Joseph Newman Principles

[Matthew Jones]

Does anybody have a complete schematic of some kind with specs. I haven't seen one.

Matt

[Ted Ewert]

@Ted Ewert


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

I haven't misunderstood anything. Let's not forget our basic electronics here. What you and Newman neglect to take into account is the charging time constant involved with both coils. You make no allowance for the power or the time it takes to charge up the field. 100 volts @ 95ma could take 5 minutes to fully charge a field that big and actually start flowing out the other end of that huge coil for all you know.
Sure, once the field is established you only need 9.5 watts of power to sustain it. However, sustaining and building the field are two totally different functions.
Think about it... If it were really thousands of times more powerful, wouldn't he would be getting thousands of times more power out of his machine? But he isn't, is he. He barely makes any power at all.
Power is a product of work per unit of time. The long charging time constant of his big coil kills his overall power output. It's as simple as that.
And another thing... he uses this same specious argument to claim that copper is magnetic (which it obviously isn't). I would be happy to explain that one too, if anyone has a problem with it.

Cheers,

Ted

P.S. You said: "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." This is incorrect. The current is what gets held up in a coil, not the voltage. The voltage appears instantly across the coil. The current only flows when the magnetic field is fully established.

[Apolopy]

Hi all, Sorry for my Inglish

Alcanadian: Is a great post you make there, putting things in the right track again.

One enginier that have reed the newman's book have tell me this:

"You know, we all new this about big coils and small coils, and the potencial difrence, but no one make any think about it, more over, there is a formula to know how much electromagnetic force you can get from a coil, and basic state that you must get up one of this two variables "wire loops, or , current", and we the modern society choose to increase current, there for you have smaller motors, but more consuming. but if choose to get up the loops variables, using the same watts for the same period of time, we can have spectaculars results....we all knew this, but no body do anything untill Newman write it so simple way, my colleages say to me that this can change the world, but no one at the end of de meeting say who will start....we were afraid".

Thanks.

Apolopy

[elias]

Hello,

I have managed to build my new SSG with some larger coils than I used to build, and I have got some interesting results, My coil is about 700 turns of #18 wire and are rather big and means alot of copper (to be precise my coil weighs about 3kg, which is a lot more than what most of us use for SSG), but not as big as Newman says. I also used Neo magnets for my rotor, with about 2cm spacing between my coil and magnets. (See the attached photo)

The interesting result is the mechanical efficiency of the device. As most of you know Bedini motors do not have more that 30% mechanical efficiency and the main drawback is that, but I am happy to announce that my SSG has about 60% efficiency as I measured it yesterday, and That was amazing for me, Because I think that this proves the point Newman is trying to make.

This is the details:

Torque rotor diameter: 4.5 cm
Newton-meter deflection : about 1 N
RPM: 20 Hz or 1200 min^-1
Current Draw: about 200mA
Voltage: about 24V

W_input = V * I = 4.8 w
W_ouput = F * d * frequency = 1 * pi * 0.045 * 20 = 2.83 w

Efficiency = W_output / W_input = 2.83 / 4.8 = 58.9 %

Please note that I am not using 300 volts as Newman points out.
But I am getting double the efficiency most people report for SSG, now can you imagine the efficiency if I double or truple the coil size and the input voltage?

I also tried an experiment lately, which confirms Newman: I used two coils with same wire diameter with one having 300 turns and the other having 600 turns, I applied the same voltage, to both coils, and both of them could exert the same force to a piece of magnet hanging from a Newton-meter. And in fact the second coil consumed two times less power.

Elias

[elias]

I haven't misunderstood anything. Let's not forget our basic electronics here. What you and Newman neglect to take into account is the charging time constant involved with both coils. You make no allowance for the power or the time it takes to charge up the field. 100 volts @ 95ma could take 5 minutes to fully charge a field that big and actually start flowing out the other end of that huge coil for all you know.
Sure, once the field is established you only need 9.5 watts of power to sustain it. However, sustaining and building the field are two totally different functions.

Ted

P.S. You said: "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." This is incorrect. The current is what gets held up in a coil, not the voltage. The voltage appears instantly across the coil. The current only flows when the magnetic field is fully established.

Hi Ted,

I am not a fan of Mr Newman, but he seems so honest to me.
The time constant for an RL circuit is L/R (Time constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) As the wire length doubles, the inductance doubles and the resistance doubles too, so the time constant remains constant and the same. So it seems that by increasing the wire length the time constant remains the same, and the time constant will only depend on the diameter of the wire being used.

So it doesn't matter how "BIG" you coil is. It takes the same amount of time to charge it according to mainstream physics. If you make a coil with 1 meter of #10 wire or 1000km of #10 wire, the time constant does not change, the magnetic field will not change too!!, The only thing that changes is the amount of current being consumed. The current will approach zero as the amount of copper being used approaches infinity. The Motor power only depends on the wire gauge being used. Yes there is a trade off, and the trade off is using so much copper, but when we do that, we don't need to put that much current into the motor to compensate for our small amount of copper.

This being said, it seems that Newman was also saying that his motor, was operating at around 10 Watts or so, and producing kilowatts of mechanical power. According to my measurements, I think he is right and he has the solution to our energy problems. But you know, the more you are right the more "they" tend to mock you.

Elias

[Ted Ewert]

I like the Newman motor, I built one myself. I has some very interesting and unusual properties which are certainly worth investigating.
Nevertheless, it isn't much of an energy generator. Even Newman's big motor didn't generate much excess power.
If you watch his videos you'll see that his armature turns very slowly. Why is that? If his calculations were actually correct, his motor should have been spinning like mad and putting out scads of power.
If he really had the motor /generator he claims, all he had to do was to connect a standard generator to his rotor shaft and show the world what a genius he is. Very simple and very convincing.
But he doesn't. He's very elusive when it comes to hard measurements.
I think a larger coil will give you some extra gain. Transformers become more efficient when they get larger, which may be related to this. But you have to construct these huge coils to get a very small amount of extra power. I don't think it's worth it. I think there are much better ways to generate electricity.

Cheers,

Ted

[nilrehob]

Does anybody have a complete schematic of some kind with specs. I haven't seen one.

Look here and you will find lots of info:
The Newman's Energy Machine tested by JL Naudin
Many interesting pages on N's motor.

/Hob

[nilrehob]

I like the Newman motor, I built one myself.

Did you pulse it, several times per rotation, and short the coil after each pulse?
If not, isn't it more like a Bedini window motor?

Even Newman's big motor didn't generate much excess power.

Maybe you've meant energy (and not power) in your posts?

/Hob

[Ted Ewert]

Did you pulse it, several times per rotation, and short the coil after each pulse?
If not, isn't it more like a Bedini window motor?

Why would I pulse it several times per revolution? How is the magnet going to turn that way? That would immediately arrest the rotation of the armature. The timing is tricky as it is with just one pulse per revolution.
And yes, it is quite similar to a window motor. The difference is that if you collapse the coil into a tight bundle like the window motor, the efficiency goes down the toilet. The shape of the coil is critical to the efficient operation of the motor, which says to me that the magnet rotating through the coil adds power back into the system.
My understanding of the mechanism is this: Mechanical switching is a must. The motor is pulsed by a dc source, say a battery. When the contacts open, the field collapses, possibly sending a pulse of energy back to the battery via the brief arc across the contacts(not sure about this). However, the magnet then continues to turn within the coil, constantly generating energy in the windings. Since it is an open circuit and no current flows, the energy steadily increases as voltage only. When the contacts close for the next power pulse, a large voltage is pulsed into the battery before current is supplied back out for the power pulse. This pulse is what charges the battery just before it is discharged. This is also why old, tired, discharged batteries work so well. They have a high input impedance which matches a high voltage, low current source. Power transfer is very efficient under those conditions.
When the coil is physically "collapsed" such as in the window motor, charging from the magnet is a short pulse then nothing. The high voltage cannot develop and the battery, or cap as the case may be, doesn't get charged.
That's my theory anyway.

Maybe you've meant energy (and not power) in your posts?

/Hob

No, I meant power.

Cheers,

Ted

[nilrehob]

Why would I pulse it several times per revolution?

Otherwise its not an N-motor.

Look at the commutator in ch 9: http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Newman2.pdf
And here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/NMac0625.htm

No, I meant power.

Why do you then include time?

/Hob

[Ted Ewert]

Otherwise its not an N-motor.

OK wise guy.
Do you have anything constructive to add here? Perhaps you could tell us all about the test results when you built your own Newman motor.
What kind of power gain did you get?
Did you try the enhanced commutator (like the one you pointed out) or did you use the normal commutator.
Did you try mechanical contacts as well as sliding contacts
Did you try any variations in the physical structure of the device?
Did you try different size coils and compare the results?
Did you try different wire guages?
Did you try different size and strength magnets?
How about batteries? Did you use a wide variety? Did you try nonrechargeable and rechargeable batteries? Dead batteries vs charged ones?
What voltage range did you use?

I can answer all these questions because I built a motor and did all those tests. I admit not using your special enhanced Newman commutator, but I got pretty good results from the regular one.
Please enlighten us about your motor and the results you got with it. Don't forget to include your comparison between the different commutators you tried.

Ted

[sucahyo]

Just found something interesting in Jospeh Newman page.

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman: Additional Information


Found a corelation with "occult chemistry":


This is from a book that describe a very different atomic structure.

[nilrehob]

OK wise guy.

Calm down, you're getting me wrong.
All I'm saying is that I've never seen any real Newman motor,
except at jnaudin,
and I'm curious about how a real N-motor behaves,
with a big coil and a proper commutator, thats all.
And I'm especially interested in the shorting of the coil.
I think both the size of the coil and the commutator is rather important.
Sorry to have upset you, it was not my intention.



/Hob

[nilrehob]

Perhaps you could tell us all about the test results when you built your own Newman motor.

I haven't built one, yet, still figuring on how to make a proper commutator.

I can answer all these questions because I built a motor and did all those tests.

And since I think a forum like this is about asking and sharing I would love to hear about your experiences, really.

What kind of power gain did you get?
Did you try mechanical contacts as well as sliding contacts
Did you try any variations in the physical structure of the device?
Did you try different size coils and compare the results?
Did you try different wire guages?
Did you try different size and strength magnets?
How about batteries? Did you use a wide variety? Did you try nonrechargeable and rechargeable batteries? Dead batteries vs charged ones?
What voltage range did you use?



/Hob

[elias]

Nevertheless, it isn't much of an energy generator. Even Newman's big motor didn't generate much excess power.
If you watch his videos you'll see that his armature turns very slowly. Why is that? If his calculations were actually correct, his motor should have been spinning like mad and putting out scads of power.
If he really had the motor /generator he claims, all he had to do was to connect a standard generator to his rotor shaft and show the world what a genius he is. Very simple and very convincing.

Ted

Hi Ted,

Thanks for your useful information.
Actually I saw his videos, and the one which he was driving a truck by using his motor, the truck moved slowly, but it moved! you need about a horse power to move a truck, now if his motor is using about a watt or so to move that truck it is interesting. Anyway I have to admit, that vagueness exists in his presentations.

I have to do more experiments about Newman's ideas to find out if his idea works in the real world or not.

Elias