Newman's energy machine

Last updated

A diagram of the device Newman Motor Diagram.gif
A diagram of the device

Newman's Energy Machine was a DC motor which the inventor, Joseph Newman, claimed to produce mechanical power exceeding the electrical power being supplied to it. In 1979, Newman attempted to patent the device, but it was rejected by the United States Patent Office as being a perpetual motion machine. [1] When the rejection was later appealed, the United States district court requested that Newman's machine be tested by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The NBS concluded in June 1986 that output power was not greater than the input. [2] Thus, the patent was again denied. [3] [4] The scientific community has rejected Newman's ideas about electricity and magnetism as pseudoscientific and his claims as false. [5]

Contents

Claims by the inventor

By adding rolls to the armature of a motor, a larger and larger counter-electromotive force is generated on the motor. Newman outlined his claims about there being a fundamental electromagnetic interaction in all matter ultimately derived from only one type of force particle propagating at the speed of light. Newman claims that the motor derives its power by converting some of the mass of the copper in the coils into usable energy, in application of Einstein's mass–energy equivalence. According to proponents of the Energy Machine, the most crucial part of the design concerns what happens as a result of mechanical commutation. [6] [7]

U.S. patent application

In 1979, Newman submitted an application for his device to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [7] The application was eventually rejected in 1983, [8] which set off a lengthy court battle. The United States District Court requested a master of the court to make the final decision. William E. Schuyler, Jr, former Commissioner of U.S. Patent Office, Washington, DC was chosen by the court to make the final decision to award the patent or not award the patent to Newman. Schuyler concluded that evidence to support Newman's claim was overwhelming and found no contradictory factual evidence. [9]

However, the judge ordered Newman's machine to be tested by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), by request of the patent office, tested the device for several months and got negative results. In every case presented in the NBS report, the output power was less than power input from the battery pack, and therefore the efficiency was less than 100%. The court therefore upheld the rejection of the patent application. [3] [4]

Newman argued that he had been mistreated by the patent office, and tried to have his motor legalized directly by the US Congress. He obtained a hearing on 30 July 1986 in front of several senators, but he was unsuccessful. During the hearing, Newman refused to have the machine tested by independent experts, and senator John Glenn pointed out that his supposedly independent expert actually had a prior business relationship with him.

The case is now cited in the USPTO's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure as an example of an "inoperative" invention that can't have any utility, concretely as a perpetual motion machine. [10]

Cease and desist order

In August 2007 the Alabama Securities Commission issued a cease and desist order to the "Newman Energy Corporation", alleging it had sold unregistered stock in the company. In January 2008 the company tendered offers of rescission to its nine Alabama investors, offering to reverse the sales. Eight of the investors declined the offer, electing to retain their investment; the ninth did not reply. The company agreed to pay the State of Alabama $7,000 in administrative assessments and investigative costs. [11]

The device is referenced in the Big Black song "Newman Generator", recorded for their 1987 Peel Session.

See also

Related Research Articles

Engine Machine that converts one or more forms of energy into mechanical energy

An engine or motor is a machine designed to convert one or more forms of energy into mechanical energy.

Perpetual motion Work is continuously done without an external supply of energy

Perpetual motion is the motion of bodies that continues forever in an unperturbed system. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work infinitely without an external energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate either the first or second law of thermodynamics or both.

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy (SMOT) is a 1985 invention by Greg Watson from Australia that claims to show "over-unity" energy — that is, it supposedly produces more energy than it consumes, a perpetual motion machine. It is a type of magnet motor.

History of perpetual motion machines

The history of perpetual motion machines dates at least back to the Middle Ages. For millennia, it was not clear whether perpetual motion devices were possible or not, but modern theories of thermodynamics have shown that they are impossible. Despite this, many attempts have been made to construct such machines, continuing into modern times. Modern designers and proponents sometimes use other terms, such as "overunity", to describe their inventions.

The water fuel cell is a technical design of a "perpetual motion machine" created by American Stanley Allen Meyer. Meyer claimed that an automobile retrofitted with the device could use water as fuel instead of gasoline. Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996.

In United States patent law, utility is a patentability requirement. As provided by 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use and "useless" otherwise. The majority of inventions are usually not challenged as lacking utility, but the doctrine prevents the patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices such as perpetual motion machines.

Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.

In certain jurisdictions' patent law, industrial applicability or industrial application is a patentability requirement according to which a patent can only be granted for an invention which is susceptible of industrial application, i.e. for an invention which can be made or used in some kind of industry. In this context, the concept of "industry" is far-reaching: it includes agriculture, for instance. An example of invention which would not be susceptible of industrial application is "a method of contraception [...] to be applied in the private and personal sphere of a human being".

Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting of a patented technology without the consent of the patent-holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.

This is a list of legal terms relating to patents. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or his successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.

Steorn Irish energy company

Steorn Ltd was a small, private technology development company based in Dublin, Ireland. In August 2006, it announced that it had developed a technology to provide "free, clean, and constant energy" via an apparent perpetual motion machine, something which is contrary to the law of conservation of energy, a fundamental principle of physics.

Perepiteia is claimed to be a new generator developed by the Canadian inventor Thane Heins. The device is named after the Greek word for peripety, a dramatic reversal of circumstances or turning point in a story. The device was quickly attributed the term "perpetual motion machine" by several media outlets. Due to the long history of hoaxes and failures of perpetual motion machines and the incompatibility of such a device with accepted principles of physics, Heins' claims about Perepiteia have been treated with considerable skepticism.

Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1851), was a United States Supreme Court decision credited with introducing into United States patent law the concept of non-obviousness as a patentability requirement, as well as stating the applicable legal standard for determining its presence or absence in a claimed invention.

Freeman-Walter-Abele is a now outdated judicial test in United States patent law. It came from three decisions of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals—In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237, In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758 ; and In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 —which attempted to comply with then-recent decisions of the Supreme Court concerning software-related patent claims.

<i>In re Bilski</i>

In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, was an en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on the patenting of method claims, particularly business methods. The Federal Circuit court affirmed the rejection of the patent claims involving a method of hedging risks in commodities trading. The court also reiterated the machine-or-transformation test as the applicable test for patent-eligible subject matter, and stated that the test in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group should no longer be relied upon.

<i>In re Ferguson</i>

In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 is an early 2009 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirming a rejection of business method claims by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). One of the first post-Bilski decisions by a Federal Circuit panel, Ferguson confirms the breadth of the en banc Bilski opinion's rejection of the core holdings in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.

A magnet motor or magnetic motor is a type of perpetual motion machine, which is intended to generate a rotation by means of permanent magnets in stator and rotor without external energy supply. Such a motor is theoretically as well as practically not realizable. The idea of functioning magnetic motors has been promoted by various hobbyists. It can be regarded as parascience. There are frequent references to free energy and sometimes even links to esotericism.

In United States patent law, incredible utility is a concept according to which, in order for an invention to be patentable, it must have some credible useful function. If it does not have a credible useful function despite the assertions of the inventor, then the application for patent can be rejected as having "incredible utility". The invention does not have to work the way the inventor thinks it works, but it must do something useful. Patents that have been held invalid for incredible utility include:

Thomas Henry Moray was an inventor from Salt Lake City, Utah. He received application for US patent 2,460,707 in February 1949, after a process of 17 years in discussions with the patent office. The title of the patent is "Electrotherapeutic Device", and although radiotherapy is mentioned, no details are given.

Joseph Westley Newman was an American inventor and author who developed an "energy machine" deemed by the US Patent and Trademark Office to be a perpetual motion machine. He described this device in a book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. Newman alleged that he had a mechanical explanation for Albert Einstein's unified field theory of physics. After applying for patents on the perpetual motion motor, he battled for over seven years against what he claimed was a government conspiracy to suppress his supposed discoveries, garnering national attention as a result.

References

Bibliography

Notes

  1. ↑ Newman v. Quigg, 681 F.Supp 1683-0001 (United States District Court, District of Columbia17 February 1988).
  2. ↑ US National Bureau of Standards (June 1986). "Report of Tests on Joseph Newman's Device". The National Capital Area Skeptics. Retrieved 12 January 2008.
  3. 1 2 Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 157588-1312 (US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit5 July 1989).
  4. 1 2 Peterson, Ivars (5 July 1986). "NBS report short-circuits energy machine – National Bureau of Standards". Science News. Retrieved 25 March 2019.
  5. ↑ Park, Robert L (2000), Voodoo Science: The road from foolishness to fraud, Oxford, UK & New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 8–9, 102–106, ISBN   0198604432
  6. ↑ "Perpetual Motion: Still Going Around". The Washington Post . 12 January 2000. Retrieved 1 January 2007.
  7. 1 2 Peterson, Ivars (1 June 1985). "A patent pursuit: Joe Newman's 'energy machine'". Science News . Retrieved 1 December 2015.
  8. ↑ Newman, Joseph (17 March 1983). "Patent Application: "Energy Generation System Having Higher Energy Output Than Input" (failed)" . Retrieved 1 December 2015.
  9. ↑ Kramer, Bruce (1988). "In Re Newman: The Federal Circuit Dismantles An Obstacle For Perpetual Motion Patent Applicants". Akron Law Review. 21 (1). Retrieved 1 December 2015.
  10. ↑ 2107.01 General Principles Governing Utility Rejections (R-5) – 2100 Patentability. II. Wholly inoperative inventions; "incredible" utility, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
  11. ↑ Alabama Securities Commission (26 September 2008). "Administrative order C0-2007-0024 Consent order" (PDF).
Claims
Skeptical
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.