-
- Comment
From Darryl Bonz
3-14-1
-
- Dear Jeff
-
- I think that Mr. Goins is in error in regards to the
pioneering innovations of Joseph Newman as well as to the documented injustice
he has suffered over the past 20 years. If Mr. Goins wants to describe
Joseph Newman's justified outrage over the manner in which he's been treated
as "paranoia," then what he fails to comprehend is that over
40 scientific individuals (including physicists and electrical engineers)
HAVE seen and tested Joseph Newman's Motor/Generators and signed legal
Affidavits attesting to the successful operability of his technology all
of which is documented in "The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman."
-
- Mr. Goins suggests that Joseph Newman construct a "toy
if nothing else..." that demonstrates his technology. As further evidence
of Mr. Goins' ignorance of the facts, Joseph Newman has already produced
table-top, demonstration models -- one of which was purchased by a German
Electrical Engineer who returned to Germany and conducted his own, extensive,
and independent tests upon the model. His conclusion: the unit is 200%
efficient. An Associate Professor with a research laboratory associated
with a major university reviewed the results of the German EE and concluded
that the unit's mechanical efficiency ALONE (not including the electrical
output) was 129% efficient. In addition, a distinguished professor of mathematics
for over 30 years at Arizona State University HAS seen the proof of the
validity of Joseph Newman's technology for himself and has publicly endorsed
Joseph Newman's life work.
-
- The attorneys for the characters in Australia claim to
have done an international patent search and found that there was "nothing
similar". Joseph Newman has received patents for his technology in
at least seven foreign countries, and any competent "international
patent search" would have proven that the characters in Australia
had "invented" nothing new since the technology had been innovated
years earlier by Joseph Newman.
-
- Mr. Goins uses the terminology "...real free energy
deal." Apparently, Mr. Goins is unaware that Joseph Newman has never
called his pioneering technology "free-energy". The term "free-energy"
is actually scientifically inappropriate: the technology is neither "free"
in an economic sense NOR in a scientific sense. Why? Because 1) it does
cost SOME amount of resources/money to build a unit and 2) the energy output
DOES have to come from somewhere--- in this case from the atomic domains
of the copper conductor. Joseph Newman explicitly describes his Motor/Generator
as one that "generates greater external energy output than external
energy input".
-
- As to the letter written by the individual who identifies
himself as "name withheld on request" -- if I had written such
irrational nonsense, then I too would seek anonymity. What Joseph Newman
has innovated is explicitly described in his original Patent Application.
In the United States, it is the responsibility of the patent examiner to
understand the technology as described in the Application in the language
of the applicant --- not the other way around. But then, the patent examiner
who initially rejected Joseph Newman's Patent Application was later found
by a Federal District Court in Texas to be technically incompetent. Specifically,
the Court ruled that the patent office examiner in question, who no longer
works for the patent office, had a "Knowledge of electrical theory
may have been inadequate for his responsibilities." [See Lindsey v.
United States, Civ. Action Nos. TX-79-60-CA, TX-81-39-CA]. And the words
of the Special Master and former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office
are clear and unequivocal:
-
- "Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office
and this Court IS OVERWHELMING that Newman has built and tested a prototype
of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external input
energy; there is NO contradictory factual evidence."
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Kent Goins
3-13-1
-
- Hello Jeff -
-
- I personally spent hours on the phone with Joe Newman
on two separate occasions in the past 3 years. My friend, Dr. Paul Brown,
a nuclear physicist(www.globalatomics.com), also spent some time with Joe.
-
- I can tell you this much first hand...It wouldn't matter
much if Joe actually does have a working over-unity device. He is sooooo
paranoid of conspiracy schemes by the "old boy network" and that
someone is always out to steal his work, nobody will ever get the benefits
his device may offer. His is the classic case of backyard-garage inventor
gone into psychological paranoia.
-
- I found after several hours of visit with him...I was
absolutely worn out! Mentally drained by his over emotional and chaotic
state.
-
- This is all first-hand information to you. I wanted to
fly up to Castlerock, Colorado where he was located at the time and see
his device. However, simply put, he wouldn't allow that to happen.
-
- I think it is fairly evident to anyone with common sense...Joe
could have carried his contraption to the next level by this time and had
a small marketable generator to sell to the public as a working proof-of-concept.
A toy if nothing else...I personally have yet to meet anyone who can vouch
for Joe and say he has the real free energy deal. That doesn't mean "they"
are not out there...it just means I haven't met anyone yet.
-
- I gave up on Joe a couple of years ago because of his
lack of maturity.
-
- Regards,
Kent Goins
Design Engineer
-
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From (name withheld on request)
3-13-1
Jeff
-
- There is a story of Joseph Newman that I must tell you
about.
-
- In 1984, Joe Newman tried to stop xxx and I from going
to the Tesla Conference. He said that we 'stole his Idea' because we used
a switch with brushes and a coil of wire and a magnet in our device. He
said he was going to stop us from doing our demonstrations at the Conference.
xxx and I put him in his place right away. He has never bothered us since.
-
- Joe Newman proclaims to have invented everything and
anything that's better than what he has invented. He did not get his way
in the Patent office because he was BULL-HEADED about the way HE wanted
the Patent to be written. (First of all, you never write a Patent that
claims over-unity, you're just asking for trouble if you do.)
-
- Did you know that most all the 'free energy people' just
Plain Hate to announce anything they are doing because of Joe Newman Think
about this also: those two Oz inventors, John Christie and Lou Brits, are
doing good work with their re-invented ADAMS MOTOR !!!!!!
-
- That's right, I have studied their patent and it is nowhere
NEAR Joe Newman's idea at all. Joe's motor could not put out what theirs
does. If one studies the ADAMS MOTOR drawings, you can see that these two
inventors have taken it a step up from the first motor that Adams built,
but are still using the same switching.
-
- Consider: if Joe Newman was given a patent on everything
he claims...everybody using a coil, magnet, wire, switches, copper contacts,
etc would be sued. If this man was seriously into free-energy, he would
not act this way - thinking and ranting that virtually everything was stolen
from him.
-
- Newman did not invent the magnet or the coil or wire
or switching. He just found a different method in physics...and that's
ALL he did.
-
- Here is a good one: he now claims to have captured a
spike in his cap. I have been doing this forever, but now it's HIS idea!
Maybe he will sue ME for using my own Idea.
-
- The best part of all this is every electrical engineer
knows that power meters do NOT react to spikes, everyone except Joe Newman,
that is. Now everyone is going to be sued by this strange man who does
not understand the same electrical language!
-
- As far as I'm concerned, he is a legitimate danger to
all of us in the energy field, and his claims are horrifying to most every
electrical engineer I know. I could say that he must have acquired his
idea from an old meter movement...when they used to put magnets in the
center of coils and add pointers to them. How come no one has sued him
over that!
-
- Before Joe Newman fights the electrical community HE
SHOULD LEARN THE LANGUAGE.
-
- Think of this: anybody putting batteries in series must
have stolen Newman's idea! Gee, we cant even have flashlights if they use
more then one battery! And it goes on and on with this guy. What will the
next issue be And who will get the wrath of JOE NEWMAN
-
- You can't even hook a MOTOR to a GAS ENGINE to help the
efficiency, Joe Newman invented it. Also, God forsake you if the batteries
are in series...time to sue Honda and everybody else who uses practically
anything electrical. That's how we view Joe Newman.
-
-
- ---
-
- From Joseph Newman
- josephnewman@earthlink.net
- www.josephnewman.com
- 3-9-1
-
-
- Brisbane Patent Attorney Griffith Hack and Cliff Carew
deliberately violate International Patent Law when they state that they
have done an international patent search and found that there was "nothing
similar" to the so-called "original" technology claimed
by two individuals in Queensland. In fact, those two individuals are engaged
in THEFT of technology which is now exposed:
-
- John Christie and Lou Brits of Australia are attempting
to claim my PIONEERING ENERGY INVENTION as their own. In fact, I have sold
numerous books regarding my original work in Australia and I have applied
for worldwide patents which include Australia. The Australian patent office
assumed the same position as the corrupt U.S. patent office and court system
controlled by the power brokers and their "old boy networks"
via such individuals as U.S. Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson (of
recent Microsoft litigation fame).
-
- Note: Christie and Brits as reported in The Cairns Post
say nothing new - they only mimic my years of public statements about my
technology and both of these individuals have no original or logical explanation
as to "how" and "why" it works.
-
- To all potential investors who may be approached by Christie's
and Brit's lies and deceit: BOTH THEY AND THEIR COMPANY WILL BE SUED BY
ME! Their patent will not be worth the paper its printed on because they
have publicly admitted that they started "their" invention 5
years ago. In contrast, I have developed this technology over 35 years,
applied for worldwide patent protection in 1979 and have received it in
a number of foreign countries. In addition, my original technology has
been featured on the CBS EVENING NEWS, LIFE Magazine, SCIENCE NEWS, SCIENCE
Magazine, DISCOVER Magazine, CNN National News, ABC National News, PBS's
"All Things Considered," on the TONIGHT SHOW (seen by over 17
million people), in thousands of newspapers and magazines across the world,
on hundreds of radio talk shows, endorsed by both the House and Senate
of Mississippi, supported by the National Republican Study Committee in
Washington, D.C., and by eleven U.S. Congressmen (both Democrats and Republicans).
-
- Also, my fundamental book, THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH
NEWMAN, has been sold extensively across Australia and the world for more
than 10 years BEFORE Christie and Brits even initiated their THEFT of my
technology.
-
- The forthcoming nine, 5-minute video segments that will
be posted on my website [www.josephnewman.com] will further prove that
Christie and Brit are thieves and that both the U.S. government - as well
as other the patent offices of other countries that followed the actions
of the U.S. government - have been actively engaged in a conspiracy against
inventor Joseph W. Newman and YOU, the people of the world!
-
- For further documentation of that conspiracy, see the
internationally televised A & E Network Special Report about my work
featured on the show entitled "Conspiracies".
-
-
- Joseph Westley Newman 11445 East Via Linda, No. 416 Scottsdale,
Arizona 85259 480 657-3722 www.josephnewman.com josephnewman@earthlink.net
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Murray
3-9-1
-
- Hello, Just a quick note to let you know that JOSEPH
NEWMAN IS A JOKE! Sorry, but this article really annoyed me. You only have
to go to his site and view http://www.josephnewman.com/honda.txt and you'll
see just how limited his electrical knowlege is.
-
- In the article, he claims Honda is using his "invention"
in their cars, and for proof he sites the fact that the output power of
Honda's electric engine is greater than the power supplied by the batteries.
He uses the calculation "6.5 amp HOURS x 144 volts = 936 watts of
power" by using the formula Watts = amps x volts. This would be correct
but for one significant detail: 6.5 amp hours is not the same thing as
6.5 amps. Amp hours are used to measure the capacity of a battery, NOT
the current it can supply. Eg. an electric winch that uses 100 amps for
12 minutes (.2 hour) consumes 20 amp-hours (100 x .2). So it can be seen
that a 6.5amp hour battery can supply a lot more than 6.5amps of current.
I'd really like to see the original article about the two Australians'
invention put back up on your page as it is obvious that Joseph Newman
has no credibility whatsoever.
Regards,
Murray Cole
-
-
-
- Reply
-
- From Joseph Newman
josephnewman@earthlink.net
3/12/01
-
- Murray Cole obviously is an untruthful individual in
that he has never tested my invention which more than 40 competent scientific
individuals - including physicists, nuclear physicists, electrical engineers,
chemists, mechanical engineers, and electrical technicians - have explicitly
tested, confirmed the successful operation of my technology, and have signed
legal Affidavits to that effect. In fact, it was the former U.S. Commissioner
of the Patent Office William Schuyler who, acting as a Special Master [appointed
by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson (of Microsoft trial fame) who described
Schuyler's technical credentials as "superb"] evaluated my technology
and explicitly wrote:
-
- "Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office
and this Court IS OVERWHELMING that Newman has built and tested a prototype
of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external input
energy; there is NO contradictory factual evidence."
-
- Those words were written over FIFTEEN YEARS before the
two individuals in Australia received publicity for an invention which
is actually my technology!
-
- Also, Mr. Cole chooses to omit the fact that the Honda
batteries are connected in SERIES and thus total current capability is
equivalent to the current capacity of ONE battery. He also omits the fact
that the batteries are only D-cell sized-batteries and the fact that approximately
70 amps would have to be extracted to produce the horsepower stated by
Honda.
-
- Fact: If you pull 70 amps out of any D-cell-sized battery,
the VOLTAGE WILL FALL CLOSE TO ZERO VOLTS!
-
- To all open-minded people: by all means examine the vast
documentation of my work featured at my website [www.josephnewman.com],
in my fundamental book available in libraries across the world, and in
the hundreds of magazine and newspaper articles written about my technology.
I will soon post nine, 5-minute video segments regarding my technology
that will also feature a number of qualified individuals and which documents
my mechanical Unified Field Theory and its phenomenal importance to humanity.
-
- To Scott Zimmerman: At least he sought to be honest and
sincere even though he implied that he was not a friend of mine. I'm sorry
if I have offended individuals such as Mr. Zimmerman, but I fight for all
creative individuals yet unborn. Please view my forthcoming video series
and then ask yourself: How would YOU like your child or grandchild to be
CREATIVE and then be treated the way I have been. That is what I fight
for!
-
- Joseph W. Newman
-
-
- P.S. I am sending separately the impressive Affidavit
issued by Paul L. Gomory. Please note the date it was originally written.
-
- DISTINGUISHED EXPERT ENDORSES JOSEPH NEWMAN'S PIONEERING
WORK
-
- IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Applicant:
Joseph W. Newman Art Group: 212 Serial No.: 179,474 Examiner: Duggan Filing
Date: August 18, 1980 Date: September 1982
-
- For: "ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEM HAVING HIGHER ENERGY
OUTPUT THAN INPUT"
-
- AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL L. GOMORY ***
-
- STATE OF MARYLAND
-
- The undersigned, being duly deposed, swears and states
that:
-
- My name is Paul L. Gomory, I live at 5609 Ogden Road
in Bethesda Maryland. I was born in Newark, New Jersey and attended schools
in Hungary, Austria, France, and England. Studied chemistry and engineering
at the University of London, England and at Polytechnic Institute in New
York City. I have an Inter-Science degree, University of London, England
and that subsequent to the studies leading to that degree I studied Advanced
Physics at King's College, University of London, England. I hold a law
degree from Temple University School of Law and am a member of the Bar
of the United States Supreme Court, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Court
of Customs and Patent Appeals, and a number of lower state courts and federal
courts.
-
- The recently enacted patent law revision bill is one
of several on which I have worked assiduously having testified on it and
others on behalf of the Association for the Advancement of Invention and
Innovation (A^2I^2) and on my own behalf. I was a Director and Advisor
contact on the Hill and Public Relations person. I drafted a number of
bills which have been introduced in the U.S. Senate as well as in the House
of Representatives, and have secured the introduction of the American Patent
Law Association bill presented to the 94th Congress. I am an ex-officio
member of the National Council on Patent Law Associations.
-
- I have chaired a number of committees in the American
Bar Association, the District of Columbia Bar Association, and in the American
Patent Law Association. These committees have been related to various legislation
activities including public relations and public information. I have acted
as liaison between the D.C. Bar Association, Patent, Trademark and Copyright
Section of the District of Columbia Bar Association and was for many years
a member of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Committee of the Chamber
of Commerce of the United States and its Subcommittee on Divestiture which
I conceived and formation of which I instigated. I have worked with a large
number of other associations including NAM, CMA, PMA, MAPI, ATA, etc.
-
- I have been involved intimately in chairing committees,
including patent law committees, in drafting bills introduced in the Congress
and responsible for drafting several patent law revision bills including
S.4259, 93rd Congress; S.214 Fong, 94th Congress Fong; HR14632 Wiggins,
94th Congress; HR 5075 Butler, 96th Congress - the patent reexamination
procedure now in effect in the PTO first appeared in Fong S.4259.
-
- I have authored a number of legal briefs for the United
States Supreme Court, as well as articles on political and legal subjects,
including Trade Secret Law, Freedom of Information Act, Intellectual Property
Law, and Government Patent Policy.
-
- I have reviewed the specification of the above identified
Application [by Joseph Westley Newman] with particular reference to the
related embodiments of Figures 5 and 6 and the disclosures on pages 24-35
concerning inter-alia the "working prototypes" built and to be
built in the form of those figures.
-
- In the interest of not being repetitious and lengthy,
let me simply state I also found the embodiments of Figs. 5 and 6 simple
to understand and that I also believe that from Applicant's [Joseph Newman's]
instructions given in his specification, I would build a device similar
to the one I viewed at the Hospitality House, across from the U.S. Patent
Office, the same one which the Board will see and inspect. My conclusions
on reading the specification is basically as already described in point
3 of page one through point 5 of page three of attorney Pugh's Declaration
listed as Exhibit 2 in the Appeal Brief before the Board as well as the
description given in second paragraph of page two through fourth paragraph
of page four of attorney Renneker's Affidavit listed as Exhibit 1 in the
Appeal Brief before the Board.
-
- The major question being: Does the teaching and instructions
of Applicant's [Joseph Newman's] specification become verified or disproven
with factual demonstrations given relative to his teachings and instructions?
-
- It is apparent that the teachings of Applicant [Joseph
Newman] are either true or false. The Examiner has taken the position that
Applicant's teachings were false, therefore, the invention would not function
as claimed and therefore one could not build the invention, and [he] quoted
rejection under 35 USC 112 (first paragraph).
-
- The Examiner in his final action of page 2 stated, Quote:
"that rotor 300, allegedly weighing approximately four hundred pounds,
is driven EXCLUSIVELY by motor coil 305, allegedly energized by a mere
126 volts and 99 milliamperes." Unquote. It is obvious the Examiner
chose to disbelieve that such a massive rotor could be driven by such low
wattage, if indeed such even existed.
-
- Applicant [Joseph Newman] distinctly teaches the more
larger [the] diameter and longer the coil 205 or 305, the greater the magnetic
field and less current used, and coupled with a stronger magnetic field
of magnet 200 or 300, the greater would be the energy output relative to
energy input.
-
- Applicant [Joseph Newman] distinctly teaches and instructs
in the specification the correctness of his invention and that the teachings
of the prior art are not correct.
-
- Again, it is obvious to the Examiner, on page 3 of his
final rejection, chose to disbelieve Applicant's teachings and instructions,
Quote: "While applicant may certainly propound his own theories of
operation of his invention, more proof of operativeness than has been presented
here is required if the device is alleged more than 100% efficient."
Unquote.
-
- It is a well known fact that the prior art teaches the
electrical energy produced by a battery or generator is used up in the
system which it operates, whether being lights, motors, heating elements
and etc. and/or causing a release of energy of any type.
-
- Applicant [Joseph Newman] in his specification clearly
teaches against such prior art (see pages 16 thru 21 of his specification,
especially see pages 19 thru 21).
-
- On this day Applicant [Joseph Newman] showed and demonstrated
to me a simple demonstration that his teachings are correct and that the
electrical energy produced from a generator or battery is not used up in
the system it operates. At first this goes against common sense because
of what we have been taught!
-
- Applicant [Joseph Newman] used a permanent magnet D.C.
motor as a generator. He demonstrated that the resistance of the copper
windings of the generator was only 3 ohms. Therefore, he demonstrated the
so-called work load would be nil if the two leads from the generator were
connected, and the generator shaft were then rotated by hand (pulling a
cord wrapped around a 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached to shaft of generator).
I was asked to then pull the cord lightly once and then briskly. I immediately
experienced noticeable resistive force the harder I pulled the cord, although
there was no conventional work load hooked in the system. Applicant mechanically
explained these results by his teachings of gyroscopic particles; that
when the atoms of the rotating coils of the generator hit the gyroscopic
particles (at some degree of a right angle) which were being emitted from
the atoms of the permanent magnets in the generator, that the gyroscopic
particles then went down the length of copper wire coils (but that their
gyroscopic spin would then be at some degree of a right angle to the balance
of the spin of the gyroscopic particles still moving in the magnetic field
from the permanent magnets), therefore when the leads were hooked together
this then allowed the gyroscopic particles to then try to re-enter the
influences of said gyroscopic particles of said permanent magnets, but
that their spin would be at some degree of a right angle to one another,
therefore they try to push away from each other, resulting in the coils
of [the] generator then having resistance to rotation. And that this effect
was multiplied the faster you turned the coils, because then the more gyro-particles
you would cause to be released from said permanent magnetic field, resulting
in an ACCUMULATIVE EFFECT of gyro-particles in the closed system (coils),
then trying to re-enter the influence of gyro-particles moving in said
magnetic field of said permanent magnets and therefore would always more
vigorously resist your acceleration of the coil and its shaft of the generator,
although there was no conventional work load placed in the system.
-
- Then Applicant [Joseph Newman] attached work load of
six small miniature motors in series to the two leads of the generator
(the resistance or conventional work load placed in the system was then
considerably greater). Applicant now asked me to again pull the cord as
I had previously done. I must say I was amazed to find that the resistance
to me rotating the shaft of the generator was dramatically reduced; although
all six motors run when I pulled the cord and was producing obvious work.
-
- If, as the prior art so persistently teaches, the Electrical
Energy produced by a generator or battery is used up in the work load which
the system operates, then why should I observe these results? As Applicant
[Joseph Newman] pointed out, the conventional words "Shorted Out"
does not mechanically explain the results. However, his teachings and instructions
do mechanically explain the results.
-
- Applicant [Joseph Newman] explained that when the work
load of six motors in series was placed in the system, the same number
of gyro-particles were released from the field of the permanent magnet
by the coils of the generator (relative to equal speeds of rotation of
shaft) but that now, because of the work load (resistance), they could
not easily re-enter into the gyro-particles of said magnetic field of said
permanent magnets, and therefore resulted in hydraulic effect back to their
source and throughout the work load of the motors, resulting in the motors
rotating and producing obvious work and yet causing me less energy input,
and Applicant [Joseph Newman] pointed out, that once the gyro-particles
managed to get through the work load of the motors, then they would still
go back into the generator and cause me to experience a resistive force,
(as result of prior explanation). Therefore, based off Applicant's teachings,
one does not want the electric current to get back to the source of its
beginnings, whether battery or generator. And that, contrary to prior art
teachings, the electrical current is NOT used up in the work load! But
that the input of a work load causes LESS destruction of a battery or LESS
energy input into a generator. Exactly as Applicant teaches in his specification.
Applicant also points out that the prior art teaches [that] copper is "nonmagnetic,"
and, contrary to this, Applicant teaches throughout the specification concerning
Figs. 5 and 6 that copper is extremely magnetic. So much so that an individual
is easily fooled into thinking copper is nonmagnetic, simply because the
magnetic field will disappear so quickly when the current is turned off.
-
- Applicant [Joseph Newman] also vigorously teaches that
the Energy in the field of force of any type magnet is the Energy which
makes up the atoms of the material from which it comes. It is literally
Einstein's Equation of E=mc^2. (See lines 19 thru 26 of page 29 of Applicant's
specification.]
-
- It is obvious throughout Applicant's specification that
he teaches and instructs in how to achieve a startling difference in kind
rather than one of mere degree! And that his teachings are impressively
reinforced by the extensive teachings of the Disclosure Document which
is part of his patent application.
-
- The total proof, however, is easily seen in his demonstrations,
in that they do EXACTLY as he teaches and instructs in his specification!
Example: As described above in the generator and miniature motor demonstration
given me. And then Applicant showed me the inner workings of his 700-pound
motor coil 305 and 90-pound magnet 300 (which is covered and secured together
with fiberglass) and its associated generator coil 306 of approximately
200 pounds. Then demonstrations were given as to its operability as follows:
-
- 1. Applicant [Joseph Newman] again pointed out to me
his statement made in lines 4 thru line 15 of page 29 of his specification.
On seeing this above prototype, I agreed it was indeed a "Rube Goldberg"
built device, no precision. Both ends of the coil are open allowing magnet
300 to have weak magnetic interaction across the open ends of the coil
305, the magnet 300 is mounted in a 2 by 6 inch wood frame, the entire
unit was built by hand in the backwoods of Mississippi, and looks as if
it were. The magnet 300 looks massive as does motor coil 305 and the noticeable
open space between magnet 300 and motor coil 305 adds to the inefficient-looking
design. Compared to any other prior art, efficiently-designed motor of
close tolerances and conventional sizes, the Newman motor looked as though
it should be highly inefficient and that, because of a lack of precision
in design, coupled with its massive size, you immediately feel this device
should consume high wattage, just to run.
-
- So much so, that once can easily see why the Examiner,
in his final rejection, chose to believe that the even larger embodiment
would not run off such low-claimed amperage and voltage.
-
- 2. Applicant [Joseph Newman] then stated we will now
see, if as Applicant stated in lines 11 thru 15 of page 29 of specification,
will this "Rube Goldberg" built device give results superior
to those taught in the prior art.
-
- Applicant [Joseph Newman] then displayed a very small
precision (Distinctive Miniature) D.C. Permanent Magnet Motor built by
Aristo-Craft claiming Lo-Drain and Hi-R.P.M. and HIGH OUTPUT; and designed
to meet the needs of engineers, designers, hobbyists, and experimenters.
Stock No. RE260 showing Nominal Voltage of 3 Volts and current draw of
only 250 M.A. (with no load) and R.P.M. of 11,600 (with no load). Copy
of the literature on their display box is attached as Exhibit A.
-
- Applicant [Joseph Newman] then states, "You will
agree this precision designed (Distinctive Miniature) conventional motor
should draw less amperage and wattage than this 'Rube Goldberg' built device
you see here, and that there should be no way his device should run on
LESS wattage and amperage than this Miniature Precision Conventional Motor
AND perform noticeable more work." I eagerly agreed that should be
true.
-
- Applicant [Joseph Newman] then hooked the precision miniature
motor and his "Rube Goldberg"-looking device in series and hooked
them both to one 6-volt D.C. battery. To my amazement, the miniature motor
momentarily attempted to run and THEN STOPPED, while the large massive
rotary of magnet 300 of Newman's "Rube-Goldberg"-built device
ran and on the Simpson 260 meter showed only 30 MILLIAMPERES being drawn!
Applicant pointed out that amounts to only .18 watts, less than 1/5 of
one watt, while the precision miniature motor at 250 M.A. times 3 volts
draws .75 watts or 3/4 of one watt, and yet the difference in torque is
phenomenal!
-
- Applicant [Joseph Newman] then asked, "You will
admit that these results are as I predicted and described and taught in
the specification, relative to improvement over the prior art?" I
stated a strong, "Yes!"
-
- The fact of the matter is, both experiments of 1 and
2 above proved the truth of the teachings of Applicant's [Joseph Newman's]
specification.
-
- A. He demonstrated the energy released from a battery
or generator is not used up in the work load as is taught in prior art,
but to the contrary, the work load REDUCES the amount of needed input into
a generator, when the circuit is completed. And also reduces the destruction
of a battery. Amazing, but true, and in accordance with Applicant's teachings
and instructions of his specification.
-
- B. He added MORE ATOMS to coil 305 and MORE ATOMS to
magnet 300 and demonstrated amazing results, in that he uses LESS energy
input and INCREASES energy output. Again, amazing, but true, and in accordance
with Applicant's teachings and instructions in his specification.
-
- 3. Applicant [Joseph Newman] then went to a conventional,
larger 12-volt precision D.C. permanent magnet motor, still a fractional
horsepower, but 3 inches in diameter, made by Tenna Corporation, and which
its literature states that Tenna was the leader in fractional horsepower
motors and claims the permanent magnet motor to be designed for giving
maximum service, dependability, and EFFICIENCY. Applicant was advised by
several electrical engineers that said motor would be in the 80% efficiency
range. (Applicant, on calling the Company, was advised it had gone out
of business because of economic conditions.) Copy of Tenna's brochure is
attached as Exhibit B.
-
- Said conventional precision motor draws 1.2 amps just
to run, with no load times 12 volts equals over 14 watts and no load.
-
- Tests on said conventional precision 12-volt motor and
compared to tests on Applicant's prototype that is exhibited here at the
Hospitality House, is detailed in Dr. Hastings' Declaration of April 26,
1982 and is shown as Exhibit 4 in the Appeal Brief before the Board.
-
- Using a "V"-belt as a slip clutch over a 1.5
inch diameter pulley attached to shaft of said conventional precision 12-volt
motor and attached to a spring scale, Applicant demonstrated to me the
same type remarkable results as is described by Dr. Hastings in said Exhibit
4, when the "V"-belt slip clutch and spring scale were hooked
to Applicant's prototype over a 1.5 inch diameter pulley.
-
- And contrary to the understandable conclusion drawn by
the Examiner in lines 12 and 13 of page 8 of Examiner's Answer Before the
Board, this remarkable result is not "rotor moment of inertia".
The braking mechanism can be MAINTAINED and the results will be CONSTANT
so long as the battery voltage is CONSTANT.
-
- Again, those results are remarkable in view of prior
art teachings. However, in view of the teachings and instructions of Applicant's
[Joseph Newman's] specification, they are predictable, as he has done so,
and because the facts of operation are as he predicted, proof is given
of the correctness of the teaching's of Applicant's specification.
-
- Also, as to the understandable conclusion question posed
by the Examiner in the third paragraph of page 3 of the Examiner's Answer
Before the Board, that there should be no complicated wave form from Applicant's
Invention when viewing D.C. Input. There MOST DEFINITELY is a VERY unexpected
wave form seen on a B & K Precision Oscilloscope, Model #1476 (copy
of cover page of manual of said oscilloscope is attached as Exhibit C)
when viewing the input current from a D.C. source into Applicant's invention.
As the Examiner expected, there is not a complicated wave form on the oscilloscope
when viewing the input from a D.C. source into said CONVENTIONAL precision
12-volt permanent magnet motor.
-
- It is appreciated that the Examiner would naturally attempt
to judge Applicant's specification and stated results off his prior beliefs,
as result of his prior teachings, but the facts consistently show that
the doubts and assumptions made by the Examiner are NOT as he anticipated
and that the statements made by Applicant [Joseph Newman] and other competent
individuals are TRUE and FACTUAL.
-
- The facts show the statements made by Dr. Hastings in
Exhibit 4 of the Appeal Brief are as stated.
-
- The difference in the performance of other conventional
precision motors, which draw low wattage (15 watts or less) and Applicant's
"Rube-Goldberg"-built motor as so extreme in favor of Applicant's
Motor Invention as to be SHOCKING to those not skilled in the teachings
of Applicant's specification.
-
- 4. Applicant [Joseph Newman] then went to a Black &
Decker 1/5 horsepower, torque geared precision hand drill that ran at 1200
R.P.M. (with no load) and Applicant demonstrated that it drew 1.5 amps
and 115 volts, or over 160 watts just to run, with no load.
-
- Applicant, then using same "V"-belt as a slip
clutch and spring scale and hooked over a 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached
to the shaft of said 1/5 horsepower precision drill, applied a constant
2-pound pull, the amperage draw went up 250 M.A. or wattage draw increased
by 28.75 watts, and R.P.M. decreased to 1050 R.P.M., and produced in the
vicinity of 18 watts, as calculated by Dr. Hastings.
-
- It is easily seen, the above shows a percentage of wattage
output relative to increased energy input over NO LOAD ENERGY USE, of approximately
63%.
-
- However, the No Load Energy consumption was already more
than 160 watts, which, when load of 18 watts was applied, the total wattage
consumption on said precision 1/5 horsepower Black & Decker motor then
rose to 178 watts.
-
- Applicant then stated, "Let's compare the results
of this precision 1/5 horsepower Black & Decker, torque geared motor
to my invention."
-
- Applicant proceeded to demonstrate that with same "V"-belt
and spring scale slip clutch hooked to 1.5 inch diameter pulley attached
to shaft of the "Rube Goldberg" prototype of his invention, the
invention with same 2-pound pull rotated in the vicinity of 400 R.P.M.
and only drew 100 MILLIAMPERES TIMES 81 VOLTS OR ONLY 8.1 WATTS on Simpson
260 meter and was under a load of torque brake of 6 watts, as calculated
by Dr. Hastings and, in addition, was lighting a fluorescent light bulb
hooked to generator coil 306, but not to full brightness, and which drew
28 watts when hooked to house current of 115 volts. This torque load of
6 watts plus the vicinity of 3 watts in fluorescent bulb, gives output
of 9 watts, and added to this must be the energy loss dissipated in vibrating
the entire 1000 pound system, which is easily felt by hand touch, and also
the watts being dissipated away from the system, which is easily picked
up by a transistor radio placed across the room.
-
- It should be noted the invention (with no load) was only
pulling 60 M.A. and 81 Volts or 4.86 WATTS reading on Simpson 260 meter.
Therefore, the invention only increased in wattage draw by 3.24 WATTS when
under load of producing over 9 WATTS OF ENERGY OUTPUT! And the total wattage
input EVEN UNDER LOAD is only 8 watts or less!
-
|