Soloma wrote:Kevin, so glad to hear back from You!
Just watched a documentary on Joseph Newman and his perpetual motion device which was claimed to output more energy then was put in. He fought a losing battle versus the US patent office in the 80's and early 90's and eventually passed in 2015, after having losing it and chasing off folks who were claiming to try and help him get his device out to the public.
Looking forward to having some discussions, hoping everyone is well!
Dan
Hello Dan.
I check in here now and then. My time has been occupied in taking care of Kim, she is not doing well with her failing liver.
However, I noticed your comment about Joseph Newman. Back in the mid 90's, I was asked to evaluate a Newman Motor by a group that was approached by him. We actually did it on site at the home of someone from the group. They had visited Newman and had an agreement with him to develop his prototype. Myself and another engineer were contacted via someone who was a mutual acquaintance.
We did several tests on the motor itself as to waveform evaluation of the output, measurement of the magnets as to field strength etc, and finally power output versus the magnets (which would be the power input) to derive an efficiency number.
The design of the prototype from Newman that these investors had was a four pole unit which we found strange. When approaching, if memory serves me, approximately 70% efficiency, the Motor would cog and then the cogging, as the percent increased, would increase logarithmicly. We found that strange in that motors and generators are normally an odd number of poles to prevent cogging under higher loads.
Secondly, the output waveform was extremely noisy. It was very erratic and made finite measurements difficult. Also, it required an excitation battery. This battery was a wet cell (lead acid). We changed over to a dry cell of equal voltage and the noise became more prominent. Apparently, the capacitance of the plates was filtering the noise. Also, the dry cell would get warm and the cogging became more noticeable at a lower efficiency rating.
The conclusion was that the Newman Motor was not a unity device.