Talk:Newman's energy machine

How it fools you (from archive 1)
I have to continue it here as I can't edit the archive, so

"I'm still a little confused about how you're answering my questions about how it rotates for so long and if this thing actually IS a good electric generator, since all you have to do is spin it manually once and it will produce current for quite a while. Those videos are just of his machine allegedly producing "free energy" but it still doesn't answer what I'm trying to find out. The snare (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Archived copy of Talk:Decoupling capacitor subtopic evolved into my mistaken use of Wikipedia/Talk as a forum for my views on the Newman device. Vinyasi (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It is good for generating electricity. This is how it works.... It switches current on and off through a coil of high inductance. Because of the high inductance, the current can produce a rather large amount of magnetic flux. This magnetic flux switches on and off to turn a magnet. It operates much like how a person is pushed on swing. The magnet is spun on the horizontal axis so that it doesn't produce a voltage. As the inductance is increased for a given voltage (by increasing the length and turns of the coil), the current drops as the resistance of the coil rises. The power used drops while the magnetic flux, and therefore the energy transfered to the magnet, per current is increased. The efficiency here is only limited necessarily by the inductance of the coil. The higher the inductance, the higher the efficiency. The higher inductance is due greater utilization of charge momentum (current times distance), as current is carried through many miles of wire in Newman's motor. At any given moment, a given current will involve more charge provided that the extent of that current is over a large wire, hence the magnetic flux.Kmarinas86 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)"


 * Honestly, I did not know much about electricity in 2007. It's been 15 months since, and I should know better now.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but if this machine is so good for generating electricity, then why do we have conventional generators that require something (water/steam) to push the turbine to keep it moving. Why don't we simply have a Newman Style generator where something spins it periodically to get it moving for a long time again? The snare (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the simple reason that Newman's machine does not work, as has been established both scientifically and in a court of law. Kmarinas86's "explanation" is, for want of a more polite term, complete nonsense.Prebys (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact is that the Newman "machine" constitutes a very INEFFICIENT electrical generator. I built moderately-sized Newman machine and I've noticed something relevant here. One may put, say, 100 watts of power onto the shaft, causing the magnet to rotate. Only a tiny fraction of my mechanical input power is converted to electricity in the coils. If I open the circuit, the circuit resistance is much higher, preventing the induction to take place, so that the only drag remaining is by frictional direct contact between the mechanical parts of the motor. However, the total drag is considerably less when I open the circuit, proving that only a tiny portion of my energy input goes to overcoming frictional direct contact. Therefore, the generated electrical power and the friction between moving parts is NOT enough to account for my energy input. Thus, a separate outlet for energy input is to explain why not all of it is converted to electric power or friction between adjacent parts.
 * Let's put it this way. If I double the speed at which I spin the magnet, twice the voltage is induced and the peak current is doubled. The doubling of the field strength results from that, which results in four times the torque because the torque varies with the square of the field. Four times the input torque at twice the rpm means eight times the power going in. Thus, power input increases by the cube of the speed. However, by spinning the PM rotor faster, the product of voltage and current (apparent power) increases only by the square of the speed, and the same is true for real power (resistance*current^2). Thus, the faster that the Newman machine is spun, the less efficient it is as an electrical generator.
 * However, if one runs the Newman "machine" as a electric motor instead of as a generator, the doubling of the voltage (input) will also double the current (input), thereby allowing power output to increase by the cube - rpm doubles as a result of twice the voltage while torque quadruples as a result of twice the current. Practical limitations to the voltage level are already well understood.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 19:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's also keep in mind that the only way torque will vary by the square of the current is if magnetic saturation is not established, otherwise, if magnetic saturation is established, then the torque will, at best, be proportional to current. Despite large air gaps existent in Newman's machines, Newman claims on his website that the power output of his machine only varies by the square of the voltage, or alternatively, the square of the rpm. If assumed to be correct, then we could assume that Newman's machine operates beyond the point of magnetic saturation.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but what's the point of all this? This talkpage is not a forum for general discussion of Newman's "Energy Machine". Rather, is intended only for discussing improvements to our article on this topic. see WP:TPG. Yilloslime T C  20:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right, but I felt that if this section is to remain here, I should respond by balancing things out. I think all of us need to simultaneously refrain from editing this section if we are to have it your way. I cannot guarantee that though. :)'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Breakthrough discovery: Newman's Gyroscopic Particles are simply EDDY CURRENTS!!!
Look at these pictures of eddy currents: http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/EddyCurrents/Graphics/EC_princ2.gif http://www.engineersedge.com/inspection/image/eddycu9.gif

Then look at Joseph Newman's "gyroscopic particles" http://www.josephnewman.com/more-info.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_currents

Bingo.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite possibly. However, eddy currents don't explain his claimed (but never convincingly demonstrated) 'over unity' performance.  For that you need some yet-to-be-explained matter-to-energy conversion or a repeal of the 1st law of thermodynamics. SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Look up Larmor formula. That's E=mc^2 right there.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 07:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Still doesn't prove the claim of more energy coming out than being put in. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 12:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Internets can't do that. You have to physically be there.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbirtration panel ruling over Pseudoscience and published theories.
I thought I should copy over from WP:Fringe theories the following information from the Arbitration panel:


 * Appropriate sources Verifiability and Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

...which means that the theories of Joseph Newman may not be represented as scientific theories in Wikipedia until they have been published in reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals - which they clearly have not. In line with this ruling, I have rearranged the article and put particular emphasis on the lack of scientific backing for Newman's theories.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The above does not prevent this being unacceptable OR.

Newman's theories have no scientific basis... They are in direct conflict with classical electrodynamics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.193.191 (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:FRINGE. We are required to follow the mainstream view on scientific topics.  Making energy from nothing is as clearly a violation of the first law of thermodynamics as the statement that 2+2=5 is a violation of basic arithmetic.  I'm pretty sure you wouldn't consider the statement: "Two plus two equals five is in direct conflict with standard arithmetic" to be OR.  The statement that "A machine that could make energy from nothing would be a violation of thermodynamics and is therefore impossible." is absolutely the same level of obviousness for a physicist as 2+2=4 is to a mathematician.  It's not OR, it's the default viewpoint of mainstream science - and mainstream science is the line that Wikipedia takes in all fringe theory matters.  I'm sorry if you don't like that policy - but this is not the place to fight it.


 * If you have solid evidence that the machine DOESN'T violate thermodynamics or that it DOES have scientific basis - then by all means let's correct the article. Obviously we'll be demanding solid references for that - and WP:FRINGE points out that this would have to be something of the order of a peer reviewed article in an established scientific journal.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't read WP:FRINGE too strictly. If something is beyond mainstream science, then that should be clearly noted in the article (as it is in this case), but if the subject is notable it should be covered.  When I was born, the Big Bang, black holes, continental drift, and bee dance communication were all fringe science.  Continental drift was especially suspect, since there was scientific proof that the Earth's core is solid.  (Take a hard boiled egg and spin it.  Take a raw egg and spin it.  See the difference?  Never mind it proves nothing, this was taken as proof.)


 * Newman is on to something not explained by any existing mainstream theory. What we don't know.  Newman is an autodidact without enough grounding in conventional theory to explain himself clearly.  Furthermore, he appears to have engaged in deliberate fraud.  His history is full of stories where it ran for so much longer than they expected that they turned it off.  Then someone comes along and does the math and says the battery might have run it for twice as long.  If he really had something that worked, he would leave it running for weeks.


 * I agree with Hastings analysis of the NIST test. Essentially they powered it up them measured some irrelevancies.  Newman's argument that he couldn't just hang around for a month while they tested it is valid, though he did have the opportunity to tell them what they were doing wrong.  Newman's  contention that the machine can't work if it's grounded makes sense.  NIST's claim that the machine is a dangerous if not grounded is definitely true.


 * All atomic energy is based on violation of conservation of energy. In classical physics, matter and energy were independently conserved.  In modern physics, they are conserved jointly, but matter can become energy and vice versa.  I heard Newman claim that the same thing was at work with his device, but then he was vague on exactly what matter was converted.  He seemed to claim that he was tapping the spin of the copper atoms that made up the coil.  By this theory, the copper would eventually run out of spin and the device would stop.  I don't think Newman even knows what spin means in this context.  He then said that the amount of matter being converted to energy was so small that the device would run for "thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of years."  About the third time he says  "thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of years" (and I am not exaggerating) he gets painful to listen to.  Since he admits ignorance about what matter is converted, and he never runs a test for more than two days, I don't know how he knows it will work for thousands of years.


 * Rayovac could not explain how he charged their dead batteries. Odds are it was a parlor trick.  The device contains a battery or capacitor which was drained to charge the batteries.  Whenever someone wants to look at his machine carefully right before or after a test, Newman makes excuses.  He has legitimate points about damage to the machine, but if I can't define and run an experiment, it's not science.


 * So I am sure he is on to something, but he is probably a charlatan or a kook, if not both.   Randall Bart    Talk   19:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The NIST didn't measure "some irrelevancies"; they measured power out versus power in. Regardless of the (silly) mechanism Newman claims is at work, he has always claimed this produces an apparent over-unity measurement. It didn't, and never has in anything like a controlled test.  If you watch Newman's videos on YouTube, it's clear he doesn't even understand the most basic concepts of energy and power, or indeed even use proper units.  Any claims he makes wrt efficiency can be confidently disregarded, leaving nothing.  There's no gray area here.Prebys (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure he does not know his science. For the longest time, he claimed that the output of the machine could not be connected to the input to create perpetual motion - so although it produces (he claims) more energy on the output than you supply on the input, it's "not a perpetual motion machine" and therefore allowed under the laws of thermodynamics.   Well - that argument is CLEARLY junk for anyone with an ounce of scientific training.  Right here - on these very discussion pages, I argued with the guy who eventually turned out to be Newmans' press secretary (who was editing in CLEAR violation of Wikipedia policies) about this exact thing - and eventually got them cornered into a position where they'd have to admit that the machine's output could (at least in theory) be used to drive the input.  At this point (to my personal surprise - and according to the press secretary guy) Newman changed his mind and conceded that the output could indeed be connected to the input and thereby operate the machine as a perpetual motion machine.  This has put him safely out in la-la-land where none of the things he once said about thermodynamics can apply anymore...even in his bizarro universe of "spinning massergies".  Of course we have still not seen a perpetual motion demonstration.  If you read enough of his writings - and god knows there are enough of them online in various places - you get a clear idea of someone who fits all of the criteria for nut-job free energy people - random scientific jargon thrown together in meaningless ways just to sound "scientific".  Whether he's a fraud or a very sad case of a self-deluded man, I don't know - but either way, he's most certainly not to be taken seriously. SteveBaker (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is clear that Newman has denied himself the mental faculty that would have him try harder into using excess output to increase the voltage of the input. In this way he disservices himself and others in not attempting to speed up the motor. Of course, this would require more precise engineering to withstand the loads. He denied himself the capacity to make such improvements thinking that he could make satisfactory or at least reasonable improvements by utilizing his stubbornly "improvised" method he uses to build his motors. He therefore expresses a laziness which he has never overcome, which in doing so would (allegedly) satisfy the needs of skeptics for a closed-loop system as proof. I believe he is a self-deluded man, but there is some merit to his focus on the quasi-gyroscopic behavior of fundamental particles. Good old conventional electromagnetic theory has already been superseded by quantum electrodynamics, and I believe that QED has the unique ability to explain the real source the anomalous phenomenon reported in the 1980's media attention surrounding the older Newman devices. Some key words I am looking up right now include magnetic flux quantum and landau levels as they deal with other forms of quantization not usually introduced in introductory physics courses.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 17:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Further ArbCom rulings:
This article really needs to be cut down dramatically. In a recent unanimous ArbCom ruling Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology: "...self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources." - this article relies heavily on the writings of Newman and his immediate supporters. I think this goes far beyond "limited circumstances". SteveBaker (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would emphasize the following, "Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources." As far as I know, the use of primary sources in this article are in fact limited to the descriptive aspects pertaining to the device (e.g. appearance of pumping water, having a commutator, having a permanently magnetized rotor, having significant flux leakage, etc.), as these make no claims as to the nature and position of other parties. In the article, there already are abundant third party sources related to the allegations surrounding the main subject and specific controversies connected to it. I see no evidence from the ArbCom ruling suggesting that the article be reduced half in size.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 14:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Primary sources'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1)   1. ^ Hartwell II, R. M., DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR ROTATING MAGNET NEWMAN MOTORS, JosephNewman.com. 1991-2003. Retrieved 18 September 2008.
 * 2)   2. ^ Hastings, Roger, MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS OF JOSEPH NEWMAN'S ENERGY GENERATOR, JosephNewman.com. Retrieved 25 April 2008.
 * 3)   7. ^ "Joseph Newman's Theory". JosephNewman.com.. http://www.josephnewman.com/JN_Theory_by_Hastings.html. Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
 * 4)   9. ^ a b STATEMENT BY JOSEPH NEWMAN, JosephNewman.com. Retrieved 24 April 2008.
 * 5)  13. ^ a b c d Newman, Joseph (1983-03-17). "Patent Application: "ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEM HAVING HIGHER ENERGY OUTPUT THAN INPUT" (failed)". http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=1983%2F00963&IA=WO1983%2F00963&DISPLAY=STATUS. Retrieved on 2008-01-12.
 * 6)  17. ^ Hartwell, Ralph M. Amateur Radio at W5JGV, Welcome to the Ham Shack of W5JGV. 2001-2007. Retrieved 24 April 2008.
 * 7)  18. ^ Hartwell, Ralph M. Spectrotek Services, Spectrotek Services. 2002-2005. Retrieved April 24, 2008
 * 8)  23. ^ ""Mexican Patent Search at infopat.com". http://www.infopat.com.mx/search/results.php?tipo_busqueda=1&pal=1&PclaveField=MEJORAS+A+UN+SISTEMA+Y+METODO+PARA+GENERAR+ENERGIA&Campos=PATENTE&CampoField=&tipo_fecha_en=1&rang_fecha_mes=00&rang_fecha_anio=2006&rang_fecha_en=FH_PPT&orden=TITULO&resultados_por_pagina=20&alea=53257&lang=eng. Retrieved on 2008-01-13.
 * 9)  25. ^ Newman, Joseph W., The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, JosephNewman.com. Retrieved 24 April 2008.
 * 10)  26. ^ LETTER FROM COL. THOMAS BEARDEN, JosephNewman.com. Retrieved 24 April 2008.


 * Third-party sources'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1)   3. ^ a b c d e US National Bureau of Standards (June 1986). "Report of Tests on Joseph Newman's Device". The National Capital Area Skeptics. http://www.ncas.org/nbsreport/index.html. Retrieved on 2008-01-12.
 * 2)   4. ^ a b c d e f g h Peterson, Ivars, (5 July 1986). "NBS report short-circuits energy machine - National Bureau of Standards". Science News. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v130/ai_4305182. Retrieved on 2007-12-24.
 * 3)   5. ^ "Will Joseph Newman's energy machine revolutionize the world?". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 1986-06-14. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AT&p_theme=at&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB7C231D73A9DDC&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM. Retrieved on 2007-12-13.  (highlight)
 * 4)   6. ^ "Inventor speaks to LSU audience on controversial "energy machine"". The Advocate (Baton Rouge).. 1986-02-26. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AD&p_theme=ad&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB473C3CE181832&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM. Retrieved on 2007-01-24.  (highlight)
 * 5)   8. ^ Newman Energy Machine: Introduction, National Capital Area of Skeptics. 1986. Retrieved 7 June 2008.
 * 6)  11. ^ a b "Perpetual Motion: Still Going Around". The Washington Post. 2000-01-12. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-24504490.html. Retrieved on 2007-01-01.  (highlight)
 * 7)  12. ^ a b Peterson, Ivars, (1985-06-01). "A patent pursuit: Joe Newman's 'energy machine'.". Science News. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v127/ai_3794102. Retrieved on 2008-02-26.
 * 8)  14. ^ Henson, Steve (September 3, 1994). "Fair vendor sells magnets supposed to cure anything". The Pueblo Chieftain. http://www.chieftain.com/metro/778572000/12/sea. "Taliaferro is president\CEO of Magnetic Engineering Inc. of Manitou Springs. His company, which has a booth at the Colorado State Fair just north of the Palace of Agriculture, sells various products based on the principle -- or theory, if you're a skeptic -- of bio-magnetics. (A full quote may be found here)"
 * 9)  15. ^ a b c d e f g "The Energy Machine of Joe Newman Abstracted from an article in the May 1987 issue of Disco". http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys4/newman.htm. Retrieved on 2008-01-13.
 * 10)  16. ^ a b c Marshall, Eliot, Newman's Impossible Motor The patent office does not believe that Joseph Newman has built a generator that is more than 100 percent efficient, Science magazine. 10 February 1984. Retrieved 24 April 2008. (highlight "Milton Everett") (highlight "Ralph M. Hartwell") (highlight "WWL-TV staff") (highlight "Roger Hastings")
 * 11)  19. ^ a b In Re Newman, 782 F.2d971, 974-75 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
 * 12)  20. ^ In Re Newman, 782 F.2d971, 974-75 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
 * 13)  21. ^ US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Case #88-1312, Newman v Quigg.
 * 14)  24. ^ a b Park, Robert, L (2001-08-31). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0195147100.

So if this article relies heavily on primary sources, so does it rely even more so on third-party sources. This is another reason why Mr. Baker's point is moot.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You really do need to read the entire sentence that you quoted and not just give up when you hit the phrase you liked! Let's read the whole thing together shall we? "Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources ."
 * How about limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources . Is that better?'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * - that means that you an say
 * "that means that you an say" What?'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Sunday Times said XYZ" and use the Sunday Times as a primary source that they did indeed say that. You cannot use the writings of Newman (a primary source) as evidence of anything other than that Newman said something...
 * Well duh.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * you cannot use them to show that some description of his machine is true.
 * No description shows or proves a machine is "true", whatever machine happens to be discussed.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can say "Newman claimed that his machine pumped water" - and use Newman's writings to verify that he did make that claim.
 * Well duh.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You may not (for blindingly freaking obvious reasons!) use his writings to back up the statement that "The machine pumped water".
 * The machine "pumping water" referenced a video, not the book. The other (first) example of "pumping water" refers to a test done by engineers and is not sourced from the book.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * His claim that it did is a mere primary source - there is a very good chance that he might have lied about that. That's why Wikipedia has this rule and cannot take his claims at face-value.
 * The video of his machine pumping water is what was sourced. There is nothing magical or new about a claim about pumping water. The reference used there is neither from his book, or his writings. It is plain to see on the video. The webpage is referenced, but only to make the point that the url exists. For the sake of clarity, I have added the relevant url to the footnote. For a claim like "pumping water", a video is good enough.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't allow you to use primary sources to support statements of fact in general...which is what you are trying to do.
 * We'll then the issue is semantics and use of the sources, not necessarily the sources themselves.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So - please read the WHOLE of the guideline before you go spouting off about how my point is moot. It most certainly is not.


 * When you strip out all of those bogus references and misuse of first-party sources, the entire article is horribly under-referenced - and should be trimmed back to only saying what can be verified by reliable, unbiased 3rd party accounts.
 * Misuse of first-party sources does not imply removal of all them.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to argue this point with the folks at ArbCom - but until you convince them to change their minds - you are WRONG. SteveBaker (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what you say chief.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob Park's "What's New" on this article
Bob Park's "What's New" newsletter of March 5, 2010 has an item on the Newman machine, and has this to say about this article:

"Coverage of the Joe Newman case in Wikipedia is terrible. It's a remarkably useful encyclopedia, but you need to verify."

I'm not at all familiar with this subject, and wouldn't know where to begin in improving the article, nor do I know in what way Park feels the article is faulty. I did want to point this out, though, so that someone who is knowledgable about the subject can do whatever clean-up is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "nor do I know in what way Park feels the article is faulty" He's saying that the case between Newman vs. Quigg needs more information. It probably should have its own section.'' Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 12:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. I've e-mailed him for specifics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Look at the red line..everytime the charge is started it is endothermic..

Geoffreyblanc (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed slim down of the article
What the article needs is radical slimming down to just the facts for which there is secondary & tertiary references. We need to say only what is known for a fact - and not the things that various parties claim without evidence. The result would be a very short article - on a largely irrelevent court case between a charlatan and the US patent office. SteveBaker (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I don't think I have the time to help much. Yilloslime T C  16:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's time to revisit this issue. There's been a general wave of cleanup on Wikipedia, which as resulted in much more succinct and appropriate articles; for example, the Motionless electromagnetic generator had lot of badly needed pruning, and certainly there's no reason for this article to be significantly longer than that one. I'm willing to put some work into it, if I have reasonable confidence that some true believer is not going to start simply reverting everything I do, so please speak now...Prebys (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Go for it! We can't ever be sure that a "true believer" won't pop up out of the woodwork - but what needs to be removed is more or less all of the stuff that Newman claims - for which he is the only source.  Primary sources are not encouraged - so we're fully justified in drastically pruning them...doubly so because the article is currently giving vastly undue weight to a "way out there" fringe theory.  We can prune all of his claims down to a single "Newman claims that..." paragraph - which we can easily source.  My proposal to slim it down has not been contested in the 9 months it's been there.  The only editors who have expressed an interest are in favor of the change, so we have a clear (albeit a bit minimalist) consensus.  I'd have attacked the article myself - but I'm a little busy elsewhere right now. SteveBaker (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I haven't been paying much attention to this article and it's really gotten amazingly bad (I'm not surprised Bob Park criticized it).  I'll start whacking away at it tonight.Prebys (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind anymore. Go ahead, and do it.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia undefined 21:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - it helps. The only other "believer" who ever seriously contributed here was User:ESoule - who eventually turned out to be Newmans' publicity agent.  His COI issues would disqualify him from editing the article anyway.  Hence there are no obstacles to a significant clean-up. SteveBaker (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It took a while to get around to it, but I'm in the process of radically trimming the article.Prebys (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I think it's more or less the appropriate length now. Perhaps someone would like to add back a little more detail, but I think I'm done for now.Prebys (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Good job.  Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Bob Park would be happier with this version. Maybe I'll email him.Prebys (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Citing the obvious
After the trim down, the flow of the perpetual motion section was a little backwards. I improved it, but realize I don't have a citation for the fact that the device should run closed-loop even if Newmann's bogus theories were true. It's an obvious point, but rules are rules and without a citation it's WP:OR. Any help would be appreciated.Prebys (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC) undefined 01:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct - in fact Newman went to some trouble to avoid claiming it could run closed loop (and therefore be a perpetual motion machine). He most certainly did claim that it could generate more energy than you put into it.  The only admission of any kind that it MIGHT in fact be capable of closed loop operation came right here in this very talk page when one of Newman's cronies (he was his "Press Secretary") came here and started editing in violation of WP:COI.  I had asked why one could not simply connect output to input and get perpetual motion.  Newman was consulted on this question by our tame insider - and the claim was that the electricity that came out had some different character (or 'nature') than the electricity required to run the machine.  I demanded to know whether this "special" output-side electricity was actually useful for anything at all?  Yes, it was.  I asked whether you could use it to charge a car battery?  Yes, you certainly could.  I asked whether that car battery could then be used to power the machine?  Well, yes it could - but if you connected the output of the machine to the battery and the battery to the machine, then the special 'output electricity' would mess up the machine.  So I talked about using the machine to charge one battery while it ran off of another - and whether we might use the remaining over-unity power to operate a small robot which would swap over the two batteries when the fresh one was charged - and thereby keep the machine running closed loop...thereby PROVING that Newmans' claims of over-unity operation did in fact constitute a perpetual motion claim.  Our cronie went off to talk to Newman - and came back with the news that Newman had in fact now come up with some kind of circuit that would allow the machine to run closed loop without external power...perpetual motion.  Sadly, this is all OR of the most horrible kind - but you can read about it in the archives of this very talk page.
 * Aside from that...Newman has (on occasion) stated that the spinning massergies that power his machine do actually consume mass from the machines' own mechanism. Thus, he's saying that the machine would eventually consume enough of it's own matter to eventually cease to function.  In effect, he's claiming that mass-energy equivalence is what's powering the machine.  Cold fusion?   Well, something of that ilk.  However, pinning Newman down to this load of steaming crap is difficult.  The guy has zero science education - he's built up an entire theory of the universe complete with his own brand of particle physics.  He can't even debate the subject intelligently with people who understand "real" science because his terminology is weird and he's operating in this entire other domain.
 * So it would be wrong to say that he ever claimed perpetual motion...he does not. If pressed, I think he'd go to the mass-energy equivalence mechanism to explain where the machine gets its' energy from.  That isn't something that would be at all easy to dismiss.  Sure, we could argue that there would be a hell of a lot of stray radiation from a machine that was converting mass in to energy directly...but in his crazy universe, he can just throw together some random pile of spinning-massergy bullshit jargon and dismiss those objections out of hand.
 * Conclusion is that we're not going to find a reference for that - because Newman won't admit it (well, not anywhere other than via his press agent on these talk pages) - and anything anyone else says about his theories, he can easily defend against by appealing to his brand of pseudo-science.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, if the mass-to-energy conversion were one way only in the long run, that would mean that the Newman Machine would not be a perpetual motion machine simply because you cannot convert the all the energy back into mass, you can only convert some of it. Contrarily, if you were somehow magically able to collect and reuse 100% of the heat put out by the power dissipated in loads powered by the Newman machine, then there would be no reason why you couldn't do the same with every other source of energy.
 * Actually, partially-closed loop is possible, but a totally-closed loop is totally impossible. Total closed-loop operation is impossible regardless of the finite amount of mass utilized. In the end, all your doing is using more spinning cogs and wheels than is built by man. Eventually they will slow down. However, in Newman's model, all energy travels at the speed of light, and any object moving slower than light is simply made of energy deflecting inside a tiny spaces we call atoms, or a higher density of "gyroscopic particles" if you will. "Potential energy" becomes nothing less than a hidden battery, consisting totally of internal kinetic energy, with an energy storage density equal to E/m (=c^2). Tesla once stated, "Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static, our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is, for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of Nature." The only difference with Newman is that the energy he proposes is not coming from (outer) space but rather from inner space, coming directly from mass itself.
 * It doesn't matter at all. Newmann claims that the extra power going to the output comes from converting some of the mass to energy. If you converted 1 microgram of mass to energy, it would supply a kilowatt for 68 years.  Certainly long enough to supply power to the input.Prebys (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooooof course, because burning something for 68 years violates the first AND the second laws of thermodynamics, which mean "energy from nothing" and "no losses". Sure. Sure. But seriously.... comeback when you have a real reason as to why it doesn't matter.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * &lt;sigh&gt; No, Kmarinas86, your total lack of knowledge of physics and thermodynamics lets you down again - you really should stop talking because every time you say something here, your science is off by 180 degrees. Extracting energy by mass/energy conversion does not violate the laws of thermodynamics - that's how we can have nuclear fission reactors and hydrogen fusion bombs.  Conversion of mass to energy is what powers the sun and stars - and no laws of physics (including thermodynamics) are broken in the process.  If they were then these "laws" would no longer be laws because we'd have long ago proven them to be false.

undefined 17:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC) undefined 01:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC) undefined 03:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC) undefined 18:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) undefined 01:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If we believed this statement from Newman, then his machine would be like a nuclear reactor - able to produce energy for an insanely long time - but eventually running down. Not a perpetual motion machine - but more like Cold Fusion (although, perhaps "Cold Fission" would be more likely).  Thermodynamics doesn't preclude the machine using parts of itself as fuel.  If you need a non-nuclear analogy, it would be as if I built a wooden steam engine and progressively chopped pieces of lumber off of the various non-essential parts of the engine and tossed them into the fire to keep it running.  This machine would run for a while - but eventually, we'd run out of non-essential parts to burn and the machine would stop running.  The same thing would be true of Newman's machine IF we believed him.  However, since this is really nothing more than a permanent magnet spinning in a coil - it truly isn't possible for it to do mass/energy conversion - and if it did, it is certain that there would be ungodly amounts of stray radiation coming from the thing...plenty enough to fry anyone within spitting distance of it.  There is simply no possible way in which such a naively simple system could be performing mass/energy conversions. SteveBaker (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact (as I'm sure you know), chemical reactions are mass to energy conversion as well. For example, energy is released when burning Hydrogen because a water molecule is slightly lighter than two H molecules and an O. It's just that in chemistry, the scale is so small that it's not really useful to think of it that way.Prebys (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "&lt;sigh&gt; No, Kmarinas86, your total lack of knowledge of physics and thermodynamics lets you down again - you really should stop talking because every time you say something here, your science is off by 180 degrees. Extracting energy by mass/energy conversion does not violate the laws of thermodynamics - that's how we can have nuclear fission reactors and hydrogen fusion bombs." Wow, it was only sarcasm, but here it appears that you seem to take it at face value.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * Actually, what happens when the energy leaves the system is that its frequency of revolution decreases. It simply converts to lower and lower orbital frequencies (i.e. lower orbital frequencies -> larger orbits) until finally we cannot use it anymore as it would simply be traveling in gigantic arcs throughout the universe. This creates "entropy". So even if the Newman machine put out more than it receives currently, it can only do so to the extent that energy was already inside it prior to it being switched on, in the form of copper, iron, and other elements which were formed in the stars from other elements. (Again, no violation of thermodynamics is there!) So therefore, in a sense, the Newman machine DOES have hidden batteries, but if Newman is right, this would be ironic because they would be "hidden in plain sight", so to speak. Using elements as a source of energy does not violate any thermodynamic laws. If you happen to release the energy of elements themselves without using any chemical reactions or nuclear transmutations, then so much the better. Nevertheless, the laws will still hold.
 * Again, totally irrelevant (wrong, too, but irrelevant nonetheless). It doesn't matter what's going on internally.  What goes in is electrical power; what comes out is mechanical power.  If the output is greater than the input, you can run it closed loop - PERIOD.Prebys (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One can light a stick of dynamite with a high-voltage battery and two leads, and you would get more mechanical output than electrical input, but please don't call that perpetual motion.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * I'm not calling anything perpetual motion. I said "closed loop" - for as long as Newmann's hypothetical source of energy (mass to energy conversion, unicorn dung, whatever, lasts).  Look, I'll explain it slowly, with an example, so that maybe you'll understand.  Let's say he puts 100 Watts in and 200 Watts come out.  He claims the excess comes from converting mass to energy, but whatever the case, presumably it continues for a while, or - in addition to being wrong - it wouldn't be useful. Now while it lasts, there's no reason you couldn't channel 100 Watts from the output to keep the input going and still have 100 Watts left over.  This would be the ultimate, and necessary test to prove that the output power was greater than the input power.  Of course it isn't, because this is all nonsense.Prebys (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You might have to remind SteveBaker to check on his vocab then. He said, "Newman went to some trouble to avoid claiming it could run closed loop (and therefore be a perpetual motion machine)."siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * That was in the context of the patent application. Since the patent office does not consider magical explanations, a device whose "output energy is greater than its input energy" would be considered perpetual motion.  Even with Newman's ridiculous explanation, arguing you need an external power supply to convert the mass of the copper to energy would be precisely the same as arguing that you can only run a lawnmower's spark plug on an external battery. YES, all the energy is coming from the gasoline, but you take a tiny bit of it to fire the spark plug. If you read anything Newman has written or watched any of his videos, you realize that he simply doesn't understand this because he has absolutely no  knowledge of basic physics concepts.  His freely mixes units and draws profound conclusions from completely non-sequitur observations, so it's not surprising that he doesn't grasp the significance of the failure to operate the machine closed loop.Prebys (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the critics who have done most to try to equate so-called "closed loop" operation with perpetual motion. This has confused Newman into a corner where he had to attempt to deny the ability to close the loop to prove that his machine is not a perpetual motion machine. A recent exchange above, in part driven by my attempt at reverse psychology, of course has emphasized the fact that a so-called "closed loop" operation does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Then it would follow that while the claimed device may be regarded as a perpetual motion machine, such a contention is only conditionally valid. I believe Newman had wasted much of his time trying to say it could not run closed loop, when it clearly can. However, I blame the critics for teaching him, incorrectly, that a so-called "closed loop" implied a perpetual system, and I also blame them for the respectively consequent wasting of time on Newman's part.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * The only things you would violate are the sensibilities of those who believe that the only way we can derive energy, directly or indirectly, is through chemical reactions, nuclear transmutations, and the rotational kinetic energy of the Earth and other celestial bodies (as is obtained from the gravitational slingshot technique used by NASA and other space agencies to reduce the economic and energy costs of many interplanetary space missions).
 * Atoms are not perpetual motion machines either. They lose energy to the environment, which for them consists of outer space, gases, planets, life, etc. Life is a "heat sink" for atomic energy but not for a galaxy. The larger the movement, the more of a heat sink it is. The smaller the movement, the more of a heat source it is. What are the limits to the size of a movement?siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia


 * Um, yeah. K'thanks.  This is a perfect demonstration of the point that sensible conversations cannot be had with Newman apologists.  Faced with incoherent streams of concatenated science-words with no actual meaning behind them, we're forced to dismiss/ignore what they say.  What is left is only what has actually been observed or measured directly from the machine.  When the courts ordered the machine to be examined, it was very clear that it is nothing more than an exceedingly inefficient motor/generator.  This is why we have WP:NOR.  SteveBaker (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "What is left is only what has actually been observed or measured directly from the machine." This is the only truly relevant thing in the first place. Nothing else mattered here. "When the courts ordered the machine to be examined, it was very clear that it is nothing more than an exceedingly inefficient motor/generator." It's obvious from their test protocol that they added a parallel resistor. They were not testing the machine, but instead they were testing the parallel resistor connected across the machine. When they decreased the parallel resistance, their measured "efficiency" increased simply because more of the power measured coming from the battery was being dissipated in the resistor. Using the same kind of flawed logic, one could claim 99% "efficiency" in producing heat if the resistance were small enough. Why would they call that the "output" of the Newman machine? It wasn't that in the first place.
 * Tables for http://files.ncas.org/nbsreport/results.html

       <dd> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> undefined 17:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia

undefined 21:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you appear to be implying that the NBS doesn't know how to measure the output of a gmachine. I don't remember any RS saying that the NBS report was wrong or done incorrectly. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The chart implies that the "efficiency" tends to be lower when there was more parallel resistance. May I simply add the chart to the article? It reflects exactly the content of what you would regard as a reliable source, so there should be no problem there. As far as my claim that the efficiency they measured was based on measuring the output of the resistor and the input of the source, the source agrees, and it explicitly stated, "2.4 Output Power Measurements The output power was the power dissipated in a resistive load RL connected in parallel with the coil of the device under test, as shown in figure 4."(http://files.ncas.org/nbsreport/approach.html)<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * The rest of the first paragraph in the section "2.4 Output Power Measurements" continues as follows:
 * "Two values of resistive load were constructed: nominally 50,000 ohms, and 200,000 ohms. By using series and parallel combinations of resistors of these values tests were run at nominal loads of 400,000 ohms, 200,000 ohms, 150,000 ohms, 100,000 ohms, and 50,000 ohms. Most of the data, however, were taken at 200,000 ohms or 50,000 ohms. The 200,000-ohm level was selected because at this point the power dissipated in the load and the power dissipated in the device under test were approximately equal. The 50,000-ohm level was selected as the smallest value of the resistance that could be used routinely without potentially damaging the device; one of the goals of the test program was to perform only nondestructive measurements. A significant source of potential damage was the vibration of the device, which increased as the value of the load resistance decreased."

undefined 21:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now tell me what happens if you put all the input into the machine and not "half" of it.... I suppose you might say that the efficiency would be 0.00000000%.<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * The report has a conclusions section, where it says "in no case did the device's efficiency approach 100 percent.  At all conditions tested, the input Power exceeded the output power. That is, the device did not deliver more energy than it used. " (emphasis in the original). There is a more through description in the factsheet: "The device's efficiency -- defined as the the ratio of output power to input power (...) ranged between 27 and 67 percent (...)".


 * Those are the conclusions made by the report, and I haven't seen any RS claiming that they are incorrect. Your own conclusions, derived from your own examination of the raw data, are not a reliable source for the article. Placing the graph in the article, in order to "prove" that the NBS was wrong, would be a way of inserting your own conclusions. It doesn't matter how correct you think that you are, what matters is that the report is a RS. It also matters that there are no RS saying that this report is incorrect. In other words: you need to provide RS for this sort of conclusions. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

undefined 02:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC) undefined 18:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said I was going to add this claim to the article. Contrary to this, as far as I know, the image itself is not a violation of WP:RS any more than the graphic I made for World Population. I will add the image to the article showing the NBS data set right now.<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * What is the purpose of adding there the definition of output power used by tne NBS? How does it add to the understanding of the reader? The only purpose I can see is of undermining the conclusions of the NBS by sort-of-implying-in-an-indirect-way that there are several definitions of output power and that NBS only disproved the machine in one of them..... The NBS tested the machine and found its efficacy to be below 100%, period. If there is no RS pointing out any problem with their definition of output power, then I don't see the point of cramming that definition at that point of the sentence.
 * Isn't "efficacy" simply a term for some alternative, and often not well-explained, type of "efficiency"? You seem to be "sort-of-implying-in-an-indirect-way" that there are several definitions for efficiency. Not saying I disagree with that, but I would never dare to equate different types of efficiencies, such as power efficiency, volumetric efficiency, cost efficiency, etc., and nor would I judge a device's efficiency in all categories by analyzing data pertinent to only one such category.<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * The conclusion of the report says "The device's efficiency -- defined as the ratio of output power to input power". That should be enough for the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * P.D.: After looking carefully at the image, I have no problem with the addition of the image. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

undefined 17:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem adding the image when citing the report. It shows that the efficiency is varies with load resistance, which is not particularly surprising. Personally, I'm confident that that NIST knows how to measure efficiency properly - certainly more confident than I am in Newmann, who proves repeatedly in his videos that he doesn't understand basic physics units. BUT, back to the original question: does anyone have a cite for the fact that  if the output power is greater than the input power, the device could run closed loop regardless of whether the energy were coming from converting the internal mass to energy (which of course isn't happening anyway)?Prebys (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder what the far right of the graph would look like if we had data points for various parallel resistances in excess of 10 megaohms. Can I say, with a simple deduction, that NBS would have refrained from doing that as it would make the flaws of this method of calculation of efficiency of the motor, shall I say, ludicrous? I dare you to try the same thing on a conventional DC motor of a rated efficiency of 60% and see how low you can get the measured "efficiency" to fall.<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia


 * I'm sorry, but that's a stupid question. When the resistance is infinite (like you just run the motor into an open circuit) no current flows through the load.  That's a simple consequence of ohms' law (V=IR) - which I trust that not even Newman would gainsay.  If V is not infinite (it can't be) and R is infinite then I must be zero.  So we know that no energy is driven into the load.  That means that all of the energy that is still required to spin the generator is wasted - no matter how little that is (unless, of course you claim that your machine consumes zero energy when driving an open circuit...which would be a perpetual motion machine of the first kind).


 * That means that, by definition, all generators of all kinds exhibit 0% efficiency when driving an infinite load.

undefined 00:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this is really inevitable to anyone versed in the sciences, there is no point in testing out beyond reasonable load values just to prove the sublimely obvious. Who gives a damn what the minimum efficiency is anyway?  The interesting value is the maximum efficiency.  Having established that lowering the load below 50Kohms would likely destroy the machine, they only needed to explore load values progressively higher than that until it's peak efficiency had been found.  Once the efficiency curve starts to trend down dramatically, there is little point in looking further up the resistance scale because the drop to zero is inevitable.  Of course Newman might come up with some typical random collection of science-words to explain that this was bad methodology - but it's very clear that the testers did the right thing.  Of course Newman would likely tell us that the machine "would not only supply inverse reactive current for use in unilateral phase detractors, but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing cardinal grammeters".  SteveBaker (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Having established that lowering the load below 50Kohms would likely destroy the machine, they only needed to explore load values progressively higher than that until it's peak efficiency had been found." Is it hard to dissipate 99.9% of your power into a resistor? Obviously, it is not. So, had the NBS instead used a 1 ohm parallel resistor, they could have measured 99.9% "efficiency" with a broken Newman motor according the NBS test report's moronic definition for efficiency which is "the power dissipated in a parallel resistor divided by power input from the batteries". <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia


 * Certainly you can dissipate enormous amounts of power through a one ohm resistor if you make it big enough or if you transport the resulting heat out of it fast enough. But your assumption that (if the machine would not destroy itself) its' efficiency would continue to increase with decreasing resistance is entirely unjustified.  There is no particular reason to assume that it would ever get better than the 30% to 60% that was measured.  The NBS definition of efficiency is far from "moronic" - and since your personal knowledge of the science behind this stuff is clearly close to zero - I think it's pretty unreasonable of you to claim that without evidence.  The load resistor is merely representative of some device that consumes the power produced by the output of the machine - a convenient way to measure that directly without the problems of controlling the nasty power spikes and uneven voltages and currents that the Newman contraption was inclined to generate.  So comparing the heat produced by the resistor to the power provided on the input is indeed a direct measurement of the machine's efficiency.  Far from being "moronic", it's pretty much the only good way to do it fairly.


 * The 30% to 60% efficiency that was the best the Newman machine could produce should be put in context. Most well-constructed commercial motor-generator sets can consistently do better than 70% efficiency - some as good as 88%.  Since most mundane DC electric motors can achieve 80% efficiency as either motors or generators - it's clear that even without lots of sophisticated engineering, you should be able to get 80% of 80% from just bolting two standard commercial motors back-to-back.  That's 64% efficiency without breaking an intellectual sweat to design something better.  Newman's machine is VASTLY inferior to what any half-assed system that even I could design and build!  It truly is a piece of junk. SteveBaker (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)



undefined 15:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC) (unindent) Oh please, this is ridiculous - you really think that these warmed-over claims stand up to actual investigation? Let me reply to you point-by-point: SteveBaker (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC) undefined 16:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC) undefined 17:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC) undefined 18:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC) undefined 03:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NBS didn't even measure the current in the coil itself when the resistor was hooked across it for efficiency measurements, and nor did they try to run it as a motor and put a prony brake on it. They obviously shunted the radio-frequency power to the ground which means not all the power that was sucked away from the motor (such that it was not even used by the motor in the first place) was even dissipated in the resistor. Can you make a successful counter-claim contrary to these three points? No you can't. And you will not. You will just repeat yourself the same things which don't refute these points.<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * NBS didn't even measure the current in the coil itself when the resistor was hooked across it for efficiency measurements -- No, of course they didn't. The NBS had been told to establish the veracity of Newman's claim to have an over-unity device.  From the fact-sheet attached to their report: "The purpose of the measurements was to test the inventor's claim that the output power from the device was greater than the power which was supplied to the device from a battery pack.".  Hence the internal workings of the machine were a complete irrelevance.  Measuring the current across the coil is a pointless activity because nobody gives a damn how much current flows through some internal component of the system.  All that matters is the amount of power it's capable of producing on the output.
 * and nor did they try to run it as a motor and put a prony brake on it -- And again, of course not. They were not being asked to verify the amount of torque produced by the motor - only to verify (or not) the claims made by Newman in his patent.  That is the claim that the amount of electrical energy produced exceeds the input power.  Obviously, one could extract energy from the drive shaft - but that would only reduce the amount of electrical power produced at the output.  But that's an irrelevance because that is not what they were supposed to be testing.  The machine was patented as a way to generate electrical energy...that's all that was contested in order to defeat the patent.
 * They obviously shunted the radio-frequency power to the ground which means not all the power that was sucked away from the motor (such that it was not even used by the motor in the first place) was even dissipated in the resistor. -- This is Newman's main claim against the NBS, but, again, according to the NBS report: "The Patent and Trademark Office notified Mr. Newman's attorney several times of the test schedule, making it clear that Mr. Newman was invited to witness the tests. Neither Mr. Newman nor any of his representatives attended any of the tests." Instead, Newman claims he was prevented from attending the tests.  Should we believe Newman (who needed excuses in order to avoid a fraud conviction) or the NBS (who really don't give a damn about the results either way)?  The tests were run over many months -- so Newman had plenty of opportunity to complain about the machine being grounded - if that made any difference (which it really cannot - the machine is battery powered and the resulting heat was from a resistor in parallel with the machine.  The voltage between machine and ground is totally irrelevant - so this is at best a red herring, and more likely just a pathetic excuse put up by someone who has just been clearly demonstrated to be a complete fraud.)
 * You just realized that none of your responses actually refuted my points. Didn't you?
 * NBS didn't even measure the current in the coil itself when the resistor was hooked across it for efficiency measurements[.] You said, "No, of course they didn't.".
 * [A]nd nor did they try to run it as a motor and put a prony brake on it. You said, "And again, of course not."
 * They obviously shunted the radio-frequency power to the ground which means not all the power that was sucked away from the motor (such that it was not even used by the motor in the first place) was even dissipated in the resistor. You said, "The voltage between machine and ground is totally irrelevant[.]"
 * What do you think is between the machine and the ground? The output power testing equipment! Do you even know the words that you speak?
 * I stand by my case.<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * "Obviously, one could extract energy from the drive shaft - but that would only reduce the amount of electrical power produced at the output." If you have the motor running more slowly, you will have about the same power dissipated in the parallel resistor when it is switched on. Why? 1) It is connected in parallel. 2) It does not have the same delay in current rise as in the primary inductive load, the coil in the Newman motor.<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * This is verging into ridiculous. The NBS is a reliable source by wikipedia standards, and your only arguments are born from your own original research, unpublished anywhere. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (this discussion would be nifty in a science forum, but the talk page is for discussing changes to the article. Can we go back to proposing RS-based changes?) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The NBS is the only WP:RS weighing in on the efficiency of the Newman motor. The rest is long-winded WP:OR which has no place either in the article or the discussion page.  Unless someone can produce another WP:RS challenging the NBS results, I propose we drop this rather pointless thread.Prebys (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In turn I ask you this, "Where is the reliable third-party source that indicates that this is a rather pointless thread? Or is this claim simply something we will not attempt to hold up to third-party scrutiny?"<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * We don't need a reliable source to exclude a bunch of random thoughts of one of our editors.
 * We do need a reliable source in order to include information likely to be controversial or contested.
 * As you can see (above), your ideas most certainly are both controversial and contested. Hence we need RS to include your ideas - and nothing whatever to exclude them. SteveBaker (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At last, something I agree 100% with.<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia

I used the definition that appears in the conclusions of the report: "The device's efficiency -- defined as the ratio of output power to input power --". --Enric Naval (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC) undefined 01:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC) undefined 02:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's definitely an improvement. The previous wording appears to be an attempt to subtly insert this argument that the NBS did not understand the concept of efficiency.Prebys (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The previous wording appears to be an attempt to subtly insert this argument that the NBS did not understand the concept of efficiency." Would a person who never read this talk page ever know the difference?<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * For reference, the sentence was this: In every case presented in the NBS report, the output power, which the report defined in Section 2.4 titled "Output Power Measurements" as "the power dissipated in a resistive load RL connected in parallel with the coil of the device under test", was less than power input from the battery pack. 
 * It was then changed to this: In every case presented in the NBS report, the output power was less than power input from the battery pack; the efficiency —defined as the ratio of output power to input power— was less than 100%. 
 * I'm not sure how a reader would see the former as making some point against the NBS's measure of efficiency, unless if they really knew better about how it was supposed to BE measured in the first place. Those who do understand the difference well need not complain about how the former is written, except if they must somehow have a problem with (what they see as "unacceptable") implications.<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia

Recent edit summaries
(cur | prev) 14:11, 6 January 2012‎ Amatulic (talk | contribs)‎ (9,441 bytes) (rv to last version by SteveBaker. Too much sourced material removed, and attempt to conflate pseudoscience and perpetual motion. Please discuss on talk.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:45, 5 January 2012‎ Kmarinas86 (talk | contribs)‎ (9,704 bytes) ("Pseudoscience and perpetual motion are separate matters. " If that's all you have a problem with it, then you could have just done this! So what's the problem now?) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:43, 5 January 2012‎ Kmarinas86 (talk | contribs)‎ (9,753 bytes) ("Pseudoscience and perpetual motion are separate matters." Really?) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:29, 4 January 2012‎ SteveBaker (talk | contribs)‎ (9,441 bytes) (rv to last version by Prebys. Pseudoscience and perpetual motion are separate matters. There is an RS for the claims made in the previous version.) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:38, 4 January 2012‎ Kmarinas86 (talk | contribs)‎ (9,753 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:35, 4 January 2012‎ Kmarinas86 (talk | contribs)‎ (9,751 bytes) (→Claims by the inventor) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:26, 4 January 2012‎ Kmarinas86 (talk | contribs)‎ (9,742 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:15, 4 January 2012‎ Kmarinas86 (talk | contribs)‎ (9,528 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:21, 4 January 2012‎ Prebys (talk | contribs)‎ (9,441 bytes) (→Claims by the inventor: You don't have to be a "skeptic" to know this is crap; just know *anything* about E&M.) (undo) (cur | prev) 19:33, 3 January 2012‎ Kmarinas86 (talk | contribs)‎ (9,439 bytes) (→Claims by the inventor) (undo) (cur | prev) 19:32, 3 January 2012‎ Kmarinas86 (talk | contribs)‎ m (9,439 bytes) (→Claims by the inventor) (undo) (cur | prev) 19:32, 3 January 2012‎ Kmarinas86 (talk | contribs)‎ (9,439 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 10:02, 3 January 2012‎ Enric Naval (talk | contribs)‎ m (9,400 bytes) (→U.S. patent application: fix) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:36, 3 January 2012‎ Enric Naval (talk | contribs)‎ (9,411 bytes) (Newman's motor based on a misintrepretation of Lenz's law, as shown by Park + NBS test report, congress hearing) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:48, 3 January 2012‎ Enric Naval (talk | contribs)‎ (8,114 bytes) (undo, editorializing and original research) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:37, 3 January 2012‎ Disordered.information (talk | contribs)‎ (10,967 bytes) (→Perpetual motion controversy: "Skeptics argue that..." statement requires correction. elaboration is amended to the section) (undo)

Let's compare versions:

Now let's look at the four most recent edit summaries:

(cur | prev) 14:11, 6 January 2012‎ Amatulic (talk | contribs)‎ (9,441 bytes) (rv to last version by SteveBaker. Too much sourced material removed, and attempt to conflate pseudoscience and perpetual motion. Please discuss on talk.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:45, 5 January 2012‎ Kmarinas86 (talk | contribs)‎ (9,704 bytes) ("Pseudoscience and perpetual motion are separate matters. " If that's all you have a problem with it, then you could have just done this! So what's the problem now?) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:43, 5 January 2012‎ Kmarinas86 (talk | contribs)‎ (9,753 bytes) ("Pseudoscience and perpetual motion are separate matters." Really?) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:29, 4 January 2012‎ SteveBaker (talk | contribs)‎ (9,441 bytes) (rv to last version by Prebys. Pseudoscience and perpetual motion are separate matters. There is an RS for the claims made in the previous version.) (undo)

<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:right;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia undefined 05:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Psuedoscience and perpetual motion are separate matters.
 * 2) I did remove "and psuedoscience" to address this concern.
 * 3) The words "psuedoscience" and "pseudoscientific" appear near the top of the page in Amatulic's most recent edit.
 * 4) "The NBS concluded in June 1986 that output power was not greater than the input, and it was not a perpetual motion machine." is written in at the top of the lead.
 * 5) Maybe the correct way to address this concern is to remove the term "perpetual motion" rather than "psuedoscience".
 * 6) I did not remove sourced material. I elaborated upon sourced material.
 * 7) I will reinstate my edit with the above correction in mind.

There, I got it done.<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:right;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia undefined 05:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

undefined 18:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, Newman claims his engine uses copper as fuel. If that's the case, then this isn't a claimed "perpetual motion machine" since eventually it will need more copper for fuel. It is, however, a good example of pseudo-science. Have I got this right? Rklawton (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes, though if it actually works, it would be classified under the category "(apparent) perpetual motion machines".<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:right;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia

It's not bad, but I think it's still a bit too much detail to devote to such gobbledegook. I cleaned it up, and I also removed the sentence "The laws of classical electrodynamics in of themselves do not foresee connection between mass to energy conversion and voltage in the way Newman claims is possible.". Since mass to energy conversion is not part of classical electrodynamics at all, this sentence was somewhat non-sensical.Prebys (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Newman made so many conflicting claims about what his machine could do, how it worked and whether it was or was not a perpetual motion machine, that it's hard to be definite about it.


 * We had long discussions with Newman's 'press officer' right here on some way back section of this very discussion list. This guy claimed (fairly credibly) to be in regular contact with Newman.  Initially we were told that the machine produced more electricity than it consumes.  We pointed out that this would enable you to connect the output to the input and you'd have a perpetual motion machine.  Newman claimed that the output electricity was of a "different kind" than the input electricity...in some unspecified way...so you couldn't connect the output to the input because the machine wouldn't run.  I asked whether the "output" electricity was able to charge batteries...we were told that yes, indeed, you could charge batteries using the output electricity.   I pointed out that Newman has demonstrated the machine running on battery power...any, yes, it could do that.  So I asked if one could have the machine that ran off of batteries and be used to charge batteries using the output?  Yes, you can do that.  So what if we had some kind of automatic switch that would switch the batteries over when the input batteries ran low - that would be a perpetual motion machine.


 * We were told that even a very brief disconnection of the power would cause the machine to fail. So I came up with an elaborate scheme involving three sets of batteries that would resolve that issue and thereby enable the machine to be used as a perpetual motion machine.  Via his proxy Newman conceded this possibility - and that this would indeed be perpetual motion.  It was then that we started to hear that the source of the machine's mysterious power was the copper wiring...but no efforts were ever made to actually test this.


 * As a representative couple of months of the kind of crap that Newman puts out - this shows that the guy has no clue what's really going on and is continually changing his story to make himself continue to sound credible. This is most certainly fringe theory stuff - and for most of the life of the machine, it has indeed been claimed to have attributes that would make it  be a perpetual motion machine.  For sure, we need both terms in the article lede.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you've ever watched any of Newman's YouTube videos, it's immediately apparent he knows nothing whatsoever about E&M or physics at all. He freely mixes up units and concepts and arrives at bizarre, completely non-sequitur conclusions. I'm reasonably sure he's sincere, and has really deluded himself into thinking that things like "different kinds of electricity" are what keep his device from working in closed loop mode.KaturianKaturian 19:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm still unsure about whether he's being deliberately evasive or merely so inept that he doesn't realize how inept he really is. But yeah, he's easily self-deluded.   One example (which is common to an AMAZING number of free energy nuts) is the business of taking a battery that's been drained until it's seemingly dead (when, say, a flashlight finally goes dark), then taking it out, placing it under your patent magic pyramid or connecting it to your home-made duct-tape and cardboard zero-point energy generator, then putting it back into the flashlight which then lights up.   With a naive audience, this is quite an effective trick - but it really relies on the fact that when a battery is at the end of it's life, there is an effect that allows you to extract a little more energy from it if you allow it to 'rest' for a minute or two.   I can't count the number of demos that Newman did that relied on this phenomenon.   I know for sure he was aware of the effect because he'd been told of it by innumerable people - but it didn't stop him from using the effect all the time!   Was he simply disbelieving of what he was told?   Was he deliberately ignoring these people?   Did he really not understand?   It's hard to say. SteveBaker (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification point about the fascinating synopsis above: 's comment "It was then that we started to hear that the source of the machine's mysterious power was the copper wiring..." No, we didn't start hearing it that recently. This has been Newman's claim since day 1: that the machine converts the mass in the copper windings to energy, consistent with E=mc2. It's in his original book published in the 1980s. I have that book (somewhere, don't know which box it's in after moving so many times), and I recall reading that. Also, I recall the book was quite emphatic about the machine not being perpetual motion, because it supposedly uses mass as fuel. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Title
"The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman" is the title of his book, but not a suitable title for the article unless the topic of the article is the book. For the present article, a more suitable title would be "Joseph Newman's energy machine" (without the caps), with the book title also mention (with caps) in the lead. Any opinions on which way to go here? Make it about the book, or make a better title? Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article is about the machine, not the book, so the title should be changed. The article should not be about the book because the book doesn't meet any WP:NBOOK threshold. It's the machine that's notable (or notorious, depending on your POV). ~Amatulić (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I recommend "Newman's energy machine", variations of which appear in lots of books. Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

undefined 01:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Rklawton (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * SupportPrebys (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Not a bad idea.<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:right;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia

I have boldly gone ahead, and will edit the lead later if nobody beats me to it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

History
I think it's noteworthy just how long this thing has been around. I corrected the article to show the patent was originally filed in 1979 (which makes it consistent with the entry in the Perpetual motion article). Some comments make it appear that he'd already been hawking the device for some time before that, but I've been unable to find a WP:RS. Anyone know of any references prior to 1979? Prebys (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV My behind!
I see that someone deleted the 3 archived pages...

It is hypocritical in the extreme to claim NPOV on a mess such as this. I'm sure a considerable sum of cash changed hands, just like CNN. Sadly, this site is slowly turning into the mob, and I can foresee the day when Wikipedia will hire its first contract killer. 67.206.185.95 (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yo. Chill dude. This article was called "The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman" until it was moved. I have fixed the links that were supposed to go to the archive pages. Apparently they did not move with the article's talk page. Here they are listed below for convenience:
 * Archive 1 - Prior to 10 March 2008


 * Archive 2 - Prior to 30 March 2008

undefined 19:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Archive 3 - Prior to 3 April 2008
 * Sincerely, <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:right;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia

undefined 11:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So the page is dead now? After the move the content was left behind? I'm new to Wikipedia machinations pertaining to unpopular topics so please forgive me for not understanding how it works. 67.206.185.95 (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No and yes. The page is not dead, but after the move of the article, its talk page archives were not moved along with it, hence the red links.<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:right;">siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia

possible?
is it possible to make high tourqe low amp motor run on 9v batterys? i dont care about perpetuial motion or over unity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.240.100 (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. With enough of them, you could do anything you wanted.  Nothing particularly magical or impressive about it.KaturianKaturian 15:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead
The lead is far too detailed. It needs to be a summary. Anyone want to take a stab at it? Rklawton (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually we could switch the lead with the "patent application" section and the results would be excellent (other than having to shift sources around). Rklawton (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead included details that weren't covered in the article body. I have shortened the lead and expanded the Patent application section in the article body with the material that was in the lead. I'll raise a caution that the material I moved contained quotations that are probably real, but need to be cited to sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, that's awesome, thanks! Rklawton (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Defringification
I've had a pass over this removing material cited to Newman. I came here from Joseph_Westley_Newman which is a new article written by someone with an obvious conflict of interest. I've also edited that to strip any claim that the perpetual motion machine works, for obvious reasons. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've proposed deletion of the Joseph_Westley_Newman article. There's really nothing notable about him.KaturianKaturian 23:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "perpetual motion machine".
I disagree with the recent complete removal of "perpetual motion machine" from the lead; the edit summaries do not really justify the removal. One of the cites in the article does in fact so describe it; https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html. I agree it was overemphasised in the lead, given Newman's attempt to dress the machine up with assertions about mass conversion, but there is an apparently solid cite that so describes it and hence it is appropriate to use the expression in the lead. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The way the phrase "perpetual motion" was used in the lead constituted original research and/or misrepresented the cited sources (that is, neither Newman nor the NBS ever said it was a perpetual motion machine). I have added it back in, clarifying that the first patent application was rejected by the USPTO as a perpetual motion machine, and I cited the first court appeal of that rejection. While I was at it, I repaired the already-existing citation to the second appeal. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure about this - sure, Newman dressed up his perpetual motion machine with an explanation of why it wasn't, but I think all perpetual motion machine kooks/scammers now do that. That said, I'm not that unhappy with what we've got now, so let's leave it be. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perpetual Motion is simply plain English for an over unity device which is what this claims to be. Most patents avoid the use of plain English ;-) Unibond (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it claimed to be a mass conversion device. Which is also obviously bogus, but a different kind of bogus. Newman was quite careful to avoid an obviously testable over unity condition with the device running on electricity but producing torque (and if he'd been more careful, like the current reactionless drive kooks, he'd have produced some spurious measurements of losses of mass...) Pinkbeast (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)