Joseph Newman Principles

[patmac]

SkyWatcher

I was analysing deeply the Jnlaudin's replication, and is very important the switching, this switching seems create unsychronized PWM, varying the frequency, this seems create disruptions in the vacuum and it's manifested on the power battery like negative resistor energy from the motor to the battery. I made a test many time ago with a magnetic mechanicall switch and my SG coil, but is hard because the coil is very low impendance, this effect seems appears with appropiated inductance and frequency (high) and I think only is possible by using air core.

[patmac]

Skywatcher

Hey I was looking on overunity.com and Hartiberlin explains some interesting:

"The Newman effect is based on the direct conversion of the contact
materials of dissimular metals at an arc at the commutator,
so there are coming free electrons into the
circuit which will give additional power output."

Dissimilar materials is the base of semiconductors, Bearden Collector & Solar Panels. Maybe copper and Zinc can work.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi patmac, yes I read that from Stefan, it could be happening and if it is, its contributing to the overall characteristics of his motor. It's not a necessity for COP>1.0, as the graph pic I posted from Newman's should tell you ultimately where the excess originates. There is no need to make his principles complicated when they are simple.
peace love light
Tyson

[Joit]

I read that note from S,H few times too, but i think, its only a cherry on the cake,
because he cant make it really work, or only close to cop1, and he thought,
he can get the missing 1%
But Newman speaks about Cop 20, and did not use special Commutators, only Iron and Copper i guess?
But anyhow is the hard part to store the Energy there, there are mighty Spikes coming out, and at all, i had not good experiences with charge and power Batteries at the same time. Maybe they need to get a Condition too first for a while.

[patmac]

@Joit

Good news you're right confirmed, look I put more copper but little, only I got 15 ohm AWG27, and works great....

I'm using my Analog DC POWER SUPPLY (w/ VoltMeter & Amp Meter analogs), on 36 volts and sustainning the conmutator with my hand only I used copper wire on the shaft and touching the aligator finding the sweet spot, and ran great, amp meter only has showed 0.05 amps. I'll try to build it better using the same copper for take a video and publish it. When sweet spot is found sparks are uniform and blue.

[bobo36us]

I ran another simple test that was more in line with Newman's principles. I took 24gauge copper wire and made air-core coil of 1 ohm and then made an air-core coil with 18gauge copper wire of 1 ohm. I did this so the voltage dip from the 4.8V battery would be the same. This test showed that the 18gauge coil had at least 4 times greater magnetic field and again the lower mass 24gauge coil heated up rather quickly with the magnetic field becoming weaker.

Hi Sky,

So you have proven to yourself what Joe has been saying.

You now know how to get 4 times (or much much more) magnetic field force given the exact same current input.

Now, how do we apply this information to Peter's 'Rotary Attraction Motor'
and make a really powerful working device?
YouTube - Peter Lindemann Rotary Attraction Motor 2a

Bobo

[ashtweth]

His device has also been known to modify the Weather, you can read this in his book, here is a educational group who have a machine based on his motor who have successful done it.

Drought relief
Look for Weather Rangers

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi Bobo, Hi ash, thanks for replies. Bobo, The attraction motor would be the best candidate and maybe making an extra,extra long rotor to accommodate more copper in the stator and maybe have to worry a little less about super precision machine work that's outside most peoples means. Though I would think a very large brooks type geometry coil with maybe a feedback winding to self oscillate may show gains in output at a certain point. With a secondary winding wrapped around could make for a super efficient florescent light drive source. Just a few thoughts.
peace love light
Tyson

[nilrehob]

I think the commutator is a big key to his motor; its shorting the coil, isn't it?

/Hob

[SkyWatcher]

Hi nilrehob, if you read my first post in this forum it is plain to see where the efficiency originates. Newman's commutator is for his motor design. though an attraction motor would also give the high spike as does Newman's motor geometry. I'm also saying a simple solid state setup should show a gain in spike energy, read my first post and my post #10 and tell me what you think.
peace love light
Tyson

[nilrehob]

Read and understood (as well as i can )

I have done some simple experiments on shorting coils,
and heard of others who shorten their coils many times per magnet,
so therefore I'm quite interested in his commutator.

I have also read an article at free energy ,
"New Energy Technologies, Issue #2 March April 2003",
where i got the idea that the big coil of Newman is partly an electron trap;
you send in electrons into the coil, but before they come out at the other end you disconnect the power and route the electrons back to where they came from.
Although in the article they use a vacuum-tube instead of a coil.
This might also be part of what's done in Self Charging Batery .
I'm not sure that i can re-post the article, but you can download it from here:
New Energy Technologies, # 11
its file 11-5.pdf in the zip-file.

/Hob

[Joit]

Yes, the Commutator did power the Coil, between, short them all time once and after 180° switch the Polarity.

[Ted Ewert]

I saw this thread so I decided to read his book. I've gotten through a few chapters and I already have issues with his theories.
Newman claims that there is a huge gain in a coil when the field collapses. The problem is that he doesn't take into account the energy it took to create the field in the first place. He waits until the field is established, then makes his measurements. This is a basic, fundamental screw up. If this were really the case, all transformers would have similar gains, which they don't.
However, I do like his approach of hands on observation. He puts his money where his mouth is so he gets points right there in my book.
I also find his calculations involving the difference between a small coil and a huge coil of the same resistance intriguing, but with the same reservations:

"Take 40 gauge copper wire which has a resistance of 1,049 ohms for 1000 feet with a total weight of a mere .02993 lbs., turning same into a coil with a 10 foot interior and 8.32 feet in height. One would therefore have approximately a mere 31.8 turns of copper wire. If 100 volts is connected the this coil, then a current flow approximately 95MA would occur with total power input of 9.5 watts and a resulting weak, magnetic field of .012 Gauss or a mere .000014 joules of energy stored in this weak, magnetic field. An insignificant current flow would now occur if the current input was stopped and the coil was shorted out to collapse a weak magnetic field and provide an inductance of only .003 Henries.
Now conduct another test with 5 gauge copper wire which has a resistance of .3133 Ohms for 1000 feet. However to equal the same resistance as in previous coil, one must now use 3,348,000 feet of 5 gauge wire with a massive, total weight of 335,469.6 lbs. or 16.77 tons. Such wire is turned into a coil with a 10-foot interior diameter and 8.32 foot height. This structure would have a phenomenal 90,000 turns of 5-gauge wire. If 100 volts were now connected to this coil, then a current flow of approximately 95MA could occur with a total power input of 9.5 watts and a resulting, phenomenally larger magnetic field of 23.7 Gauss, or 1,905 times larger than the other previously discussed coil, and 116 joules of energy stored in the magnetic field. This represents a phenomenal 8 million times more energy than in the 40 gauge coil previously discussed. A phenomenally larger current flow would now occur if the current flow was stopped and this coil was shorted out as a result of the collapsing, much greater magnetic field of tthe 5 gauge coil. Such shorting would generate an inductance of 25,700 Henries, which is better than 8 million times the inductance of the 40 gauge coil. Clearly these facts, prove beyond doubt that Oersted's conclusion in 1820 (Which is still taught to this day) That the magnetic field came only from the current to be totally false. This clearly proves that the phenomenal difference in strength for the resulting magnetic fields (implying great differences in stored energy) and additional current flow when the input current was stopped. Had to come from the gyroscopic particles comprising the component parts of the atoms within the copper coil."

This whole statement also neglects initial input power. Current from the power source is initially converted into the magnetic field in any coil. This field has to reach its maximum point before any current flows out the other end of the coil. How much power is required to create this field is completely ignored by Newman.
Anyway, my initial impressions of Newman are a mixture of respect and disappointment. I admire his tenacity, dedication and work ethic, but his theories are weak and incomplete. I have no reason to doubt that his motor does what he says it does, but I still take issue with his explanations behind it.
BTW, I've built one of his motors and they are quite simple and very efficient. Really interesting device.
I'll continue reading his book to see what else he has to say. Everyone has little gems to offer, so I'll see if I can find a few here and there.

Ted

[nilrehob]

BTW, I've built one of his motors and they are quite simple and very efficient. Really interesting device.

Did you pulse it, several times per rotation, and short the coil after each pulse?

/Hob

[Allcanadian]

@Ted Ewert

This whole statement also neglects initial input power. Current from the power source is initially converted into the magnetic field in any coil. This field has to reach its maximum point before any current flows out the other end of the coil. How much power is required to create this field is completely ignored by Newman.

You must understand the context of the information given from the inventor's perspective, not your own. As well I'm not sure how one could misinterpret such a simple concept. Mr Newman is simply stating if two coils are made in which the mass of copper is different from one to the other but the resistance is equal then the coil having a larger mass will release a greater magnitude of energy--period. The input in both cases is exactly equal, 95mA or 9.5 watts which tells us the input voltage was 100 volts.

Here are the false assumptions you have made--
1)

This whole statement also neglects initial input power.

The input in both cases is exactly equal, 95mA or 9.5 watts which tells us the input voltage was 100 volts.
2)

Current from the power source is initially converted into the magnetic field in any coil.

A potential difference in a closed circuit will produce an electric current, this current will produce a magnetic field, nothing is converted. The magnetic field is an effect of the flow of an electrical current determined by the qualities of the inductance, there is a difference between the two---conversion and effect.
3)

This field has to reach its maximum point before any current flows out the other end of the coil.

Electrodynamics states the current is continuous in a closed circuit, the self-induction of the coil will oppose the applied voltage potential producing a magnetic field but current is continuous.
4)

How much power is required to create this field is completely ignored by Newman

The input in both cases is exactly equal, 95mA or 9.5 watts which tells us the input voltage was 100 volts. 9.5 watts is the power input and it is equal in both cases.

Regards
AC