, I also understand the nature of the Scientific Method.

This is good. Now all that remains is getting you to put the Scientific Method into
practice. But this is always a sticky point, isin't it? Much eaiser to attack my
typos, and occasionly take pot shots at my candor.

> "Peer review" may be necessary for you.  It has often occurred that with
> innovation, there are no "peers" capable of reviewing it.  The Wright
> Brothers had no "peers" in 1903.

But they had a machine that he could demonstrate to any who watched. The machine
flew. Period. They built it. They flew it. Others could take those same plans and
also build and fly the airplane. The whole world became their peer review -- it was
easy to gauge the results.

When results are not so eailsy understood by unschooled minds, you need more
stringent peer review practices. But still if you can build  your plane and make it
fly, the peers will come arunnin'.

>  Isaac Newton had no "peers" capable of
> innovating the cosmological knowledge behind the Principia.  In general,
> Newton was about as receptive to "peer review" as would be the Daughters of
> the American Revolution to an endorsement by Karl Marx.

Science was not as mature in Newton's time as it is in ours. He did his best with
what he had. But for every Newton, I'm sure there were 100 cranks who never saw the
light of day. We have a tendency not to remember the failures.

> Those who are capable of taking an innovation and carrying it further will
> study the innovation, master it, and then, by standing on the innovator's
> shoulders, carry it to new heights.

When you and Joseph accomplish this, I'll be the first in line to invest in it.

> ...
> >> It is just this type of insipid, petty, and intellectually dishonest
> >> stupidity which "drove Isaac Newton into the Mint and out of science."  I
> >> can fully and deeply appreciate his motivation to do so.  What is ironic is
> >> that the petty nitpickers and quibblers are quite unaware of the
> >> incalculable damage they do to civilization with their antics and
> >> demonstrative egolets.
> >
> >Instead of such biting criticisms, why not just prove me (and the rest of us
> >"quibbling skeptics") wrong via subjecting your great and wondrous ideas to the
> >Scientific Method? The truth is in the pudding, as they say.
>
> Metaphorically, the truth is in the intellectual honesty and sincere
> curiosity of open-minded seekers of Rightness.  Truth is one important
> component of the Scientific Method.
>
> And thank you for the advance compliment of my "great and wondrous ideas."
> I certainly would not wish to think you were being sarcastic.

Well, with the level of sarcasm you have been continually dishing out at me, that
turnabout would be a mere pinprick if, in fact, I were being sarcastic.

> ...
> >But I do understand the Scientific Method very well -- it has brought
> >technology
> >and science to the wondrous level we enjoy today. My understanding of
> >everything
> >else is irrelevant. Whether Neumann and Soule can stand up to the Scientific
> >Method is what's relevant. All else will flow from there, including
> >support from
> >many of us ardent skeptics if you pass.
> >
> >Talk is cheap. Let us settle this question once and for all, yes?
> >
> >> Evan Soule'
>
> >Fred Mitchell              http://www.mitchellware.com/mitchell/home/
>
> I do certainly agree that the Scientific Method has brought technology to
> the wondrous level we enjoy today (although primitive [hopefully] by future
> standards).  In fact, the Scientific Method can be viewed as the key --
> when properly employed -- to enable us to unlock the proverbial 'secrets of
> the universe.'  I may, however, have another opinion as to your level of
> understanding of the Scientific Method.  But that, of course, is my
> property.

And who is carrying the bane of sarcasm here, Evan?

> Talk can be expensive when the time is spent with a pathological sceptic.
> Since you have yet to "master" the correct spelling of Joseph Newman's
> name, I would suggest that you "quit while you are only slightly behind."

And I suppose that is your "coup de grâce", Evan? All because I won't just fork over
the $75 for your book? Again, your sarcasm speaks volumes; I needn't say a word.

--
======================================================================
Fred Mitchell               http://www.mitchellware.com/mitchell/home/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the New Skeptics Mailing List.
            http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/skeptics
======================================================================

Well, Evan, I take it that this letter to me as read that communications between
us is reopened. If not, accept my apologies. And please accept my invitation to
join the Skeptics list at  http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/skeptics so that
your ideas may get more exposure.

Evan Soule wrote:

> Evan Soule' wrote:
> >> As you know, Faraday himself was
> >> mathematically illiterate (in the conventional sense), yet he was VERY
> >> mechanically gifted, especially with respect to the manner in which he
> >> coordinated the phenomena of electric induction. So much so, that Faraday
> >> can TRULY be considered a MATHEMATICIAN OF HIGH ORDER!
> >
> Fred Mitchell wrote:
> >Well, I wouldn't go that far. Without the mathematics, Faraday could only
> >go so far. It took Maxwell to present Faraday's findings in terms of that
> >great precise universal language. If Faraday had a different system that
> >worked better, it should have sufficed, but if I remember correctly, he
> >did not. He did all the cool experiments, but could not express what he
> >was seeing in the language of Mathematics, or any other formalism for that
> >matter. Granted, he had an intuitive grasp for what he was doing, but that
> >is useless when you are trying to convey those ideas to others.>
>
> The above comments show your lack of information concerning Faraday,
> Maxwell, and Maxwell's recognition of Faraday's ability.

I concede, I don't know everything.

> O.K., Mr. Mitchell.
>
> Here is what I wrote:
>
> "...Faraday can TRULY be considered a MATHEMATICIAN OF HIGH ORDER!"
>
> Here is what you said:
>
> "Well, I wouldn't go that far."
>
> Fortunately, Mr. Mitchell, whether you "would or wouldn't go that far" is
> irrelevant.  What counts is that JAMES CLERK MAXWELL *DID GO* THAT FAR!
>
> Please allow me to *explicitly quote* James Clerk Maxwell:
>
> "The way in which Faraday made use of his lines of force in co-ordinating
> the phenomena of electric inductions shows him to have been A MATHEMATICIAN
> OF HIGH ORDER, and one from whom the mathematicians of the future may
> derive valuable and fertile methods."  --- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL

Can you please cite the source of this quote so that I can pull it up - in the
full context?

Besides, Maxwell may have been simply patting Faraday on the back in a congenial
way. My point is is that Faraday did not know or understand Vector Calculus well
enough to convert his ideas into the ACCEPTED mathematics of the time so that
OTHERS may understand his work. Maxwell understood Faraday and did this
"translation" for him. But the fact still remains that Faraday's idea ARE
representable in the language of standard mathematics.

Today, mathematics has been expanded and broadened greatly, and out of it all
there should be something you can use to represent your ideas. Or, you may do as
many others have done and create your own formalism to represent your ideas.
Then both your formalism and ideas will be subject to peer review. And your
formalism will most likely have it foundations in one or more of the existing
areas of mathematics.

So let's get away from squabbling over the fine points of various quotes in the
past and on with the representation of your ideas in a form more coherent than
hype.

> And, let me state something else:
>
> I truly have NO interest in attempting to educating you with respect to
> Joseph Newman's Theory and Technical Process.  To those who are sincerely
> curious, intellectually honestly, and NOT essential
> negativists/pathological sceptics, I will -- and do -- invest many hours in
> enabling them to understand Joseph Newman's work.

And of course, those who disagree with you are conveniently labeled
"negativists/pathological skeptics" so that you can avoid having to deal with
our rather probing and revealing questions, yes?

I have dealt with others who had legit claims, and they always had their
write-ups prepared, backed up with mathematics, usually with a URL to click to
so that I could digest it at my leisure.

> The latter do not include yourself.
>
> If you like, understand Joseph Newman's technology for yourself.  If this
> is not to your liking, so be it.

All I ask for is a simple URL. Sheesh. So tough. You should have the entire
theory posted on the web anyway so everyone can look at it. If you have it
patented, this should not be an issue, because patents are public records
anyway. So help me out here, Evan. I'm having a really hard time understanding
why you can't supply me with a simple URL that will answer all of my questions.

> True education via the transmission of new ideas occurs in a unilateral
> mode.  This process is not possible with nitpicking negativists and
> naysayers since the "interchange" inevitably decays into a pattern of
> random, discordant transmissions, replete with semantic noise and somewhat
> analogous to Brownian Motion -- where one comment results in a
> counter-comment requiring an explanation "bouncing off" in another
> direction with another comment which results in yet another counter-comment
> requiring an explanation "bouncing off" in another direction with yet
> another..... and so on and on, ad nauseum.  I've been there, done that, and
> I 'ain't' interested.  For the nitpicker and quibbler, this is some sort of
> little "debate game."

Just supply the URL, and leave the nitpicking to me. sarcastic words such as the
above will not hide and protect you from the Scientific Method, of which peer
review is a necessary part. If you are not willing to subject your / John
Neuman's ideas to the Scientific Method, then understand that I am hard pressed
to consider what you have science.

> It is just this type of insipid, petty, and intellectually dishonest
> stupidity which "drove Isaac Newton into the Mint and out of science."  I
> can fully and deeply appreciate his motivation to do so.  What is ironic is
> that the petty nitpickers and quibblers are quite unaware of the
> incalculable damage they do to civilization with their antics and
> demonstrative egolets.

Instead of such biting criticisms, why not just prove me (and the rest of us
"quibbling skeptics") wrong via subjecting your great and wondrous ideas to the
Scientific Method? The truth is in the pudding, as they say.

> Your other comments are replete with other misunderstandings about the
> technology; but quite sincerely, Mr. Mitchell, I do not wish to attempt to
> "violate the Law of Conservation" by endeavoring to create bilateral
> understanding where it is not possible.

But I do understand the Scientific Method very well -- it has brought technology
and science to the wondrous level we enjoy today. My understanding of everything
else is irrelevant. Whether Neumann and Soule can stand up to the Scientific
Method is what's relevant. All else will flow from there, including support from
many of us ardent skeptics if you pass.

Talk is cheap. Let us settle this question once and for all, yes?

> Evan Soule'

--
======================================================================
Fred Mitchell               http://www.mitchellware.com/mitchell/home/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the New Skeptics Mailing List.
            http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/skeptics
======================================================================

> >Can you throw some equations my way here? Or will I find them in his book?
>
> There are equations in the book presented by others -- specifically Dr.
> Roger Hastings.  Remember, Joseph Newman's approach to understanding these
> essential phenomena of the universe is as a MECHANICAL MODEL.
>
>

Now, you lost me. Mechanical model? What does that mean? Can you please elaborate? I
know Stephen Hawking came up with space-time diagrams to represent his theories on
the beginning and end of the universe - which turned out to be quite useful. So
there MAY be something to his mechanical model, but I need more information. Perhaps
you can send me some diagrams, pictures, etc. since your book is not on the shelves
of walk-in bookstores.

>  And while it
> is true that many conventional physicists are unaccustomed to paradigm
> evaluation from the "mechanical modeling" approach as opposed to the
> "mathematical modeling" approach, this does NOT mean that the MECHANICAL
> MODEL approach is any "less right."

Well, you've got my interest. Let's see it!

>  As you know, Faraday himself was
> mathematically illiterate (in the conventional sense), yet he was VERY
> mechanically gifted, especially with respect to the manner in which he
> coordinated the phenomena of electric induction.  So much so, that Faraday
> can TRULY be considered a MATHEMATICIAN OF HIGH ORDER!

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Without the mathematics, Faraday could only go so far.
It took Maxwell to present Faraday's findings in terms of that great precise
universal language. If Faraday had a different system that worked better, it should
have sufficed, but if I remember correctly, he did not. He did all the cool
experiments, but could not express what he was seeing in the language of
Mathematics, or any other formalism for that matter. Granted, he had an intuitive
grasp for what he was doing, but that is useless when you are trying to convey those
ideas to others.

> >Do you have a web page up with excerpts from the book, or at least some of the
> >mathematical background behind Newman's theories? I'd love to see it.
>
> Do you have gif readability capability?
>
>

Of course.

> Harold wrote:
> Ok, so a "field" is a concentration of these particles flowing around the
> perimeter of the atoms?
>
> Evan replied:
> I would state that the gyroscopic massergies flow "inside" the atom just as
> does, by crude analogy, our "blood flow inside our bodies."  When one atom
> becomes "aligned" with another, as in a copper conductor, then the flowing
> gyroscopic massergy field comprising one atom mechanically extends beyond
> and physically meshes with the flowing gyroscopic massergy field which was
> previously contained within the adjacent, and now aligned, atom. "Electric"
> and "magnetic" charges are simply macroscopic words which we are trying to
> apply to a more fundamental phenomena which supersedes both.  The
> gyroscopic massergies simply ARE.
>
>

Uh oh. I get suspicious when I see statements like that. That tethers on dogma, and
is not the mark of good science.

Also, I would expect your mechanical model to be able to make testable predictions
that QED does not, as further verification of validity.
 
 

>  They spin at "c" and they move forward
> at "c"  When a given gyroscopic massergy spins in one direction (RELATIVE
> TO THE 'FRAME OF REFERENCE' OF ANOTHER GYROSCOPIC MASSERGY) it can be
> called "positive" (or "negative" if you choose).  When another gyroscopic
> massergy is spinning in the opposite direction (relative to the first) then
> we can call it (from our macroscopic perspective) "negative".  It is these
> gyroscopic massergies mechanically acting with respect to one another which
> create ALL observable phenomena in the universe: magnetism, electricity,
> light, heat, inertia, planetary motion, gravitation, etc.

Now you've really gone off the deep end. You are basically claiming that you have a
Theory Of Everything, which makes me even more skeptical, considering the more
accepted Supersymetric theories (superstrings, supergravity, and a newer one that
has recently emerged) took much time and effort and a hefty amount of mathematics.

If you are talking about a TOE, then Newmans' theory should make predictions about
particles yet to be discovered, as the other successful theories have (like the
Standard Model). What does it say about whether Neutrinos have mass or not? There is
active research going on right now to answer that question once and for all. One
good way to get world recognition and acclaim for Newmans' theory is to accurately
not only answer that, but to also predict what the mass of the neutrinos are.

In fact, I would expect his theory to be able to predict the masses of all known
particles. Does it do this? I would also expect the same theory to be able to
describe in detail what's going on inside a black hole, especially at the
singularity -- something Hawking and Penrose are still at odds over. What does it
have to say about black holes? I also expect it to say something useful about the
beginning of the universe - does it, and how does it jive with the more accepted
theories? How does it deal with the possibility of naked singularities? Can it
accurately predict the energy released when two black holes collide? A successful
TOE should be able to all of this and more.

Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence!!!!!
 

> Harold replied:
> Very interesting, I believe we are describing the same thing with different
> words and viewpoints. I in fact had derived some very simple relationships
> from E=MC^2 that describe (from far as I can carry the math) all observable
> phenomena in terms of "massergy" which I will use because Mr. Newman is the
> originator of the Idea and it is his right.

Uh oh! More dogma! If he is right, then the theory will stand on its own merits, and
must be testable. This is supposed to be Science, not Religion.

>  MC^2 is a multiplication of
> massergy at the speed of light squared, or C^2 is the amplification of
> massergy, and C is NOT constant and depends upon the flow of uncharged
> massergy (gravatational) which are the defining particles of space itself.
> A vacuum is only the absence of Electrical manifesting particles and has
> particles that is attracted to mass because it is a negatively charged
> entity in respect to mass.  Not only does the concept of a polarized
> gravity explain why light exibits wave and particle behavior, of which I
> postulate is niether, because of the bidirectional spin the particle
> SPIRALS!

Are you saying you can have negative gravity? And if so, what kind of matter would
have negative gravity? And in the same fell swoop, you are also saying that the
Conservation of Mass-Energy is FALSE, because I can easily devise a TRUE perpetual
motion machine - and a simple one at that - using both positive and negative
gravitation.

> C^2 is the spinning of massergy in TWO directions (^2) and is the variable
> responsible for the vectoral relationship of mass and the rate that
> particles will pass charged massergy (photon),

Photons do not have charge.

> and hence observable time.
> C^2 graphed quadrantly would resemble a symetrically opposed (90 degree
> double wave) sine wave whos amplitude and frequency are equal, or perfect
> rotation. M is another variable that is also rotation in two dimensions,
> and this is what I was talking about as concieving the base fundemental
> variables as a spinning two dimensional waveform.  It is not that it
> actually is, but it is a mathematical relationship.  M = to the X axis
> value times the difference of positive and negative massergy of positive
> and negative Y axis. M=(Y(pos) - Y(neg))^2.  Charge is the change of
> positive flowing relative motion (massergy) with respect to negative flow.
> Charge is massergy spinning faster in one dimension then another. Charge=
> ((change of +yaxis)/(change of -Yaxis))XC^2.
>
> Therefore all known phenomena can be termed as the change of positive
> flowing time in relationship to negatively flowing time as time rotates
> across a defined axis. Time = Motion

Well, if you can explain what is going on at a singularity, Whether or not Neutrinos
have mass, and the other things I mentioned above, I'll definitely sit up and take
notice!

> Respectfully,
>
> Harold J. Bien III
>
> Attachment converted: Evan:attached.jpg (JPEG/JVWR) (00017815)
>
> Harold ---
>
> I cannot state at this moment if I would consider your above description
> "right" --- but I LIKE your creative thinking!  [I'm not saying it is
> "wrong" either.]  Do you mind if I pass it along [with your name attached
> as above] to others for their consideration?
>
> Evan
>
> Evan,
>
> You may pass it as you wish, and thank you!  I have only sent it to two
> people so far, you and Dr. Michio Kaku, whose reaction was similar.  If you
> are able to prove it wrong I would be interested in seeing why, this
> explains a host of untouched phenomena.  For example, ever wonder why
> planets (or galaxies for that matter) begin to rotate?  It can be explained
> by the polarization of a gravitational field near mass, which causes the
> particles to spiral (C^2) on themselves, creating a net force in one
> direction.  If you pay attention to polarities and use RELATIVE conversions
> on your units, you can use kinematics to calculate quantum reactions. Also,
> I left this out, X axis (total length of propagation) variable is equal to
> the total length of Y axis propagation regardless of charge.  All particles
> (singularities) MUST have charge in order to manifest.  It is the
> particle's attempt to seek time equilibrium that powers the effects of the
> known universe.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Harold J. Bien III

--
======================================================================
Fred Mitchell               http://www.mitchellware.com/mitchell/home/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We March to Save Your Children Sept. 23 -- http://www.phact.org
                                           End the Atrocities of the
Come Join Us.                              Child "Protective" System-
                                           Before it's too late.
======================================================================

The following is a review of Newman's 1/3/00 announcement which involves Dr. Swimmer:

> >MATHEMATICAL FACTS OF JOSEPH W. NEWMAN'S LIFE WORK:
> >
> >With the mechanical laws of gyroscopic particles, all of the following are
> >explained:
> >
> >1) Why mechanically do magnets mechanically attract and repel?

Yes?  I'm waiting.

> >2) Why, when a conductor is moved at different motions five times to the
> >lines of force of a magnet, the results concerning electric current does
> >five different results:

Bad query formation. What constitutes five different motions?

> >3) Conductor moves down and current goes in one direction.
> >
> >4) Conductor moves up and current goes in opposite direction.

Both explained by conventional theory. Apply Ockham's Razor.

> >5) Conductor moves down to opposite polarity of the magnet and moved down
> >again and current goes in opposite direction as in (3) above.
> >
> >6) Conductor moves up and current goes in opposite direction of (4) above.

As for the previous two. Up and down require frames of reference.

> >7) Now most shocking to a young mind of the subject, is that when the
> >conductor is moved parallel up or down to the lines of force of a magnet -
> >no matter how fast one move the conductor - NO current or EMF is produced.

Conventional theory requires a component to be present at right
angles to the mag field for current generation.

> >8) Why can one move a conductor a virtually a snail's pace at right angles
> >to the lines of force of a magnet and the current goes down the conductor
> >at the speed of light?

It has a propagation delay associated with it sorry. A closed circuit
is also required.

> >9) Why does light sometimes mechanically act like a PARTICLE and at other
> >times like a WAVE?  Throughout scientific history, that has dumbfounded the
> >scientific community.

Simply because someone has tried to explain what something we
can't actually see is in terms of something we can see. New situation
requires new terminology I would have thought.

> >10) Why mechanically is the earth positioned - as quoted by Science at a
> >"peculiar angle of its axis to the plane of its orbit around the sun?"

How long is a piece of string?

> >11) Why mechanically does the earth's true axis trace out two circles every
> >25,800 years?  [Note: all of the earth's motion and degrees are given as
> >approx.]

Are we talking about precession relative to the orbit?

> >12) Why mechanically does the earth's magnetic axis sit at 11" 45' angle to
> >earth's true axis?

It might be at present but it is changing.

> >13) Why mechanically has the scientific community since 1820 believed that
> >the magnetic field of a conductor to originate strictly from the current
> >and that the conductor was "dormant like a water pipe carrying water" and
> >yet Joseph Newman has proven exactly the opposite?

Well, mass produced machines will tell us where the answer is to
that horrendous conundrum.

> >14) Why has not anyone prior to Joseph Newman ever given even one
> >mechanical explanation of what INERTIA is? . . . yet Joseph Newman has
> >provided such an explanation.

I thought Ernst Mach did?

> >15) Why did the scientific community prior to the 1990s believe the
> >universe to be expanding out from a central explosion and yet Joseph Newman
> >since the 1970s was predicting and explaining why that wasn't true and that
> >he was proven correct in the 1990s by observations out in space that orbits
> >of entities observed were CURVING?

Not everyone agrees with such a picture. The jury is still out as far
as I'm concerned. Where is the frame of reference to provide a
pinpoint for such an origin?

> >Now consider that Joseph Westley Newman has MECHANICALLY EXPLAINED ALL OF
> >THE ABOVE BY ONE SIMPLE MECHANICAL EXPLANATION OF A GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE and
> >also explained much more as documented in his book, THE ENERGY MACHINE OF
> >JOSEPH NEWMAN.
> >
> >Now consider Schrodinger's prediction:  "A SIMPLE MECHANICAL EXPLANATION
> >WILL COME FORWARD THAT WILL REPLACE ALL THE MUMBO JUMBO MATHEMATICS THAT
> >PREVAILS OUR INDUSTRY."
> >
> >Now consider the mathematical laws of PROBABILITY of only the 15 prior new
> >mechanical explained events being explained mechanically by ONE simple
> >mechanical laws of a GYROSCOPE.
> >
> >Ponder the mathematical odds against the accidental occurrence of the 15
> >above different events:
> >
> >1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 x 9 x 10 x 11 x 12 x 13 x 14 x 15 =
> >1,207,674,368,000 or MORE THAN ONE TRILLION to one against it being an
> >ACCIDENTAL OCCURRENCE!  Behold the truth.  Joseph W. Newman has FULFILLED
> >THE SINCERE AND CARING PREDICTION OF SCHRODINGER.
> >
> >The undersigned SO AGREES.
> >
> >[Signed]
> >A. Swimmer, Ph.D.
> >27 December, 1999
> >
> --

I look forward to buying a machine that is capable of running itself
with no external power source.

Regards,
Malcolm

From: "Mark Harrison" <m3harri@microlink.net>

I have a few questions.
Where can we see these claims presented in a peer review?
If not available why?
What proof has Newman offered on these claims?
Why has Newman not let Eric test his "product"?
If Newmans claims are true why has he gone though so much trouble to silence Eric?
How many times has Newman claim to be months away from production?
Has Newman ever been convicted of a crime?
Is so what crime?
How much of the money Newman takes in from investors is for research vs OPERATIONS?
What repeatable experiments have been done to provide evidence of Gyroscope-particles?
Will Newmans theories hold up with out the NEWMAN particles?
 
 
 

back to Joe Newmans Free Energy Claims - are they valid?
Norm Biss's story of helping Joe Newman

 Free Energy FAQ page
ERIC'S OPEN OFFER TO VALIDATE CLAIMS OF FREE ENERGY
free energy with wires and magnets   - can you come out ahead?
Eric's history of Perpetual Motion and Free Energy Machines