Just in from Evan Soul?:
It's Done!
A life's work.
The 7500-lb energy machine will now try
to reach the SPEED OF LIGHT!
Not by batteries or solar panels.
But by GENERATOR ONLY!
THIS IS A CLOSED SYSTEM.
Any size can now be built!
Only sincere individuals contact Joseph Nolfe at: 205-835-9022.
We are now looking for an ELABORATE SITE to be provided
for a continuous demonstration to the world -
visible publicly and on the internet via webcam.
Call Joseph Nolfe at 205-835-9022
if you know of an available demonstration site.
Thank you!
Joseph W. Newman
* * * * * * * * * *
JNPCo/NECorp.
http://www.josephnewman.com
Important video seen at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1610087835473512086&hl=en
For additional information, please contact:
Mr. Joseph Nolfe
President & CEO
Newman Energy Corporation
(205) 835-9022
You can use the free
www.ustream.tv
to do a free Webcam to multiple users
at the same time via FLASH.
This is a very nice free service !
Hope to see it soon live or at least in a video.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
If the US Government allows, a Joseph Newman machine may be validated at Tsing Hua University, Beijing, China.
A number of Chinese Over Unity Inventions are being evaluated at Tsing Hua University.
The Company associated with Wang Shum Ho, General Magnetics ç£Âæâ,,¢Â®, may even be interested in funding further research and development.
The ltseung888 posts mentioned the Joseph Newman machine a number of times already. If a closed system is available, China will definitely be interested. (Some Chinese Scientists read this forum too.)
speed of light? wow must have good bearings ;D
I wonder if Steorn has a free open internet camera they're not using right now? :D
I had my hopes up and then I actually went to the website to see some of the past videos. Does this guy strike anyone else as very dubious?
First of all, he claims he got his invention with the help of God. He certainly is entitled to his faith, but in a scientific presentation, can we leave God out of this?
Next, he makes this proud claim how his device, with the help of 4 sets of solar panels, can pump 5000 gallons of water per day. Now 5000 gallons sounds like a large number, but really it is not that much over a 24 hour period. It is only 3.47 gallons per minute, and it really looks like just a trickle coming out of that pipe. I am not at all convinced that the four sets of solar panels could not do this on their own. Heck, why even have them? If you claim over unity, just run off a battery and keep recharging it. It would be simple enough to do with water - just have a water wheel that turns and generates power.
Also, there was another video with a truck in the beginning, claiming 100,000% efficiency. So let me get this straight - the motor puts out 1000 times more energy than is put into it? And showing us the truck moving at about 5 miles per hour is a good demonstration of the motor's power?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on August 08, 2007, 10:47:52 AM
I had my hopes up and then I actually went to the website to see some of the past videos. Does this guy strike anyone else as very dubious?
First of all, he claims he got his invention with the help of God. He certainly is entitled to his faith, but in a scientific presentation, can we leave God out of this?
Next, he makes this proud claim how his device, with the help of 4 sets of solar panels, can pump 5000 gallons of water per day. Now 5000 gallons sounds like a large number, but really it is not that much over a 24 hour period. It is only 3.47 gallons per minute, and it really looks like just a trickle coming out of that pipe. I am not at all convinced that the four sets of solar panels could not do this on their own. Heck, why even have them? If you claim over unity, just run off a battery and keep recharging it. It would be simple enough to do with water - just have a water wheel that turns and generates power.
Also, there was another video with a truck in the beginning, claiming 100,000% efficiency. So let me get this straight - the motor puts out 1000 times more energy than is put into it? And showing us the truck moving at about 5 miles per hour is a good demonstration of the motor's power?
Nice logical summary
The reason the truck had to move slow was the load of gearing down required because the motor has extremely low torque, anyone who has replicated a newman motor can test this easily, my motor has been running on the same 12 volt 18ah battery for near 4 days now, voltage has dropped from 12.5v to 11.86v, which sounds impressive until you test the torque which is low because the current through the coil is low hence the magnet flux is low.
Please read the theory behind the Newman machine in
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?t=8
Newman et al can now demonstrate a totally closed system - no need for solar panels.
It is just a case of Pulsed Rotation Leading Out Electron Motion Energy and Gravitational Energy. The efficiency can be greatly improved.
Lawrence Tseung
Boat in Calm Water and Good Sunshine Scenario Leads Out unified explanation of most Over Unity Inventions.
Quote from: RunningBare on August 08, 2007, 11:07:19 AM
Nice logical summary
The reason the truck had to move slow was the load of gearing down required because the motor has extremely low torque, anyone who has replicated a newman motor can test this easily, my motor has been running on the same 12 volt 18ah battery for near 4 days now, voltage has dropped from 12.5v to 11.86v, which sounds impressive until you test the torque which is low because the current through the coil is low hence the magnet flux is low.
Well, if the torque is really low, that leads me to believe the machine is not putting out 1000 times the energy going in. I realize that torque is not the same as energy, because with torque there is a force vector involved (force applied to keep an object rotating, or something like that), but really, the amount of torque generated by a motor should correlate with energy output. (If it doesn't, please correct me on how I am wrong - I am not an engineer.) So, either the amount of energy being put in is so low, that even multiplying it by 1000 is not enough to get the truck moving at a decent speed, or, more likely, the 100,000% percent figure is just flat out wrong.
I do not understand why Newman would exaggerate - even 101% efficiency, if proven, is enough to be considered revolutionary. Why make such grand claims?
Also, thank you Lawrence for the link to the explanation of the device. I will await the results of the closed loop test.
I find shruggedatlas' conclusion parallel to mine. With regards to his so-called 'god inspired' solar panel machine, calculations were done in another thread which proved that the solar panels used could in fact pump considerably more water than his machine on any normal water pump, which thus proved that his machine was merely a large mechanical capacitor (flywheel) that very inefficiently moved water.
If he has such contact with god, who is all-knowing, why can't god just tell him that secret loophole in physics, or perhaps inform him on the sciences we have yet to discover or comprehend.
It seems kind of silly of god to, given that he/she/it is trying to save humanity, bestow someone with the money and potential to save humanity with knowledge that is fundamentally flawed.
And I'd be quite surprised if this device of his comes within even .000026% of the speed of light (2,640 feet per second, or half a mile a second) before ripping itself apart due rotational pull. And at 7.,500 lbs, that would be a lot of energy stored up.
I just called Joseph Nolfe on his phone number
and he said the generator coupled to the Newman machine shaft produces
enough energy to feedback to the Newman machine motor, so that
the feedback is enough to accelerate the Motor and
run it faster and faster.
They will be showing it in a few days via videos and webcam setups.
So September will be very interesting, having a selfrunning Newman machine
and Chas Campbell results coming up ! ;)
Tell them to open source it,because this stuff just gets thrown in the dust if they do something like patent it or wave the flag to the goverments.
As of my knowledge to the speed of light,other aspects of the universe can go faster then the speed of light .
its like a 60mph top speed, and theres something else that can go faster, just think of unlimited, and i think of unlimited speed.
Quote from: lltfdaniel1 on August 25, 2007, 10:21:29 AM
Tell them to open source it, because this stuff just gets thrown in the dust
Are you not aware this is the kind of remarks destroying the development of this kind of tech? People don't like it when you order them around. One could argue they overreact. But it's really not your decision to give their technology away to the public?
How do you respond when I say "you must do this and that or else......."?
"or else" is never part of a good suggestion.
G'day all,
Are we going around the same track again or is Newman for real this time.
Usually at the last minute either the device gets stolen or some other disaster happens or he moves to another place.
Only time will tell, but I would not be holding my breath.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on August 25, 2007, 04:04:29 PM
Are we going around the same track again or is Newman for real this time.
By now his machine should have reached light speed, and should have imploded on itself ;D ;D
Edit: Or should it have exploded... ???
hey,
I didn't want to believe it but plz read this :(: http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/biss.htm
Quote from: seriousvivek on August 26, 2007, 09:05:51 AM
hey,
I didn't want to believe it but plz read this :(: http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/biss.htm
Please not again this old drivel from professional skeptics Eric Krieg and Norman Biss,
which have been debunked already....
New email from Evan Soul?:
"The latest news is that Joseph Newman has just been experimenting with 9-volt TRANSISTOR batteries. Anyone familiar with transistor batteries, knows they are incapable of powering any kind of a LOAD -- especially for any length of time. They power small radios, etc., but will quickly discharge when a load of any significance is placed on them.
Joseph Newman has been using as a catalytic voltage input: up to ten 9v transistor batteries connected in SERIES (not in parallel) --- thus the current is equivalent to that of what is in any ONE of them --- a small amount of current. The total wattage with 10 such batteries is 270 watts -- max. That is less than three 100 watt light bulbs.
Yes, he turned a 1,650-lb rotary having a 450-lb flywheel continuously (which is connected to his 7,500-lb energy machine) unit for over AN HOUR --- and the small transistor batteries were as charged as when he started!
He is concurrently working on his CLOSED SYSTEM demonstration (in Mobile) which he hopes to have completed in about 2 weeks. I've discussed with him the goal of posting that system on a 24/7 webcam."
Just in from Evan Soul?:
SEE THE LATEST VIDEO
OF THE
7,500-LB NEWMAN ENERGY MACHINE
with a
1,650-LB ROTARY (INCLUDING 450-LB FLYWHEEL)
using only
TINY 9volt ENERGIZER BATTERIES
CONNECTED IN SERIES!!!
Representatives of the Energizer Corporation recommend
the largest load for their 9volt battery is a "TOY", and
they state that even a small toy is a "high, battery-draining device".
Even small toys can quickly deplete such 9volt batteries which are
typically used in low-load applications such as smoke detectors.
No way such a small battery would ever run a 7,500-LB MOTOR. Right?
Wrong.
In the video below, the "Energizer Bunny" battery
not only run the 7,500-LB Newman motor, but
it keeps right on running it --- not just for a minute, but for an hour!
This technology is proof that the strength of the motor's magnetic field
is dependent upon the VOLTAGE --- NOT the CURRENT!
And during the course of an hour, the batteries don't even heat up!
Conventional technology would say that such is not possible.
Yet, the Newman Energy Machine can accomplish that ... and much more.
In fact, the technology can be used to provide abundant, non-polluting,
inexpensive electromagnetic energy to power the world.
No more fossil-fuel-related pollution.
No more skyrocketing energy costs.
No more global warming caused by the use of hydrocarbon fuels.
No more nuclear reactor wastes.
No more coal-burning power plants.
This technology will provide abundant, inexpensive, non-polluting energy
to power homes, factories, automobiles, ships, planes, appliances ...
in short, the entire world can utilize this revolutionary technology.
See the latest video at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2699190582411275088&hl=en
Individuals who can help bring this technology into production
should contact:
Joseph Nolfe
CEO, NEWMAN ENERGY CORPORATION
(205) 835-9022
* * * * * * *
A few things strike me as odd in watching this video. First, the rate at which this 1650 pound armature assembly accellerates from a dead stop is just incredible (read non-believable) based on the assertion that its only start-up power source is a few little nine volt batteries. If it started up real slowly, I'd still have trouble believing it but this giant mass just overcomes its inertia way too fast for me to swallow.
Second, he mentions how he demonstrated his earlier versions way back in 1986 in Washington DC. That's 21 years ago. It's unfathomable that he's still in essentially the same position with it. Still doing demonstrations in a barn, still looking for investors, still promoting like crazy. Seems like after this much time gone by there would have been more progress toward commercial use and manufacture. Joseph must be among the record-holders for keeping people interested without ever delivering a commercial product.
Lastly, I thought the thread title said self-running with no batteries. That's the promise for the near future setup, I gather. Seems like an endless delaying game. But, hey, he seems to be getting closer every few years so maybe this will be the big one coming up! Self-Running! That would be something, all right! Then I guess the production of free excess energy will be next year, maybe.
Humbugger
Couple points of interest, observations,
From the video he has 16 9 volt alkanines in series appears around time 9.20-9.40
That is about 144 volts
From data sheet product #522 ? Product Group Energizer Alkaline
http://data.energizer.com/SearchResult.aspx
Energy capacity per 9 volt cell is 625 mAh for a total of 10000 mAh (miliamphours) or 10 Ah (amphours) at light drain.
Does anyone know if rechargeable batteries were ever used (NiCad NiMh or LiIon can take a lot of charging cycles) and some of the back spike was used to keep them charged.? and the system self sustain?
Also it appears to be slowing down at about 1 revolution loss for every 15 mins, with no load other than bearing friction air friction and possible emf losses if any.
Also it took about 58 seconds to coast down to a stop from about 30 rpm. It indicates pretty good bearings, low friction etc
It would be interesting to have the voltage readings of these 9v cells at the end of the demo.
The start up acceleration to initial steady state is remarkable.
Interesting stuff.
Thanks
It would seem to be totally manageable to have a bicycle
rim generator or any other DC permanent magnet motor/generator
tagged onto the rim of that large rotating wheel.
briefly energized with those 9volt batteries to get it going??
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on September 12, 2007, 11:36:11 AM
Couple points of interest, observations,
From the video he has 16 9 volt alkanines in series appears around time 9.20-9.40
That is about 144 volts
From data sheet product #522 ? Product Group Energizer Alkaline
http://data.energizer.com/SearchResult.aspx
Energy capacity per 9 volt cell is 625 mAh for a total of 10000 mAh (miliamphours) or 10 Ah (amphours) at light drain.
Does anyone know if rechargeable batteries were ever used (NiCad NiMh or LiIon can take a lot of charging cycles) and some of the back spike was used to keep them charged.? and the system self sustain?
Also it appears to be slowing down at about 1 revolution loss for every 15 mins, with no load other than bearing friction air friction and possible emf losses if any.
Also it took about 58 seconds to coast down to a stop from about 30 rpm. It indicates pretty good bearings, low friction etc
It would be interesting to have the voltage readings of these 9v cells at the end of the demo.
The start up acceleration to initial steady state is remarkable.
Interesting stuff.
Thanks
Hi Mike!
The ampere hour capacity is not multiplied when the batteries are in series. It's still 625mah total, not 10ah. Gotcha on that one! Reason? Same identical current in every battery and same as flowing in the external circuit. If 1/16 of total external current flowed in each battery, then you can multiply, but that would be a parallel hookup.
If we got to multiply the voltage and the current, we'd have to be able to do the same for paralleling. And we'd get to square the power every time we doubled the number of batteries! Instant OU! It's Kirchoff's Law or some such thing like that.
Humbugger
Quote from: Humbugger on September 12, 2007, 11:46:16 AM
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on September 12, 2007, 11:36:11 AM
Couple points of interest, observations,
From the video he has 16 9 volt alkanines in series appears around time 9.20-9.40
That is about 144 volts
From data sheet product #522 ? Product Group Energizer Alkaline
http://data.energizer.com/SearchResult.aspx
Energy capacity per 9 volt cell is 625 mAh for a total of 10000 mAh (miliamphours) or 10 Ah (amphours) at light drain.
Does anyone know if rechargeable batteries were ever used (NiCad NiMh or LiIon can take a lot of charging cycles) and some of the back spike was used to keep them charged.? and the system self sustain?
Also it appears to be slowing down at about 1 revolution loss for every 15 mins, with no load other than bearing friction air friction and possible emf losses if any.
Also it took about 58 seconds to coast down to a stop from about 30 rpm. It indicates pretty good bearings, low friction etc
It would be interesting to have the voltage readings of these 9v cells at the end of the demo.
The start up acceleration to initial steady state is remarkable.
Interesting stuff.
Thanks
Hi Mike!
The ampere hour capacity is not multiplied when the batteries are in series. It's still 625mah total, not 10ah. Gotcha on that one!
Humbugger
Are you sure?
You may draw the same current as one but the starting voltage is 144 volts...
I'm sure. See the edits my last post. You're too fast for me!
To keep it simple,
take the energy stored in a cpapcitor that can be discharged over a "constant current circuit" for simplification purposes.
A capacitor charged at 150 volts, discharging one amp, and a capacitor charged at 1 volt also discharging at 1 amp.
Are you saying they are storing the same amount of energy?
Quote from: Humbugger on September 12, 2007, 12:03:17 PM
I'm sure. See the edits my last post. You're too fast for me!
heh,
The total energy of the system is additive. (energy per battery x number of batteries)
Either 144 volts at 1 amp (in series)
or
9 Volts at 16 amps in (parrallel)
Is the same total energy
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on September 12, 2007, 12:03:50 PM
To keep it simple,
take the energy stored in a cpapcitor that can be discharged over a "constant current circuit" for simplification purposes.
A capacitor charged at 150 volts, discharging one amp, and a capacitor charged at 1 volt also discharging at 1 amp.
Are you saying they are storing the same amount of energy?
Not at all. I'm say that 16 identical batteries store 16x the energy of one, whether they are series or parallel doesn't matter. What you're implying is that in series, they store 16^2 x the energy and in parallel only 16x the energy. See? It can't work that way.
Hum
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on September 12, 2007, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 12, 2007, 12:03:17 PM
I'm sure. See the edits my last post. You're too fast for me!
heh,
The total energy of the system is additive. (energy per battery x number of batteries)
Either 144 volts at 1 amp (in series)
or
9 Volts at 16 amps in (parrallel)
Is the same total energy
Exactly right, of course. So you get to multiply the current capacity only if they are in parallel and
not if they are in series. Right? Are we on the same page now? You were multiplying both I and E, which is cheating.
Humb
Quote from: Humbugger on September 12, 2007, 12:08:58 PM
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on September 12, 2007, 12:03:50 PM
To keep it simple,
take the energy stored in a cpapcitor that can be discharged over a "constant current circuit" for simplification purposes.
A capacitor charged at 150 volts, discharging one amp, and a capacitor charged at 1 volt also discharging at 1 amp.
Are you saying they are storing the same amount of energy?
Not at all. I'm say that 16 identical batteries store 16x the energy of one, whether they are series or parallel doesn't matter. What you're implying is that in series, they store 16^2 x the energy and in parallel only 16x the energy. See? It can't work that way.
Hum
So isn't 16x 626mAh = 10000mAh=10Ah ???
No, not in series it's not. You are not allowed to multiply the amps for series connections. Only the volts. Reason being, all the current is flowing in every battery when they are in series. 1/16 of the current is flowing in each battery when they are in parallel.
Are you getting a live audio feed in the background? I am. How odd.
Humbugger
Quote from: Humbugger on September 12, 2007, 12:21:54 PM
No, not in series it's not. You are not allowed to multiply the amps for series connections. Only the volts. Reason being, all the current is flowing in every battery when they are in series. 1/16 of the current is flowing in each battery when they are in parallel.
Are you getting a live audio feed in the background? I am. How odd.
Humbugger
Who's multiplying amps in series? We are talking total energy, see my posts again, series vs parallel etc.
Again as i posted above 16x 626mAh = 10000mAh = 10 Ah (energy units not current)!
lol yes there are some peoople talking in the background.
Your math is fine. Your misunderstanding is in the idea that the mAh rating is energy. It's only energy once you multiply by a voltage. Example:
ten batteries, each rated 5V 3ah okay?
each battery holds 5x3=15w for 1 hour = 15wh so 5 batteries hold 5x15 = 75wh
now, put them in parallel and you have the same as one battery rated 5V 15ah = 75wh
put them in series and you have the same as one battery 25V Xah = 75wh
Solve for X
Hint X=3
You were cheating by multiplying in the voltage two different times, first when you placed the batteries in series and then again when you (incorrectly) multiplied the mAh rating for a series connection. See? Only get to multiply the V factor by the number of cells one time, not twice!
Humb
Quote from: Humbugger on September 12, 2007, 12:36:30 PM
Your math is fine. Your misunderstanding is in the idea that the mah rating is energy. It's only energy once you multiple by a voltage. Example:
ten batteries, each rated 5V 3ah okay?
each battery holds 5x3=15w for 1 hour = 15wh so 5 batteries hold 5x15 = 75wh
now, put them in parallel and you have the same as one battery rated 5V 15ah = 75wh
put them in series and you have the same as one battery 25V Xah = 75wh
Solve for X
Hint X=3
You are mixing energy units with current units.
What units is your X?
Please read my first post again, the one you've objected.
I stated that those 16 batteries have a total energy of 10000 mAh or 10 Ah
which you replied
"The ampere hour capacity is not multiplied when the batteries are in series. It's still 625mah total, not 10ah."
Ampere Hours. which only becomes an energy rating after you multiply in a voltage. Then the unit shifts to an energy unit, watthours, joules, etc. Ampere Hours is a unit of current capacity, not energy. In a given battery, we tend to think of it as an energy capacity number but that's because the voltage is assumed to be fixed at the voltage rating of the battery.
You only get to multiply the Ah rating of the batteries if they are in parallel, where you don't multiply the voltage. In series, you multiply the voltage but not the Ah rating.
are we there yet?
Hum
To prove this to yourself very easily, simply take your 144 Volts times 10Ah and you get 1440 watthours.
Now do it for a parallel connection and you find your error, since it's now only 9.x Volts times 10Ah which is only 90-some watthours. Get it?
Your original statement would have been the easiest free energy i ever heard of! You can see that you don't get sixteen-fold energy increase when you put the same batteries in series instead of in parallel.
You get either way the same total energy and it's 9V x 625mA x 1hr x 16 = 90 Watthours total
Your mistake is simple: You've got the 16 term in there twice!
Quote from: Humbugger on September 12, 2007, 12:50:02 PM
Ampere Hours. which only becomes an energy rating after you multiply in a voltage. Then the unit shifts to an energy unit, watthours, joules, etc. Ampere Hours is a unit of current capacity, not energy. In a given battery, we tend to think of it as an energy capacity number but that's because the voltage is assumed to be fixed at the voltage rating of the battery.
You only get to multiply the Ah rating of the batteries if they are in parallel, where you don't multiply the voltage. In series, you multiply the voltage but not the Ah rating.
are we there yet?
Hum
To prove this to yourself very easily, simply take your 144 Volts times 10Ah and you get 1440 watthours.
Now do it for a parallel connection and you find your error, since it's now only 9.x Volts times 10Ah which is only 90-some watthours. Get it?
1 battery has capacity of 625 mAh
16 batteries have how much total capacity?
I stated they have a total capacity of 16x625=10000mAh or 10 Ah, which you objected
Are you saying that in series the total capacity of 16 batteries is 625mAh ?
but only in parallel is 10000mAh ?
You are mixing units and conversions. Read my capacitor simple example again.
The total system energy capacity (16 9v batteries) is the same either in series or in parallel. You can take out the same total energy. Not sure how simpler that this can be stated.
Okay, it is apparently not quite simple enough yet for either of us! ;D
It is you who seem to me to be slightly confused regarding what an Ampere hour is. Let's ask this:
If you have a battery of unknown voltage rating but you know it is a 50 Amp hour battery, and it is charged fully to exactly that (it will run dead in exactly one hour at a constant 50A drain), can you tell me in Watt hours or any other unit of energy how much energy you can get out of it?
No, you can't because you would have to know the voltage first to figure out the energy. Ampere hours are not an energy unit. Ampere hours when multiplied by Volts become an energy unit, Watthours.
The reason we get to multiply the Ampere hour rating of batteries when we put them in parallel is that only the 1/n part of current (n = number of batteries in parallel) flows in each of the batteries.
The reason we don't get to multiply the Ampere hour rating of batteries in series is that 100% of the total current flows through each and every battery at all times. What we do get to multiply is the voltage total, since they are in series.
Hum
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on September 12, 2007, 01:22:49 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 12, 2007, 12:50:02 PM
Ampere Hours. which only becomes an energy rating after you multiply in a voltage. Then the unit shifts to an energy unit, watthours, joules, etc. Ampere Hours is a unit of current capacity, not energy. In a given battery, we tend to think of it as an energy capacity number but that's because the voltage is assumed to be fixed at the voltage rating of the battery.
You only get to multiply the Ah rating of the batteries if they are in parallel, where you don't multiply the voltage. In series, you multiply the voltage but not the Ah rating.
are we there yet?
Hum
To prove this to yourself very easily, simply take your 144 Volts times 10Ah and you get 1440 watthours.
Now do it for a parallel connection and you find your error, since it's now only 9.x Volts times 10Ah which is only 90-some watthours. Get it?
1 battery has capacity of 625 mAh
16 batteries have how much total capacity? depends if they are series or parallel
I stated they have a total capacity of 16x625=10000mAh or 10 Ah, which you objected still do
Are you saying that in series the total capacity of 16 batteries is 625mAh ? yesbut only in parallel is 10000mAh ? yes
You are mixing units and conversions. nope Read my capacitor simple example again.
The total system energy capacity (16 9v batteries) is the same either in series or in parallel. You can take out the same total energy. Not sure how simpler that this can be stated. no arguments here with these three sentences
Hey Mike...
I know we probably should have taken this elsewhere about ten posts ago to avoid pissing off Stefan and others who come to the thread for Joseph Newman news. We could take it private, but I think there is something important to be learned here and others might want to folow our confusion until it is resolved.
I've thought about starting a thread called Humbugger Tries to Teach Basic Electronic Terminology and Relationships. I think this conversation would be a good candidate. We are just missing a basic understanding here and, at this point, we don't seem to be converging on it very fast.
I'm glad we can "argue" without getting too frustrated or getting angry at each other. If anyone cares to follow along on this until we reach a clear verdict, it's going here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3287.msg49199.html#msg49199 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3287.msg49199.html#msg49199)
Humbugger
@Stefan Could you move these posts there for us? It starts with reply #24; God knows where it ends! I'm going to try to find an appropriate location and title. When I do, I'll come back and edit this post to put the link in. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks.
Quote from: Humbugger on September 12, 2007, 01:38:37 PM
Okay, it is apparently not quite simple enough yet for either of us! ;D
It is you who seem to me to be slightly confused regarding what an Ampere hour is. Let's ask this:
If you have a battery of unknown voltage rating but you know it is a 50 Amp hour battery, and it is charged fully to exactly that (it will run dead in exactly one hour at a constant 50A drain), can you tell me in Watt hours or any other unit of energy how much energy you can get out of it?
No, you can't because you would have to know the voltage first to figure out the energy. Ampere hours are not an energy unit. Ampere hours when multiplied by Volts become an energy unit, Watthours.
The reason we get to multiply the Ampere hour rating of batteries when we put them in parallel is that only the 1/n part of current (n = number of batteries in parallel) flows in each of the batteries.
The reason we don't get to multiply the Ampere hour rating of batteries in series is that 100% of the total current flows through each and every battery at all times. What we do get to multiply is the voltage total, since they are in series.
Hum
Hum, you state above underlined:
Ampere hours are not an energy unitThat's where the cofusion lies.
In battery terms Ah is energy unit
see: http://www.rtpnet.org/~teaa/battery.html
Amp-hour Unit of electrical energy, one amp of current flowing for one hour. Abbreviated Ah You can't have it both ways, 625mAh when 16 9v are in series and 10000mAh when 16 9v in parralel.
The total system energy is the same.
I totally disagree. The web is full of misinformation. Tell me then, if Amp-hours are a unit of energy, how many watt hours are there in an ampere hour?
Ampere hours are IxT, current multiplied by time This is not an energy unit.
Watt hours are ExIxT, current multiplied by voltage multiplied by time This is an energy unit.
Amp-hours are not a unit of energy. I don't care what anyone says. I understand why people treat it as if it were, and that is because we always know the voltage of a given battery we are discussing so, in that context, if we are talking only about 12V batteries, we can compare the Ah ratings to compare the energy capacity.
But a 2V 100Ah battery only holds 1/6 the energy of a 12V 100Ah battery.
And the very bottom line is that if you took six of those 2V 100Ah batteries and put them in series to make one 12V battery, it would not become a 600Ah battery! Every 12V lead acid battery, in fact, is made up of six 2V cells in series. The Ah rating of each cell is the same as the Ah rating of the battery.
Humbugger
Sorry to chip in in this private conversation but, :)
If Ah are electrical energy as stated by the website above, Then a 9volt battery with 1Ah rating has the same electrical energy as a 1.5 volt battery with 1Ah rating. I think one can see that this clearly is not the case. As Humbugger has been trying to say electrical energy needs the Amps, Volts and time duration taken into consideration. Commonly Watt/hours are used to express electrical energy.
Not much more I can add here.
Again in battery terms amp hour rating designates its energy capacity.
Take 1 battery of 1Ah rating and discharge it completely over a ?constant current circuit? for simplicity purposes of 1 amp
It will take 1 hour to do so, right?
Total system energy capacity at start? 1 Ah right?
Take 1 battery of 10Ah rating and discharge it over the same circuit
It will take 10 hours to do so, right?
Total system energy capacity at start? 10 Ah right?
Take 10 batteries of 1 Ah each in parallel and discharge them over the same circuit
How long will it take?
And what is the total system energy capacity before the discharge?
Take 10 batteries of 1 Ah each in series discharge them over the same circuit
How long will it take?
And what is the total system energy capacity before the discharge?
10 batteries in series or 10 in parallel have the same total system energy capacity
You can do the same using a fixed resistor and run a calorimetric test, you will find if you recall from the old college labs/experiments that the energies are the same.
Quote from: acp on September 12, 2007, 03:00:40 PM
Sorry to chip in in this private conversation but, :)
If Ah are electrical energy as stated by the website above, Then a 9volt battery with 1Ah rating has the same electrical energy as a 1.5 volt battery with 1Ah rating. I think one can see that this clearly is not the case. As Humbugger has been trying to say electrical energy needs the Amps, Volts and time duration taken into consideration. Commonly Watt/hours are used to express electrical energy.
Yes they are exactly the same in terms of energy charge capacity available. In terms of energy charge capacity only
The confusion may lie in the terminology as it is used in batteries...
Guys both of you are correct in a sense but Humbugger is more correct and here's why:
My small 12 volt battery is rated at 5 AH.Ã, (20 hr)
What does that mean?
It means they've tested the batteri and drawn an EQUIVALENT current of 5 Amps for one hourÃ, (based on equivalence of charge that has left the battery).Ã, Ã, Ã,Â
Why Equivalent??Ã, Ã,Â
Because in actuality they drew less current for 20 HOURS,Ã, Ã, (a standard practice since the internal resistance of the battery is lower at lower current levels, less heating etc..)
So the tested current was actualy 5A/20 = 0.25A for 20 hours.Ã, But when specs are listed we speak of Amp Hours, in other words how much current can I draw from this battery in ONE HOUR and discharge it AT THE END OF THE HOUR. (Dont' try this at home, the battery might explode if you try to discharge it that quick, that's the whole point of these specs, they're just a spec, not an actual test they've done)
Ok, that's all fine and dandy,Ã, but AmpHours is not energy, it needs the volts specified, and what are the volts????
It's obvious , we are talking about a 12 Volt Battery, or in your case a 9 Volt one,Ã, Ã, and although the voltage fluctuates as the battery is discharged, we can assume it stays at the rated level and any energy calculations would be fairly accurate.Ã, (an exact calculation would integrate the voltage times the current waveform in time)
Now, I see you've been discussing SERIES vs PARALLELÃ, (let's take my example with 2 12 volt batteries)
1)Ã, In series we haveÃ, Ã, 24 volts putting out how much?Ã, Ã, Ã, That's rightÃ, Ã, 5 AhÃ, (or the equivalent 0.25 for 20 hours)
Energy isÃ, Ã, 24 Volts x 5 Amps x 3600 sec = 432 000Ã, Ã, Joules
2) In parallel we have 12 volts putting out how much?Ã, Ã, That's right , twice the current so 10 Ah
Energy isÃ, 12 Volts x 10 Amps x 3600 sec =Ã, 432 000 Joules
So we get the same result.
So, strictly speaking,Ã, AmpHour units are not units of energy (but we know we are talking about a certain voltage) so we can do our calculations.
The Joule is the International Standard unit of energy defined as one watt-second. One watt-second of mechanical work is the work done by a force of one Newton (or 0.2247 pound) pushing through a one-meter distance. 3600 Joules are contained in one watt-hour, since an hour contains 3600 seconds,. Batteries are often rated in milliampere-hours instead of watt-hours. This battery rating can be converted to energy if the average voltage of the battery during discharge is known. For instance, a 3.6-volt Lithium-ion battery rated at 850 mAh will maintain a voltage of 3.6 volts with little variation during discharge. Multiply the voltage of 3.6 volts times 850 mAh to yield 3060 mA-volt-hours, or 3060 milliwatt-hours. 3.06 watt-hours equal 11016 watt-seconds or Joules.
This was taken directly from http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html
So you see, to convert the battery RATING into battery ENERGY, you must know the voltage.
I agree Mikestocks2006 that 10 batteries at 1Ah in parralell give the same as 1 battery at 10Ah, if the batteries have the same voltage rating.
Hum and last poster are right! Ah is not energy! I would say: watt is energy and watt/hour is work. The value Ah makes batteries of the same type comparable. in this case 9V blocks.
Answer to mikestocks case-example: each setup, parallel or serial takes 1 hour to discharge. But in the first case parallel, it flows a current of 10A in the serial case it flows only 1A but at 10times the voltage.
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on September 12, 2007, 03:19:28 PM
Quote from: acp on September 12, 2007, 03:00:40 PM
Sorry to chip in in this private conversation but, :)
If Ah are electrical energy as stated by the website above, Then a 9volt battery with 1Ah rating has the same electrical energy as a 1.5 volt battery with 1Ah rating. I think one can see that this clearly is not the case. As Humbugger has been trying to say electrical energy needs the Amps, Volts and time duration taken into consideration. Commonly Watt/hours are used to express electrical energy.
Yes they are exactly the same in terms of energy capacity available. In terms of energy capacity only
The confusion may lie in the terminology as it is used in batteries...
Okay Mike. If they call pies "cakes" on your block then so be it. It's not really up for vote but you can join the abusers of correct terminology and insist you are right. I am going to survive while you go off thinking that a 6V 1Ah battery holds the same energy as a 24V 1Ah battery. It's incorrect and I've tried hard to help you understand why, as has ACP, but it's okay if you don't agree. We can still be friends. I'll just have to remember that if I get invited to your house and I want some pie, I should ask for cake!
You might take a web cruise to a battery maker and notice that 24V batteries are just about exactly four times larger in volume and weight than 6V batteries of the exact same Ah capacity. That's because, if they are the same technology and similar constuction and have the same ENERGY DENSITY rating, the one that holds four times the energy is four times larger. ;)
Humbugger
Quote from: Joh70 on September 12, 2007, 03:28:54 PM
Hum and last poster are right! Ah is not energy! I would say: watt is energy and watt/hour is work. The value Ah makes batteries of the same type comparable. in this case 9V blocks.
Thanks for helping out here
but watt is not energy. watt is power. watthour (no slash-it implies divide) is energy. power x time = energy
everything else you say seems 100% correct
Hum
Quote from: EMdevices on September 12, 2007, 03:21:37 PM
Guys both of you are correct in a sense but Humbugger is more correct and here's why:
My small 12 volt battery is rated at 5 AH. (20 hr)
What does that mean?
It means they've tested the batteri and drawn an EQUIVALENT current of 5 Amps for one hour (based on equivalence of charge that has left the battery).
Why Equivalent??
Because in actuality they drew less current for 20 HOURS, (a standard practice since the internal resistance of the battery is lower at lower current levels, less heating etc..)
So the tested current was actualy 5A/20 = 0.25A for 20 hours. But when specs are listed we speak of Amp Hours, in other words how much current can I draw from this battery in ONE HOUR and discharge it AT THE END OF THE HOUR. (Dont' try this at home, the battery might explode if you try to discharge it that quick, that's the whole point of these specs, they're just a spec, not an actual test they've done)
Ok, that's all fine and dandy, but AmpHours is not energy, it needs the volts specified, and what are the volts????
It's obvious , we are talking about a 12 Volt Battery, or in your case a 9 Volt one, and although the voltage fluctuates as the battery is discharged, we can assume it stays at the rated level and any energy calculations would be fairly accurate. (an exact calculation would integrate the voltage times the current waveform in time)
Now, I see you've been discussing SERIES vs PARALLEL (let's take my example with 2 12 volt batteries)
1) In series we have 24 volts putting out how much? That's right 5 Ah (or the equivalent 0.25 for 20 hours)
Energy is 24 Volts x 5 Amps x 3600 sec = 432 000 Joules
2) In parallel we have 12 volts putting out how much? That's right , twice the current so 10 Ah
Energy is 12 Volts x 10 Amps x 3600 sec = 432 000 Joules
So we get the same result.
So, strictly speaking, AmpHour units are not units of energy (but we know we are talking about a certain voltage) so we can do our calculations.
Exactly!
The energies are the same and thus my first post here of the total system energy being 16x625mAh=10000mAh=10Ah, Those 16 in series are equivalent to one of 10Ah total energy capacity
Series or parallel is irrelevant as far as total initial available system energy is concerned.
But also as I?ve noted above, some confusion may lie on the battery usage terminology to describe energy capacity in terms of Ah etc.
Ampere-hour
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
? Learn more about using Wikipedia for research ?Jump to: navigation, search
An ampere-hour (abbreviated as Ah or A-h) is a unit of electric charge. One ampere-hour is equal to 3600 coulombs (ampere-seconds), and is the amount of electric charge transferred by a steady current of one ampere for one hour.
The ampere-hour is a unit frequently used in measurements associated with electrochemical proceses such as electroplating and electrical batteries. Although it is not a direct measure of the energy in a battery (like the joule (J) or watt-hour (Wh)), it is a common rating of how long a battery will last (or in the case of a rechargeable battery, how long it will last when fully charged).
The commonly seen milliampere-hour (mAh) is equal to 3.6 coulombs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 48V battery rated 10Ah holds four times the energy of a 12V battery rated 10Ah. Each battery can deliver* 10A for an hour but the 48V battery, in doing so, is delivering 480W for that hour and the 12V battery is delivering only 120W for it's hour. Energy is power x time. The 48V battery holds 4x the energy of the 12V battery.
*In practice, the Ah ratings are specified to perform at a chosen, usually lower, discharge current. A 10Ah battery, for instance, might be rated to discharge for 5 hours at a 2 Ampere current. 5h*2A=10Ah
This is a very interesting discussion on AMPS, not quite the same as ampere hours
But amps do interest me, and quite frankly I?m not sure what amps and volts are.
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=amp&i=37731,00.asp
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ampere
Amps is a measure of electrons ( a charge carrier) moving past a point. But as we know
electrons don?t move in a wire they transfer from one to the other,
moving electrons is electron drift.
So lets assume that what there really talking about is the ?bumping?
Of electrons as the measure of amps.
But we know that voltage is part of the measure of power.
Lets use just one electron. One electron bumps the end of a wire.
And the transfer down the wire is at light speed.
Is bumping it lightly 1 volt? or smack it hard one million volts? Is this the real measure of voltage?
One amp is so many collisions (transfers) at any point in the wire. But wait there?s voltage.
Do the collisions contain different amounts of energy? But the transfer is at light speed already?
I read somewhere (I looked but could not find it) that its more like an electromagnetic ?packet?
So what is voltage then?
Great, you're all very smart and sharp and know where to look up infoÃ, (the web)Ã, LOL Ã, :)
Lets talk about the video
But first let me say that I've heard of Joseph Newman's machine, here and there for quite a few years, but just in passing.
I never actualy saw the guy or any of his videos and all I knew about him was that he used a BIG coil to make a motor but it wasn't over unity.
So is that him in the video?
What a clown !!Ã, I expected somebody else I guess, I don't know, somebody more profesional, educated etc..
He talks nonsence in the video, keeps harping about 9 volt batteries for TOYs puting out so much power and points to that freaking paper, very irritating!Ã,Â
I'm thinking where is the power?
This guy doesn't know what power is.Ã, Ã, A spinning wheel that's not loaded consumes so LITTLE POWER.Ã, Only enough to overcome FRICTION.
I can keep a disk like his going with 0.05 amps from a 9 volt battery or even less, just make sure the bearings are realy good.
The only significant event in the video (and I didn't watch more then 10 minutes due to the unbearable stupidity I was seeing) was the ramp up in speed.Ã, Ã, Some of you pointed that out already.
Is he telling us his disk is weighingÃ, thousands of pounds?Ã, Ã, Yeah sure, that's a bunch of crap.Ã, That disc is probably carboard.Ã, But even if it would be aluminum or something heavier,Ã, there is enough POWER available in those batteries to accelerate the thing.
So I hope he shows us a CLOSED SYSTEM someday.
EM
Hi Emdevices and Humbugger,
you are right with your amphour examples.
So the energy stored in Newman?s 16 x 9 Volts battery pack was about
144 Volts x 0.625 mA x 1 Hour= 90 Watthours.
That means, it can deliver 90 Watts one hour long or
30 Watts 3 hours long or 10 Watts 9 hours long
or 1 Watt 90 hours long, etc...
I guess this motor draws about 100 milliamps in this demonstration at
144 Volts.
YOu can calculate that from his earlier test with his solar panels
at 400 Volts using about 0.27 amps of input current.
As the input is linear at 144 Volts it would be 97.2 mA.
Okay, so lets say it is about 100 mA of input current.
then the batteries would be able to power this motor
for 6.25 hours.
We just saw one hour.
But as the backspike recharges the batteries quite nicely these
batteries would even last much longer.
At least in intervals.
Regards, Stefan.
P.S: Looking finally forward to see the selfrunning motor
of Joe.
This brings to mind just what he "is" doing with the bemf. The flywheel has a contact at the bottom and I think one at the top. Sure this monster has two coils in it. Makes me wonder if not more. Like an avalanche setup. Power the first, bemf to a cap. That fires another coil with bemf to a cap and so on. Hmmmmmm? That size of coils would fill a cap bank darn quick. Something to ponder.
I encountered a glitch just before the last speed reading, did any one else? Just curious.
thaelin
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 13, 2007, 01:44:36 AM
Hi Emdevices and Humbugger,
you are right with your amphour examples.
So the energy stored in Newman?s 16 x 9 Volts battery pack was about
144 Volts x 0.625 mA x 1 Hour= 90 Watthours.
....
Heh, that?s what I?ve been saying since post 1 in this thread.
A stcack 16 bateries at 625 mAh each is the same as one at 10000 mAh or 10Ah
Equivalent of one 9v with 10Ah energy charge capacity rating
Ok to get some closure here and not divert the thread away from the original focus:
.Battery manufacturer adopted terminology of Ah to describe battery stored energy can be confusing
.Amp hour in the Strict sense (SI) is not a Unit of Energy Measurement, even though it is used by Battery manufacturers to describe energy charge capacity.
.A pack of Multiple batteries in series or in parallel has the same total available energy to deliver = energy per battery x number of batteries. etc
Back to the Newman video.It doesn?t appear to self sustain as it is clear the flywheel seems to be slowing down. From about 35 rpm at start of video to about 30 at the end.
Again it appears to take about 58 seconds to come to a stop from 30 rpm, fter the batteries are removed.
If we can find out the materials used and geometries of the rotating parts from Mr Newman, we can easily derive the total system rotational energy at eg 35 rpm and since it takes 58 seconds to come to a stop from 30rpm, we can determine the energy loss per cycle due to frictions, add circuit losses and so on
From that we can also calculate how much draw per cycle is needed by the battery stack to keep it running etc.
Can the stack of 16 x 9v in series batteries (144v total) start and sustain the movement?
Even though the initial acceleration is remarkable, it is possible for a stack of 144 9v cells to give it a good initial jolt.
Cold cranking amps of even a AA cell can be in the multiple amps range. Easily tested at home.
The wheel appears to reach 0-35 rpm in less than 2 secs
Ok lets say a 9v shorted for 1-2 secs and allow 1.5 amp flow.
The batteries will squat down some. So lets say 100 volts x 1.5 amps = 150watt about 1/5 hp feasible to accelerate it to 35 rpm? Yes but we need the actual specs as noted above for a better dynamic analysis.
Sustain movement? Most definitely yes, with low enough friction it can sustain movement on a great mass!
It would be also helpful to have the battery stack readout at the end of the demo.
Bottom line is, for this video, that machine is not self sustaining.
As fellow posters also noted above, it needs to close the loop and self sustain, for claim of OU.
Maybe one of these days he?ll get it to OU
Good thread, civil, interesting tech discussions.
Thanks
errr guys, in all your debate about batteries in parallel and in series you neglected the batteries internal resistance which sets the current.
So a 9 volt battery at 625ma has an internal resistance of 14.4 ohms, each individual battery will have this.
Now, 16 of these batteries in series will give an internal resistance of 16x14.4 = 230 ohms
The total voltage will be 16x9 = 144 volts
144 devided by 230 = 0.626 ma (0.625)
So in short in series you will have 144 volts at 0.625 ma. : 144x0.625 = 90 watts.
Parallel is simply 16x0.625 = 10 amps at 9 volts.: 9x10 = 90 watts.
40 scientists signed in agreement and not one is prepared to come forward and verify these claims. Even now when they should all be real old and retired and dont have much to fear??? Not one of them is prepared to support him??? I don't buy that. So many crazy claims by this guy I don't know where to begin. He's had this invention for most of his life and the best example is this primitive looking thing. I am also confused with the efficiency claims, I guess it is because I watched both videos, but if his invention is over 100% efficient why does it need batteries to run it?? I also would like to know is his house powered by this device?? What better way to convince the world that it works than showing us all that he is not paying any energy bills to those big evil companies. If I were him that would be the first thing I do, instead of making videos. I have other concerns too. In the video that has a link in the very first post he goes on about saying that he unravelled the mistery of the universe that has been puzzling Einstein and Tesla, etc. Yet listening to his explanations I can see that he doesn't understand some pretty basic stuff. I strongly disagree with the idea that electric current is a GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE. Electrons are particles and they do not travel with the speed of light in an electric conductor. It seems to me that his gyroscopic particle is nothing more than an electron. It has a mass, a charge and it spins around. He hasn't discovered anything new, definately nothing that has puzzled Tesla. The most convincing evidence that his invention is nothing special is couse he's not dead yet.
Sorry Stefan,you seem so enthusiastic every time you find one of these inventors and post their machines, I just don't think they are being honest. I really hope this guy is honest but I know better. If I were him and really had something that could change the world, I'd be a lot more convincing in my explanations and a lot less repetitive.
The age of the scientist plays no matter.
Maybe they dont care if they die, but what about their grandchildren?
I built a Newman motor weeks ago, I rebuilt it, rewound several times, the best I've got out of it so far is a 1 hour 24 minute run from a 2 Farad capacitor that was initially charged to 20 volts, then it runs no more, I've had it connected to 12 volt 18ah batteries, ran it for days and watched the battery voltage fall reallllllllyyyyyyyy slowly, the Newman motor does not do as advertised.
Quote from: RunningBare on September 14, 2007, 10:31:10 PM
I built a Newman motor weeks ago, I rebuilt it, rewound several times, the best I've got out of it so far is a 1 hour 24 minute run from a 2 Farad capacitor that was initially charged to 20 volts, then it runs no more, I've had it connected to 12 volt 18ah batteries, ran it for days and watched the battery voltage fall reallllllllyyyyyyyy slowly, the Newman motor does not do as advertised.
Sounds not bad!
The question is, did itdo more work, than the batteries or the cap delivered over time?
It must of course overcome the airfriction and mechanical bearing frictions
and the coil ohmical losses !
So the question is, if a 1:24 hour run on the 2F cap was not already a proven
overunity operation ?
Maybe only with 120%,but that sounds already pretty long !
How much input milliamps did your motor draw ?
Then we can calculate it.
WHat wasyour ohmical resistance of your coil ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
At 20 volts my motor barely draws 16ma, the coil resistance is somewhere in the region of 150ohms consisting of nearly 2475 turns of enameled copper wire, I could run this motor on my 12volt 18ah battery for a month easily, but it has very little torque, certainly not enough to do any decent work with.
And yes, the 16ma is because of the short on time by the commutator, obviously if I stalled in the on position the current drawn would be 20 volts divided by 150 ohms = 133.3ma.
This motor has no OU and the efficiency is an illusion because of the lack of torque, if I tried loading the output, even grasping the rotor lightly with my finger will stall it.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 15, 2007, 05:27:03 AM
Sounds not bad!
The question is, did itdo more work, than the batteries or the cap delivered over time?
It must of course overcome the airfriction and mechanical bearing frictions
and the coil ohmical losses !
So the question is, if a 1:24 hour run on the 2F cap was not already a proven
overunity operation ?
Maybe only with 120%,but that sounds already pretty long !
How much input milliamps did your motor draw ?
Then we can calculate it.
WHat wasyour ohmical resistance of your coil ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
I seem to remember stefan saying something awhile ago that their was something with the spark gap and carbon, and that's really where the extra power was coming from
on that note, an this guy deleted his you tube account, but if you search for "Negative Resistor" you will see posts from a account Jdub6d9 where he took some kinda silica powder, and made a glass bead that when you close the electrical loop it ran a motor alot faster, and he did have it hooked to a WFC at the same time to the motor...
Yes, rMud,
I had seen one of his videos.
Too bad, that he deleted his account and the videos are no longer
online.
Do you know, what exactly the contact "pill" was, that he
between his electrodes ?
Did he exactly state this in his videos ?
Does anyone still have downloaded this video and
can upload it over here ?
Many thanks.
It was really amazing to see, that when he had this "pill"
between the electrodes and it was sparking there,
that the DC motor in series with this spark-gap
just went much faster !
If this can help
Not long ago, i saw a video of a guy using melted clay silicate powder on is contact to run a motor faster.
He stated where he brought it online.
unfortunately, i can't remember the exact URL.
It was something like : www. ????clay.com ?
It looked like a really pale grey powder, more white then grey.
Powdered aluminum silicate(desiccant) perhap ?
i tested the resistance of desiccant beads.
Aluminum silicate, also called "silicate gel", use to keep humidity out of various pakaging.
I mesured resistance between 6 Mohms to 30 Mohms
30 being the max my multimeter can mesure.
I can't get any precise mesurement no matter how steady my hands are.
It look like current flow make the resistance go higher within a short time.
Removing one probe,stoping the flow, will revert it to a lower resistance state.
Seams to be instantanious.
Since desiccant beads are crystaline they won't melt.
Someone got a solution for how a contact could be made out of desiccant beads ?
Ok, this is my first post, but I've been tracking Newman's machine since the mid 90's and I've been able to make a few observations based on what I've seen from his progress. Most of us already know he acts crazy, and talks strange, and he has epiphanies from heaven etc. and I?m not here to argue that. It?s obvious he has issues with himself, but I want to talk about his machine, it?s a fact that it does do something unconventional to a degree.
Try to follow what I'm saying for a moment... One of the things I've noticed over the years is the size of the batteries he uses gets smaller and smaller as his machine gets bigger and bigger. His barrel sized machine from the 80's used several large batteries in series that "seemed" to keep the machine going in unity for long periods of time. Now, that means his machine designs are becoming more and more efficient since he is able to achieve the same thing on larger machines with much smaller voltages and current. Although I am not fully convinced that any of his machines have reached full unity by themselves, he has been able to make the machine so efficient that it could be assumed he is close to 99% efficiency to power a 1650 rotary. Though we really don?t know exactly what the recharge efficiency is, Let?s assume 99% based on how long these batteries are lasting.
Now, look at the 1 hour video and notice that in 1 hour's time, the RPM's dropped 5 or so RPM. That means that the 1% or so inefficiency is slowly taking it?s toll on the batteries, no one can argue that. And the fact that they are alkalines means they are probably experiencing some fatigue from the continuous charge and discharge to some degree. But, it also can?t be disputed that in every case including this machine, the batteries are relatively maintaining a massive amount of kinetic energy, possibly more than can be accomplished by those batteries using any other means of electrical to mechanical conversion.
Now here?s where I see a possible flaw to all these experiments. In every case, (including the experiments by us lowly mad scientists), Newman has always tried to achieve electrical unity with his machine alone. Why doesn?t he try to adapt his machine mechanically to other forms of power conversion, i.e. an alternator. I have not once seen his devices hooked up to conventional generators or alternators. If he would hook up a simple automotive alternator to the big flywheel, don?t you think there would be enough kinetic energy to generate enough milliamps of current to charge and maintain the batteries to 100% capacity? They are already being charged at 99% efficiency so the current difference required to fill the gap caused by the losses would be very small, so small that we know it's less than 650mAH since the batteries last longer than an hour. So small in fact, that even though his machine does not have very much torque, the mechanical loss of kinetic energy would be so small. It would be like going from a 1650lb load to a 1655lb load to power the alternator just enough to fill that 1% efficiency gap. Now correct me if I?m wrong, but the small amount of mechanical losses from producing even 10 amps (120 watts) of 12v DC power will not have much of an effect on slowing down that giant 1650lb rotor. At 144 volts, 120 watts is about .83 amps of current, more than enough to keep the batteries topped off and thereby achieve overunity.
The same principle can be applied to a closed loop version. If you took Naudin?s design of a closed loop system on a larger scale, and added an alternator to the output shaft and fed enough power back in to fill in the loses, you could theoretically create a closed loop unity device. Nearly ten years ago he got his system to self sustain for 5 minutes. On a larger scale with more efficiency like a true Newman machine, it could probably self sustain for over an hour based on Newman?s results. Judging by what he said in the video, let?s say with a 100ma current draw, that?s roughly a 14.4watt loss in one hour on those 9v batteries. So an alternator would need to be able to produce 15 watts of power to make up the gap in a closed loop environment. That?s not very much power needed. I don?t see why overunity could not be accomplished in closed loop either.
As far as proving a true overunity device in closed loop or with batteries is besides the point really. We are already converting electrical to mechanical and back to electrical again. Adding a chemical conversion is not really any more different if it adds to the efficiency of usable energy (i.e. being able to use that stored energy to power up other devices once overyunity is achieved.).
So why doesn?t he use his device in this manner? Pride? Maybe he wants his machine to be an overunity device on its own? Maybe he already has and won?t tell us? I really don?t know. I do want to find out for myself though. I?m in the process of making my own Newman machine and I hope to try it out with my theory on a much smaller scale. I need to source a micro alternator though, as I don?t think my small machine will turn a full sized one. :D
QuoteLet?s assume 99% based on how long these batteries are lasting.
I agree with a lot of what you said except the above quote. Why would we make this assumption at this number? If you are going to pick a number at random, 99% seems a bit high to me. Everything else that you said makes good sense to me. Why constuct a machine like that and have no real way to verify or quantify the output, if any? I like the alternator/generator idea, easy to measure with very consistant results I would think.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on September 30, 2007, 05:44:10 PM
QuoteLet?s assume 99% based on how long these batteries are lasting.
I agree with a lot of what you said except the above quote. Why would we make this assumption at this number? If you are going to pick a number at random, 99% seems a bit high to me. Everything else that you said makes good sense to me. Why constuct a machine like that and have no real way to verify or quantify the output, if any? I like the alternator/generator idea, easy to measure with very consistant results I would think.
Bill
Perhaps Newman will not get in conflict with any law about the elektricity production?
His technical skills are high enough to supply a alternator via flightwheel.
But his kontakt details are known.Why not ask him by letter or mail?
helmut
Quote from: Pirate88179 on September 30, 2007, 05:44:10 PM
QuoteLet?s assume 99% based on how long these batteries are lasting.
I agree with a lot of what you said except the above quote. Why would we make this assumption at this number? If you are going to pick a number at random, 99% seems a bit high to me. Everything else that you said makes good sense to me. Why constuct a machine like that and have no real way to verify or quantify the output, if any? I like the alternator/generator idea, easy to measure with very consistant results I would think.
Bill
Well, 99% is just a wild estimate, I'll give you that, especially since Newman cries 200,000% efficiency. But I was considering the fact that many large conventional motors with commonly attainable superconductors have high efficiency already. Taken from ?Mechanical Engineering Online?:
?..97 percent, which is the performance of most conventional large electric motors.?
http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/june01/features/reality/reality.html
And some are at 98.5% efficiency. So since Newman?s machine is definitely not conventional, I?m assuming 99% (or more) efficiency, maybe it's assuming too much, I don't know. But his machine can run for hours on 9v alkaline batteries. It would almost have to be close to 99% efficient to even run a machine that size for a few minutes! I feel that what happens in the remaining 1% is critical. Even 0.001% inefficiency, just shy of unity, is going to cause the batteries to die. It may take a few hours or a few days, but it will happen. Run one of those large ?conventional motors with 97% efficiency? on as many 9v alkaline batteries in series as they need, and I?ll bet they?d be dead in less than a minute. So in that line I figured 99%, but it?s not gospel that?s for sure. I appreciate your feedback on the matter.
Klamathpro:
Thank you for your response. I was just curious where that number came from and you answered me, and I appreciate that.
Bill
HartiBerlin,
I found the 3 moviefiles but I can't upload them as a reply it seems.
Every time I get this on screen after a minute of waiting:
Start new topic
The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
Your session timed out while posting. Please try to re-submit your message.
No subject was filled in.
The message body was left empty.
I did not start a new topic, I pressed the reply button and attached the 3 files.
Maybe a bug?
How much can your mailbox have?
(Edit)
Anyway, in one of the movies he talks about the clay and he got it from http://www.pyroclay.com/ .
Hi,
how many Mbytes are each one ?
Over here the upload can only be around 5 Mbytes
for a movie, otherwise the server will
have a time out during upload.
Please try to upload to
www.megaupload.com
and post the exact URL to over here.
Many thanks.
Is this clay he is using conductive ?
When I try to upload the files the script says total upload can only be 12000KBytes so 12 Megs.
The files are 3.6 - 1.8 - 3.8 Megs each, should be easy.
I think there is a bug in your forum script somehow.
You asked: "Is this clay he is using conductive ?"
When you look at the site of: http://www.pyroclay.com/ and go to the section: http://pyroclay.com/certificate.htm you will find many metals.
Mmm, I can't PM you HartiBerlin, can't even e-mail you.
I like as much privacy as possible just like you so I won't send these files to www.megaupload.com sorry about that.
Is there no other way to upload these files?
Maybe an other member I can send them to?
PM me your mail address if you want them and I will send them (look above for the file size).
(Edit) I tried a new topic and this is what I got:
The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
Your session timed out while posting. Please try to re-submit your message.
No subject was filled in.
The message body was left empty.
I tell you I DID give it a subject!!!
This is useless, what can I do?
(Edit 2)
I found your mail address via Google and you got them now, please put them on the forum.
Hi Tink and all,
here are the 3 videos now:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3406.0.html
Many thanks again.
Regards, Stefan.
what would you classify this design to be? is it a type of newman machine?....has anyone seen this design before?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9U4QnzE1Fc
I just watched the video twice and I am not sure what he is saying. I think he said it takes 1/2 amp to run and only charges the batteries 1/4 amp but he also said he has achieved overunity? Can someone who is better versed in electrical devices than I explain this to me please? Thank you.
Bill
Quote from: potatogunman on October 05, 2007, 10:22:17 PM
what would you classify this design to be? is it a type of newman machine?....has anyone seen this design before?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9U4QnzE1Fc
That is a poorly designed Newman machine. His coil is all wroing being bunched up in the center. No wonder it takes 1/4 of an amp to run. I got mine down to 5 milliamps at 50 volts, however mine is smaller. But 1/4 amp is too much. His newer one runs even less efficiently and he's using a solid state relay in place of the comm I believe, which is definately a no no.
It also doesn't sound like he knows Jack (or Jaz) about how it really works.
I give him props for trying new ways though.
Now Joe Newman is using the grid to power his machine
via a transformer and variac setup,
but he unfortunately never runs a load on it.
See it for yourself:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4383822594398061912
It is basically now a flywheel motor with low
input power under 10 Watts, but as he did not put any load
on it, one can really say nothing about the efficiency.
A flywheel at a constant RPM does not need any input power
other than the frictional losses , which must be overcome.
If you have good bearings, it is no problem to run a big 7000 pounds
flywheel on less than 10 Watts.
So this was again a bad demonstration.
How can we get behind this, if he does not show,
what he can power with this motor ?
Why didn?t he hook up his AC generator and powering
a few 100 Watts bulbs with it ?
I agree with you, Stefan. This demonstration is the worst I've seen yet and it tends to make me want to run far away from this guy rather than "get behind him". I think he's cracking up, finally.
I thought he was promising a self-running system with extra power available for use (see title of thread)...now it seems like he's going backward...the last video with the batteries was more impressive by far if not faked. What happened to the big promise of closed loop self-running?
It seems like Joseph Newman is very angry with the people for not sending him money. He should realize that he needs to demonstrate clearly some excess energy production first. None of his videos seem to do that or even try really. It's like a religious tirade now; not an energy science presentation. Joe will have to do much better than this before I send my dollar in!
Linda
I have been following this for a while now and the main thing that bothers me is statements like..." Last week, we ran this on dead batteries." And..."You can look outside and the number on my electric meter has not moved one number." If this was true, and it may be, why would you not show that in your demo? If it is important enough to mention, then...show it...that's what video is for...dont tell me...show me.
Also..."I could have sold this in the 80's for billions, but I didn't." Really? If true, he could have further develpoed his system and changed enough about it to "give it to the world" with that kind of money. He could have a refined version that would not be the same as what he sold. and, even if he got sued over it for being too close to the original, he would have had a lot of money to hire lawyers to fight for him untill long after he was gone.
The above statements are just my assesment of this video, and the long series that came before. I almost felt like sending him a dollar anyway, but I didn't.
Bill
If joe is having trouble getting it to self loop how the hell is he gunna get it to self loop and make excess electrical power, obviously the machine itself without an attatched generator has now excess usable electrical power otherwise he would of demonstrated it when he ran it off those 9 volt batteries last and it was slowly droping in speed without a generator attatched.
Stefan you have built a newman machine have you ever made any practical use of it other than research like in your own home powering light bulbs and keeping the batteries charged at the same time?
I know your newman machine was only small (i seen the google video) but maybe you have used it for something, just curious.
My Newman machine was only about 70 % efficient from
electrical input to mechanical output,
so there was no mechanical overunity in it.
But additionally it had a large RF output,
which I was not able to capture back at that time
I will try the next few days to get again at it and try to convert the RF power
with an Avramenko plug into useful output and will see, if I can loop it back to the
input via a supercapacitor.
Stefan:
Can we see a video of your motor? If there is one already up, I didn't see it but I would also be very interested in seeing your next experiments with it. Thank you.
Bill
Please see the AVI files in this directory:
http://overunity.com/newman
and then we still have this:
http://overunity.com/newman2/
New tests willbe coming up soon.
Had the last days too many other things to do,
so I have to catch up with it soon.
I received a request from Evan Soul?,
maybe someone from the US can help ?
Please post here a reply if you know of a good generator.
Many thanks.
Stefan --
I'd you like to help, here's a request:
We are looking for a conventional 1HP generator that operates on LOW rpms -- in the 100 rpm range. There may be some windmill-related generators that operate at those speeds. We would like to find a USA supplier. If you have any contacts/sources that might sell such a generator, we'd be interested.
Thanks,
Evan
He is still fooling innocent folks with power = speed, conveniently forgetting about torque (load). The amps and volts spectrum of these types of machines are very complex, far from simple sine, cosine. Thus you cannot accurately measure input and output watts with handheld multimeters, including high quality Fluke meters. You need high sampling specialised energy/watt meters to measure the REAL watts drawn and produced. The watts produced can easily be measured by simple pony brake method under load. All that is then left is to measure the input watts with high sampling specialised energy/watt meter, compare and once and for all nobody can question the results. Why is he not doing this?
what's most amazing about the video is the force he uses to move the flywheel at the begining with one hand,
if it was a 7000 pound motor he would need not one hand but 4 or six to move it right?
A baby can move that if he/she was using a long enough lever. Your hand and arm is not a solid lever, yes then you will need many hands to move it. Small power apply over a long enough distance can accomplish magic because of simple phenomena of Torque (Nm) = Power (N) x distance (m)
Archimedes:?Give me a lever long enough and I will move the earth?
Quote from: hartiberlin on October 27, 2007, 04:25:41 PM
We are looking for a conventional 1HP generator that operates on LOW rpms -- in the 100 rpm range. There may be some windmill-related generators that operate at those speeds. We would like to find a USA supplier. If you have any contacts/sources that might sell such a generator, we'd be interested.
Cool but is this to demonstrate power output or to make it a selfrunner like we are all patiently awaiting?
If this thing works from voltage and not current, then lets see it run from a capacitor.
Joseph Newman's big mistake was in spending the last 10 years re-engineering the device to get rid of the hugh back-EMF spikes, in favor of more mechanical energy. That he has done this is evident in his 2006 European patent filings and he's said as much in some of the videos. That 7,800 lb. monstrosity is an albatross that he would do well to abandon in place.
Newman took that approach (designing the backspikes out of the system) after many frustrating years in which the obvious overunity energy output would fry batteries and blow capacitors, and could not be effectively harnessed by conventional approaches, despite the fact that many sources confirmed it to average >COP=8 (800% efficient, output from input).
Joe Newman and Stan Meyer were both too ego driven to ever take notice of one another, even though they were contemporaries on the free energy circuit, travelling around the country at the same time in the 1980s. The fact is that the original Newman machine puts out the same HF/HV waveform, at the same polarity, as is required by the Meyer Water Fuel Cell as Input. You send those huge backspikes through the WFC - "a water capacitor that likes to be blown", and it achieves sudden, catastrophic dielectric breakdown of the water, producing copious amounts of hydroxy fuel gas in the process - AND giving off a nice, straight DC power output from the WFC's Electron Extraction Circuit, which will charge batteries just fine.
The Newman device you want is not the modern linear one with all the magnets and the flat radial coils around it, its the older version, with one big magnet rotating in the center of two coils, as in Fig. 6 of his PCT patent, which is now expired and in the public domain. We have found that there are four obvious improvements to it which should greatly increase its performance (none of which has Newman himself implemented):
1. NdFeB-50 Supermagnets have been used to improve the performance of all kinds of motors and generators, as detailed in http://consult-g2.com/papers/paper17/paper.html and the next generation of Newman machines should be construcfed with them.
2. Tinned Copper wire coils were found by Electrodyne Corp. to produce 3x the magnetic field of those wound with conventional copper wire, as per The Manual of Free Energy Devices and Systems by D.A. Kelly
3. Coils wound as Bifilar have been demonstrated to hold 250,000x the energy of conventional coils of the same wire size and composition in pulsed high voltage applications, as first detailed in the original Tesla coil patent http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0512340.pdf This produces much higher backspikes than any Newman machine to date.
4. A ferric steel 'keeper' has been conclusively shown to concentrate the magnetic flux and increase the performance of motors/dynamos by a factor of three, in the Lindemann video "Electric Motor Secrets".
An enhanced implementation of the original (Fig. 6) Newman machine, which delivered most of its energy in the back EMF spikes, incorporating these improvements is shown below:
It is hoped that this version can serve as a common module for use with both an automotive Water Fuel Cell, and for home power applications as part of a Tesla Switch assembly, known as the Geovoltaic Energy Pump. http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Geovoltaic_Energy_Pump_(GVEP) (http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Geovoltaic_Energy_Pump_(GVEP))
Hi Over Unity.Com sharp minded Fellows!
I'm notably impressed by the H2earth's post.
Sorry for disturbing -I'm not a scientist- but, may I direct you to: http://freenrg.info/TESLA/ (http://freenrg.info/TESLA/)
And notably to:
http://freenrg.info/TESLA/Nikola_Tesla_Complete_Patents.pdf (http://freenrg.info/TESLA/Nikola_Tesla_Complete_Patents.pdf)
and: http://freenrg.info/TESLA/Nikola_Tesla_Us_Patents_Index.pdf (http://freenrg.info/TESLA/Nikola_Tesla_Us_Patents_Index.pdf)
Where you can find an huge (40 Meg) .pdf file which includes (all? = more than 120) US Tesla patents. 500 pages. Check out your printer :).
IMHO: After having read some of this patents I'm now beginning to figure out that he seems telling us a kinda story along with his patents (should I say a 'novel') and that you have to read them all to get the whole picture.Very strange feeling indeed.
Best
Here is the latest video of Joe Newman pumping now more water.
Have not watched it fully yet, so no comment yet from me:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1755299866270167042
Now it seems he pumps this much water with around only 20 Watts only.
Not bad.
This could easily be powered by a low output solar panel...
Hi all, nothing new on the joe newman website not only have we not seen a selflooping motor there dosnt seem to be any other demonstrations things seem to be quiet with him, at the end of the latest demonstration he asked for money which is very odd, the thing is im starting to get the feeling that he has retired and we arnt gunna see him again and that the plee for donations is a way of wraping things up with
whatever last bits of money he can get, i seriously hope that im wrong.
DECEMBER 2007
SPEED IS POWER
Speed is very important in a collision.
If you double the speed of a car,
you increase its force of impact four times.
If you triple the speed, the impact is nine times as great.
Accordingly, the Newman Energy Machine in principle
produces unlimited speed: unlimited power!
Above is the latest addition to the newman website just that no more no less which means no links, wow speed is power we understand what your on about joe lets see some action.
Quote from: seekingknowledge on December 22, 2007, 06:04:21 PM
DECEMBER 2007
SPEED IS POWER
Speed is very important in a collision.
If you double the speed of a car,
you increase its force of impact four times.
If you triple the speed, the impact is nine times as great.
Accordingly, the Newman Energy Machine in principle
produces unlimited speed: unlimited power!
Above is the latest addition to the newman website just that no more no less which means no links, wow speed is power we understand what your on about joe lets see some action.
Well ok. Let's see.
If you keep the resistance held, then power is proportional to current squared. This is when you keep the same coil, not the same voltage. If you want to get the most power out of 9V battery, then you use commutators to make the voltage of the wire go up and down as often as possible, because when ever the connection is not there, you are not using the voltage. So basically, if you want to build more for you money, its best to at least double the number of commutator hits per rotation, and if doing so doubles the current, it will will quadruple the power, while only halving the longevity of the battery, so overall you get twice the energy output. If instead of increasing the number of commutator touches you connect two 9V in series, keep in mind that the 9V batteries have a resistance of their own, so you won't be able to double the current that way. Copper wire has resistance measured in ohms per kilometer, whereas a 9V battery may have several ohms. You would also be eating up the batteries faster that way, not good for longevity. Believe it or not, if your motor touches the commutator for long, then you are loosing a lot of charge. There should only be enough to give it the kick. Therefore I feel that trying to get most out the single battery is a good goal. After all, a 9V battery costs $4. And $4 can get you 100 kilowatt hours of electricity, or 43 days worth of nutritional calories. What we need is a Newman machine that can run on a 9V battery with about 100 watts of output for 43 days.
Actually I have a better idea. Because we know that resistance of the batteries are much higher than even 1 km of copper wire, we should NOT connect the batteries in series, because that won't change the current. Not only that, it will waste the rest of the charges! Instead, we should simply hook the batteries in parallel and have all them run at the same time so that we DO get more current. In fact, I tried this and got better results than when I connected them in series, I now have my Newman machine actually jumping now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmIqy-Zk030
Quote from: kmarinas86 on December 30, 2007, 03:14:14 AM
Quote from: seekingknowledge on December 22, 2007, 06:04:21 PM
DECEMBER 2007
SPEED IS POWER
Speed is very important in a collision.
If you double the speed of a car,
you increase its force of impact four times.
If you triple the speed, the impact is nine times as great.
Accordingly, the Newman Energy Machine in principle
produces unlimited speed: unlimited power!
Above is the latest addition to the newman website just that no more no less which means no links, wow speed is power we understand what your on about joe lets see some action.
Well ok. Let's see.
If you keep the resistance held, then power is proportional to current squared. This is when you keep the same coil, not the same voltage. If you want to get the most power out of 9V battery, then you use commutators to make the voltage of the wire go up and down as often as possible, because when ever the connection is not there, you are not using the voltage. So basically, if you want to build more for you money, its best to at least double the number of commutator hits per rotation, and if doing so doubles the current, it will will quadruple the power, while only halving the longevity of the battery, so overall you get twice the energy output. If instead of increasing the number of commutator touches you connect two 9V in series, keep in mind that the 9V batteries have a resistance of their own, so you won't be able to double the current that way. Copper wire has resistance measured in ohms per kilometer, whereas a 9V battery may have several ohms. You would also be eating up the batteries faster that way, not good for longevity. Believe it or not, if your motor touches the commutator for long, then you are loosing a lot of charge. There should only be enough to give it the kick. Therefore I feel that trying to get most out the single battery is a good goal. After all, a 9V battery costs $4. And $4 can get you 100 kilowatt hours of electricity, or 43 days worth of nutritional calories. What we need is a Newman machine that can run on a 9V battery with about 100 watts of output for 43 days.
Actually I have a better idea. Because we know that resistance of the batteries are much higher than even 1 km of copper wire, we should NOT connect the batteries in series, because that won't change the current. Not only that, it will waste the rest of the charges! Instead, we should simply hook the batteries in parallel and have all them run at the same time so that we DO get more current. In fact, I tried this and got better results than when I connected them in series, I now have my Newman machine actually jumping now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmIqy-Zk030
volts 9 each battery
batteries 1000000 9V ones
longevity 1.00 hours
power 90,000,000,000.00 watts 90 GIGAWATTS!!!!!
cost/battery $4
cost $4,000,000.00 per hour
cost/(power*hours) $0.04 per KwHbatteries/hour 1000000
Quote from: H2earth on October 31, 2007, 03:46:10 PM
Joseph Newman's big mistake was in spending the last 10 years re-engineering the device to get rid of the hugh back-EMF spikes, in favor of more mechanical energy. That he has done this is evident in his 2006 European patent filings and he's said as much in some of the videos. That 7,800 lb. monstrosity is an albatross that he would do well to abandon in place.
Newman took that approach (designing the backspikes out of the system) after many frustrating years in which the obvious overunity energy output would fry batteries and blow capacitors, and could not be effectively harnessed by conventional approaches, despite the fact that many sources confirmed it to average >COP=8 (800% efficient, output from input).
Joe Newman and Stan Meyer were both too ego driven to ever take notice of one another, even though they were contemporaries on the free energy circuit, travelling around the country at the same time in the 1980s. The fact is that the original Newman machine puts out the same HF/HV waveform, at the same polarity, as is required by the Meyer Water Fuel Cell as Input. You send those huge backspikes through the WFC - "a water capacitor that likes to be blown", and it achieves sudden, catastrophic dielectric breakdown of the water, producing copious amounts of hydroxy fuel gas in the process - AND giving off a nice, straight DC power output from the WFC's Electron Extraction Circuit, which will charge batteries just fine.
The Newman device you want is not the modern linear one with all the magnets and the flat radial coils around it, its the older version, with one big magnet rotating in the center of two coils, as in Fig. 6 of his PCT patent, which is now expired and in the public domain. We have found that there are four obvious improvements to it which should greatly increase its performance (none of which has Newman himself implemented):
1. NdFeB-50 Supermagnets have been used to improve the performance of all kinds of motors and generators, as detailed in http://consult-g2.com/papers/paper17/paper.html and the next generation of Newman machines should be construcfed with them.
2. Tinned Copper wire coils were found by Electrodyne Corp. to produce 3x the magnetic field of those wound with conventional copper wire, as per The Manual of Free Energy Devices and Systems by D.A. Kelly
3. Coils wound as Bifilar have been demonstrated to hold 250,000x the energy of conventional coils of the same wire size and composition in pulsed high voltage applications, as first detailed in the original Tesla coil patent http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0512340.pdf This produces much higher backspikes than any Newman machine to date.
4. A ferric steel 'keeper' has been conclusively shown to concentrate the magnetic flux and increase the performance of motors/dynamos by a factor of three, in the Lindemann video "Electric Motor Secrets".
An enhanced implementation of the original (Fig. 6) Newman machine, which delivered most of its energy in the back EMF spikes, incorporating these improvements is shown below:
It is hoped that this version can serve as a common module for use with both an automotive Water Fuel Cell, and for home power applications as part of a Tesla Switch assembly, known as the Geovoltaic Energy Pump. http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Geovoltaic_Energy_Pump_(GVEP) (http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Geovoltaic_Energy_Pump_(GVEP))
We don't necessarily need to go over unity to get a lot of electrical power in a small package. RI^2=VI can come in a very large or very small package. We should use wire to the limits of its current capacity without air conditioning. It's ok that Newman's motor runs cold, but c'mon, current is not that expensive! With the same coil resistance and current, the resistance of the wire times the current^2 will give the same power. With the coil connected between all the batteries at the same time, you will actually be able to let the loop of wire utilize the charges in all the batteries not just the one in the leading battery because you avoid shorting them. Most of the time, when people connect batteries in series, then connect the batteries directly, in effect, shorting the batteries before the current going directly between them can do for work through a large coil. Now it is possible to connect the batteries in such a way so that electricity can go through the coil before going into another battery, from which more current can leave and go through the coil before going into another battery, but that's more like a parallel connection than a series connection, since the coil is basically between all the batteries. However, doing it that way should be far superior than shorting the vast majority of your batteries in a traditional series connection. Sorry that I repeat myself so many times, but the result is clear. I've seen it with my own eyes. Stop shorting the batteries in series when making a Newman machine, so that you machine will run better.
@ kmarinas86:
Are those battery calculations correct? That is astounding! I am going to get my electric bill and see how many kw/hours I used last month. Maybe I could figure out how many batteries I would need and compare. My electric bill was only $33.00 (USD) and that won't buy a lot of $4.00 batteries. Is there an economy of scale or something to this? I learn something new here every day. Thanks.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 30, 2007, 05:18:28 PMIs there an economy of scale or something to this?
I was right as long as the length of the wire as a resistance that is negligible compared to the resistance of one battery, then the current should be able to increase despite having the same voltage.
volts 9 each battery
batteries 1000000 9V ones
longevity 1.00 hours
power 90,000,000,000.00 watts 90 GIGAWATTS!!!!!
cost/battery $4
cost $4,000,000.00 per hour
cost/(power*hours) $0.04 per KwH
batteries/hour 1000000
Really? it sounds to me youve done your home work , well if this is true are you able to use this power ? what about linking a light bulb in there and see what you get after all thats what its all about.
Quote from: seekingknowledge on December 31, 2007, 06:14:39 PM
volts 9 each battery
batteries 1000000 9V ones
longevity 1.00 hours
power 90,000,000,000.00 watts 90 GIGAWATTS!!!!!
cost/battery $4
cost $4,000,000.00 per hour
cost/(power*hours) $0.04 per KwH
batteries/hour 1000000
Really? it sounds to me youve done your home work , well if this is true are you able to use this power ? what about linking a light bulb in there and see what you get after all thats what its all about.
The problem with my calculation is that I assume the resistance of the batteries was much higher than the resistance of the wire. In the calculation I assumed that the batteries were connected in parallel, but that would mean the resistance of the circuit is mostly in the wire - invalidating my calculation.
Oh well.... ;)
if an independent source could confirm Newman's claims, that may mean something. The people he claims have validated it are not available for comment. Warning flags go off with him having claimed for years to have it and nothing is really there. The demo's are laughable. I have some stories from people who feel they were ripped off by Newman at
www.phact.org/e/skeptic/newman.htm
i will try to get closed loop too. it's under development.
i have some issues look more at my motor topic:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3909.0.html
yeah, for 30 years we've always been told,"we will soon show the definitive test" - then it is completely inconclusive. There are always urban legend stories about someone seeing what would be real proof or some group of secret energy making machines in a warehouse somewhere. These kinds of promises and stories are a dime a dozen in the free energy world. There is an unending stream of new people from all over the world making the same never-verified promises. You have to give Newman credit for making them longer than most people. I have info on him (that he has promised to sue me for) at
www.phact.org/e/skeptic/newman.htm
In other news, Dennis Lee (who Newman has warned is a con man) took out a full page ad in the Jan 14 issue of Newsweek promising kits to convert cars to get double mileage. Looks like Dennis may be moving from over unity scams to false high mileage scams.
eric krieg
looks like eric you are negative for all overunity things i looked eric's posts only negative thins on all topics.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=profile;u=43;sa=showPosts
i don't want answer from you. i want answer from other users what they opinion about Newman motor.
Quote from: erickrieg on January 15, 2008, 12:29:18 AM
if an independent source could confirm Newman's claims, that may mean something. The people he claims have validated it are not available for comment. Warning flags go off with him having claimed for years to have it and nothing is really there. The demo's are laughable. I have some stories from people who feel they were ripped off by Newman at
www.phact.org/e/skeptic/newman.htm
here is one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u__1Zu9zGvc
and here is it on a 5watt solar panel NO Battery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GneVcyie4X8
I'm sorry, but this is no more significant than Newman's last 30 years of work. It is just a motor - it does not have a real load. It is just adding up high voltage spikes into a capacitor bank. But the light bulb (which can not be powered by such small batteries) only glows a second . This is Under Unity. Were it possible to get over unity, one would just make the thing run with only caps and no batteries at all. more info on newman at
www.phact.org/e/skeptic/newman.htm
if anyone would make real over unity, they would have more than enough smarts to do the obvious far more simple step of supplying all needed input power from excess output power.
Quote from: erickrieg on February 20, 2008, 12:39:24 PM
I'm sorry, but this is no more significant than Newman's last 30 years of work. It is just a motor - it does not have a real load. It is just adding up high voltage spikes into a capacitor bank. But the light bulb (which can not be powered by such small batteries) only glows a second . This is Under Unity. Were it possible to get over unity, one would just make the thing run with only caps and no batteries at all. more info on newman at
www.phact.org/e/skeptic/newman.htm
if anyone would make real over unity, they would have more than enough smarts to do the obvious far more simple step of supplying all needed input power from excess output power.
Claims of overunity are like claims that you can light a forest up with just one flaming match. The ultimate problem is this, "CAN YOU GET ENERGY FROM ATOMS OR MOLECULES?" If the answer is "NO", then the circuit will behave as real EE's expect. But if you get energy from such sources, the results may be confused with "overunity", thereby turning off mainstream engineers' and scientists' curiosity of the device.
Quote from: riku2015 on January 19, 2008, 02:50:40 PM
looks like eric you are negative for all overunity things i looked eric's posts only negative thins on all topics.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=profile;u=43;sa=showPosts
i don't want answer from you. i want answer from other users what they opinion about Newman motor.
:-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ u just say it.
this forum is not ware i was looking for :( here it is more a SKEPTIC VS believer ::)
and not about sharing info and findings of real experiments
it is a bit like discussion room ware there is a ferry loud radio in the back :-\
my rating for this forum is a 5-
c u later wen there is les bla bla and more experiment wit multimeters and oscilloscopes!!!!!!
ITS IN YOUR HANDS NOT IN THE BOOKS!!!!! ;)
and totally not on discovery channel
Quote from: kmarinas86 on December 30, 2007, 03:14:14 AM
Quote from: seekingknowledge on December 22, 2007, 06:04:21 PM
DECEMBER 2007
SPEED IS POWER
Speed is very important in a collision.
If you double the speed of a car,
you increase its force of impact four times.
If you triple the speed, the impact is nine times as great.
Accordingly, the Newman Energy Machine in principle
produces unlimited speed: unlimited power!
Above is the latest addition to the newman website just that no more no less which means no links, wow speed is power we understand what your on about joe lets see some action.
Well ok. Let's see.
If you keep the resistance held, then power is proportional to current squared. This is when you keep the same coil, not the same voltage. If you want to get the most power out of 9V battery, then you use commutators to make the voltage of the wire go up and down as often as possible, because when ever the connection is not there, you are not using the voltage. So basically, if you want to build more for you money, its best to at least double the number of commutator hits per rotation, and if doing so doubles the current, it will will quadruple the power, while only halving the longevity of the battery, so overall you get twice the energy output. If instead of increasing the number of commutator touches you connect two 9V in series, keep in mind that the 9V batteries have a resistance of their own, so you won't be able to double the current that way. Copper wire has resistance measured in ohms per kilometer, whereas a 9V battery may have several ohms. You would also be eating up the batteries faster that way, not good for longevity. Believe it or not, if your motor touches the commutator for long, then you are loosing a lot of charge. There should only be enough to give it the kick. Therefore I feel that trying to get most out the single battery is a good goal. After all, a 9V battery costs $4. And $4 can get you 100 kilowatt hours of electricity, or 43 days worth of nutritional calories. What we need is a Newman machine that can run on a 9V battery with about 100 watts of output for 43 days.
Actually I have a better idea. Because we know that resistance of the batteries are much higher than even 1 km of copper wire, we should NOT connect the batteries in series, because that won't change the current. Not only that, it will waste the rest of the charges! Instead, we should simply hook the batteries in parallel and have all them run at the same time so that we DO get more current. In fact, I tried this and got better results than when I connected them in series, I now have my Newman machine actually jumping now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmIqy-Zk030
stop giving people the impression that u no a lot because u don't u "quote" text and copy and past.
on your you tube site u delete all comments of people that try to make a debate.
and the most irritant thing is u don't answer but u just go over it wit your long talks of BULLSHIT :( ???
pleas stop this sick madness
Quote from: Ray0energy on March 05, 2008, 07:08:59 AM
Quote from: kmarinas86 on December 30, 2007, 03:14:14 AM
Quote from: seekingknowledge on December 22, 2007, 06:04:21 PM
DECEMBER 2007
SPEED IS POWER
Speed is very important in a collision.
If you double the speed of a car,
you increase its force of impact four times.
If you triple the speed, the impact is nine times as great.
Accordingly, the Newman Energy Machine in principle
produces unlimited speed: unlimited power!
Above is the latest addition to the newman website just that no more no less which means no links, wow speed is power we understand what your on about joe lets see some action.
Well ok. Let's see.
If you keep the resistance held, then power is proportional to current squared. This is when you keep the same coil, not the same voltage. If you want to get the most power out of 9V battery, then you use commutators to make the voltage of the wire go up and down as often as possible, because when ever the connection is not there, you are not using the voltage. So basically, if you want to build more for you money, its best to at least double the number of commutator hits per rotation, and if doing so doubles the current, it will will quadruple the power, while only halving the longevity of the battery, so overall you get twice the energy output. If instead of increasing the number of commutator touches you connect two 9V in series, keep in mind that the 9V batteries have a resistance of their own, so you won't be able to double the current that way. Copper wire has resistance measured in ohms per kilometer, whereas a 9V battery may have several ohms. You would also be eating up the batteries faster that way, not good for longevity. Believe it or not, if your motor touches the commutator for long, then you are loosing a lot of charge. There should only be enough to give it the kick. Therefore I feel that trying to get most out the single battery is a good goal. After all, a 9V battery costs $4. And $4 can get you 100 kilowatt hours of electricity, or 43 days worth of nutritional calories. What we need is a Newman machine that can run on a 9V battery with about 100 watts of output for 43 days.
Actually I have a better idea. Because we know that resistance of the batteries are much higher than even 1 km of copper wire, we should NOT connect the batteries in series, because that won't change the current. Not only that, it will waste the rest of the charges! Instead, we should simply hook the batteries in parallel and have all them run at the same time so that we DO get more current. In fact, I tried this and got better results than when I connected them in series, I now have my Newman machine actually jumping now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmIqy-Zk030
stop giving people the impression that u no a lot because u don't u "quote" text and copy and past.
on your you tube site u delete all comments of people that try to make a debate.
and the most irritant thing is u don't answer but u just go over it wit your long talks of BULLSHIT :( ???
pleas stop this sick madness
The post of mine you quoted above was from December 2007. This is for the record, I have since learned that I was ignorant about the Newman machine. I do not put the batteries in parallel anymore. That is what I thought I was doing when I used the 4-AA battery holder, but that was not the case. I was so ignorant that I did not know that the 4-AA battery holder I had connected the batteries in series. But as time moved on, I learned what it really was. But electronics is a huge subject.
I'll have to quote myself this time:
Quote from: me to ray0energyYou misoverestimated how often I delete other people's comments. In fact, most of the comments I delete are mine since I later find I have misjudged what the person said, or decided that I could give a better response.
And please do not refer to giving "thumbs down" to comments as deleting the comments. They are not the same. But I must admit that I still acted wrong. See to it that I do not do this again on these videos.
Quote from: kmarinas86 on March 12, 2008, 01:17:00 AM
Quote from: Ray0energy on March 05, 2008, 07:08:59 AM
Quote from: kmarinas86 on December 30, 2007, 03:14:14 AM
Quote from: seekingknowledge on December 22, 2007, 06:04:21 PM
DECEMBER 2007
SPEED IS POWER
Speed is very important in a collision.
If you double the speed of a car,
you increase its force of impact four times.
If you triple the speed, the impact is nine times as great.
Accordingly, the Newman Energy Machine in principle
produces unlimited speed: unlimited power!
Above is the latest addition to the newman website just that no more no less which means no links, wow speed is power we understand what your on about joe lets see some action.
Well ok. Let's see.
If you keep the resistance held, then power is proportional to current squared. This is when you keep the same coil, not the same voltage. If you want to get the most power out of 9V battery, then you use commutators to make the voltage of the wire go up and down as often as possible, because when ever the connection is not there, you are not using the voltage. So basically, if you want to build more for you money, its best to at least double the number of commutator hits per rotation, and if doing so doubles the current, it will will quadruple the power, while only halving the longevity of the battery, so overall you get twice the energy output. If instead of increasing the number of commutator touches you connect two 9V in series, keep in mind that the 9V batteries have a resistance of their own, so you won't be able to double the current that way. Copper wire has resistance measured in ohms per kilometer, whereas a 9V battery may have several ohms. You would also be eating up the batteries faster that way, not good for longevity. Believe it or not, if your motor touches the commutator for long, then you are loosing a lot of charge. There should only be enough to give it the kick. Therefore I feel that trying to get most out the single battery is a good goal. After all, a 9V battery costs $4. And $4 can get you 100 kilowatt hours of electricity, or 43 days worth of nutritional calories. What we need is a Newman machine that can run on a 9V battery with about 100 watts of output for 43 days.
Actually I have a better idea. Because we know that resistance of the batteries are much higher than even 1 km of copper wire, we should NOT connect the batteries in series, because that won't change the current. Not only that, it will waste the rest of the charges! Instead, we should simply hook the batteries in parallel and have all them run at the same time so that we DO get more current. In fact, I tried this and got better results than when I connected them in series, I now have my Newman machine actually jumping now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmIqy-Zk030
stop giving people the impression that u no a lot because u don't u "quote" text and copy and past.
on your you tube site u delete all comments of people that try to make a debate.
and the most irritant thing is u don't answer but u just go over it wit your long talks of BULLSHIT :( ???
pleas stop this sick madness
The post of mine you quoted above was from December 2007. This is for the record, I have since learned that I was ignorant about the Newman machine. I do not put the batteries in parallel anymore. That is what I thought I was doing when I used the 4-AA battery holder, but that was not the case. I was so ignorant that I did not know that the 4-AA battery holder I had connected the batteries in series. But as time moved on, I learned what it really was. But electronics is a huge subject.
I'll have to quote myself this time:
Quote from: me to ray0energyYou misoverestimated how often I delete other people's comments. In fact, most of the comments I delete are mine since I later find I have misjudged what the person said, or decided that I could give a better response.
And please do not refer to giving "thumbs down" to comments as deleting the comments. They are not the same. But I must admit that I still acted wrong. See to it that I do not do this again on these videos.
i happy to here this from u.
the hole this was that i will never be piste at u if i no that u will not learn something from it.
because for u it is not difficult to write english. for my and many ad ere people like my it is.
that's way we tray to tel thing wit as less words es possible. u no ;)
and the adder thing is that a lot of this new technology in not in the books as u meeno.
some one like Nicola Tesla he never left a lot of his findings in a well documented books u c.
look i will never try to put u down ok.
i just want u to don't make a fool of your self by writing so mutts.
u can better let the multi meters say it for u like i do.
and if people ask u something just answer as sort as possible.
that make this way of discussion a lot more clear for the rest of the people.
i hoop in the future it will go better and that u find a good dump for same free materials ;)
so u can make a nice copper coil
good luck
ray0energy
moved to new thread.
Is there a way I can see this machine for myself? I live in the USA but I am going to Germany this weekend for 2 weeks - short notice but how do I get in touch? Tx