Delay line coil for Newman motor?

[MysteriousStranger]

Aloha,

Upon considering the coil design and/or basic theory (such as it is) behind the Newman device, it leads me to say the following to all of you good people:

1. There is little proof the Newman motor works as a net producer of energy.
2. But what if...?

It is that second point that, I think, drives us. And so, with little to do during my dull daytime occupation, I think of many things. I remembered something from the theory behind the Newman machine, where a long coil (read: long as in, length of wire used) was connected to a battery. The electromagnetic disturbance we term 'electricity' (as opposed to electron drift velocity) propagates along the wire at close to c (perhaps 95% c for enameled unshielded wire?). Wires are disconnected and switched while the flowing current, which has still not reached the end of the wire, continues on. Somehow, this is supposed to lead us to free energy. I have no comment on that. What I will suggest to experimenters is this: if you want to enhance this supposed effect, might we try something hearkening back to the old style delay line commonly found in television sets?

A coil of wire is wrapped around a metal foil cylinder, which can be grounded via a variable resistance. When this resistance is tuned closer to ground, the propagation velocity of an electrical signal (or current pulse, in the case of the Newman motor) is slowed significantly. It is this effect which we term "velocity factor" in coaxial cable.

If switching the coil before the electrical disturbance reaches the other end is something important to the Newman machine, might we build a coil that is designed specifically to have a velocity factor much less than c, so as to be able to switch it easier with conventional electronics and/or commutators? Let's say, just as an example, we have a coil for a Newman motor composed of 10,000 turns. The first 100 are wound, and then covered with a layer of conductive aluminum foil, which is grounded. This will slow the rate of electrical propagation in the coil windings. The next 100 turns are wound, followed by another layer of foil, and on and on until the entire coil is wound this way.

What might happen if we tried this?

You can make a coil like this, feed it from a signal generator, and look at the output on an oscilloscope. It is quite interesting.

-Mysterious Stranger-

[kmarinas86]

Aloha,

Upon considering the coil design and/or basic theory (such as it is) behind the Newman device, it leads me to say the following to all of you good people:

1. There is little proof the Newman motor works as a net producer of energy.
2. But what if...?

It is that second point that, I think, drives us. And so, with little to do during my dull daytime occupation, I think of many things. I remembered something from the theory behind the Newman machine, where a long coil (read: long as in, length of wire used) was connected to a battery. The electromagnetic disturbance we term 'electricity' (as opposed to electron drift velocity) propagates along the wire at close to c (perhaps 95% c for enameled unshielded wire?). Wires are disconnected and switched while the flowing current, which has still not reached the end of the wire, continues on. Somehow, this is supposed to lead us to free energy. I have no comment on that. What I will suggest to experimenters is this: if you want to enhance this supposed effect, might we try something hearkening back to the old style delay line commonly found in television sets?

A coil of wire is wrapped around a metal foil cylinder, which can be grounded via a variable resistance. When this resistance is tuned closer to ground, the propagation velocity of an electrical signal (or current pulse, in the case of the Newman motor) is slowed significantly. It is this effect which we term "velocity factor" in coaxial cable.

If switching the coil before the electrical disturbance reaches the other end is something important to the Newman machine, might we build a coil that is designed specifically to have a velocity factor much less than c, so as to be able to switch it easier with conventional electronics and/or commutators? Let's say, just as an example, we have a coil for a Newman motor composed of 10,000 turns. The first 100 are wound, and then covered with a layer of conductive aluminum foil, which is grounded. This will slow the rate of electrical propagation in the coil windings. The next 100 turns are wound, followed by another layer of foil, and on and on until the entire coil is wound this way.

What might happen if we tried this?

You can make a coil like this, feed it from a signal generator, and look at the output on an oscilloscope. It is quite interesting.

-Mysterious Stranger-

I have worked on the Newman Machine for quite sometime. I used to believe that all you need is a larger coil or what have you to have the nice effect, but what I was really doing was changing certain parameters that enhanced the effect that I originally was not aware of. Then I saw Newman's book online:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5MF8ZFAJ

Upon looking at the appendix, it became clear that copper has magnetic moments which could be aligned to produce magnetic fields. However, I soon noticed that this alignment would counteract the voltage source, because diamagnetic materials, including copper, seek to diminish the magnetic field generated. From here, it made more sense to me that both the forward current and backward voltage-spike contributed to the overall magnetic field desired in a Newman motor. The backwards current-spike and forward voltage input had the OPPOSITE AND UNDESIRABLE effect!

Part of my plan for the next month is to create three groups of batteries each individually each connected to a coil; three coils in all. The ends of these three coils will be connected to a multimeter then connected to the commutator through which it will be linked to the three ends of all three battery packs. The key differences and similarities are the following:

SIMILARITIES
1. The volts per turn will be "the same" for the same number of batteries
1a. This means the RPM will NOT CHANGE.
2. The current density in the wire will be "the same".
2a. This means the heat loss in the wires will be "the same".
1&2. Therefore, the power drawn will be "the same".
3. When back-spikes are not occurring, the torque of the motor per given rpm will be the same given the same current density in the wires.
3a. The L/R time constant of the device will not change because potential energy in the magnetic field per given heat loss in the wires will not change.
3ai. Reason: L/R is proportional to (0.5*Inductance*Current^2)/(Resistance*Current^2)

DIFFERENCES
1. The voltage input will be 1/3rd as much and current input will be 3 times as much.
2. The current density at the commutator will TRIPLE.
3. The heat loss at the (low resistance commutator) will increase NINE TIMES.
4. During collapse of the portion of the magnetic field derived from three times the forward current, "the same" magnetic potential energy will be dumped on one times as much stray charge in the circuit over ONE-THIRD AS MUCH the distance, because the coils are divided into three.
4a. The result during back-spikes, on a volume-by-volume basis, is an electric field strength (voltage/distance) THREE TIMES GREATER the result being an energy density of the electric field NINE TIMES GREATER.
4b. The key is for that electric field to be absorbed and converted into magnetic potential energy. This is the result of magnetic moments of copper, which normally cancel each other out, collectively opposing the curl of the magnetic field B created by the PULSE of the E-field (i.e. back EMF). This uses up the electric dipole moments generated from circularly aligned dipole moments of copper at right angles to the incoming electric field and anti-parallel to the curl of the B-field produced by the PULSE. Collectively, the summation of the dipole moments' fields have magnitude surpassing the field of the back-spike, just as a weak magnet fixed to a heavy iron plate can cause a much stronger magnet to rotate toward it.
4c. With special care, an arbitrarily small motor can have arbitrarily high torque, under a SPECIFIC range of circumstances!
4ci. The moments of aligned copper atoms must be dis-aligned following the trail of the back-spike.
4ciA. This heat, but more importantly, the ambient heat, does the WORK to dis-align the circularly arranged copper magnetic moments via disalignment of the electric dipole moments they are derived from, however the heat can only do this after the electric field of the back-EMF has dissipated.
4ciA1. Think of it this way, THE DEVELOPMENT OF turns of current (i.e. INCREASES of electric field or flux) generate a magnetic fields with two poles, and likewise, the ACT of ALIGNING curled lines of magnetic flux also generate ELECTRIC FIELDS WITH TWO POLES!

CONCLUSION: The energy of the Newman machine does NOT come from the copper mass, but the ambient heat absorbed by the copper atoms that does the WORK that restores their potential energy!

Refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Energy_Machine_of_Joseph_Newman

n the appendix of his book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, Newman claims that copper is commonly observed to be "weak" or "non-magnetic" because the magnetic moments of copper atoms connect with each other in highly irregular patterns.[9] Specifically, copper is diamagnetic and will respond in opposition to other magnetic fields, whether or not these fields come from within the copper itself. Counter-alignment of the magnetic moments of copper atoms makes the magnetic field of copper very weak.[10] Newman claims that in the coil of his Energy Machine, copper atoms in wire are electrically polarized in a group manner (via the electric dipole moments of their subatomic particles) in a direction opposing a dominant applied electric field vector (i.e. the electric potential supplied by batteries). The magnetic moments of copper atoms align in collective opposition to the circular magnetic field generated by introduction of the dominant electric field, overcoming the tendency for the magnetic moments of copper to cancel each other; that cancellation is what normally keeps the magnetic field within the copper. By known physical laws, the effect produced is a net magnetic field circulating around the wire. Using this reasoning, Newman claims his machines, each with a very heavy electromagnet consisting of miles of thin copper wire, derive magnetic field strength primarily from electron magnetic moments bounded to copper nuclei instead of the conventional means of relying on the magnetic moments derived from orbits of loosely bounded electrons. Newman claims that subjecting a coiled copper wire to high voltage back-spike gives it the capability of being "extremely magnetic", and this becomes realized as long as the kinetic energy of the unbounded electrons is kept low, whether by using longer wire or subjecting the copper to extremely low temperatures, in order to maintain the strength of the magnetic field alignment. Newman claims that all magnetic fields originate from magnetic moments derived from the interaction of subatomic particles. In view of this, Newman claims that his Energy Machine can exchange potential energy to the magnetic field equal to the work done by all charges in the system via the electric field, including bounded electrons in copper, allowing energy output to exceed the electrical potential energy dissipated by unbounded electrons derived from the battery.[9]

According to proponents of the Energy Machine, the most crucial part of the design concerns what happens as a result of mechanical commutation. When the commutator opens, the electromagnet's magnetic field collapses, causing a sudden change in magnetic flux strong enough to cause charges to reverse their direction at a higher voltage and speed than when they were going forward. Despite the current going backwards at that point in time, an associate of Newman claims the magnetic field due to the implementation of the back-voltage maintains the general direction of the rotary movement as would be produced by the initial forward moving current.[11][12] Newman in his book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, argues that the magnetic field derived from alignment of magnetic moments in copper acts in direct opposition to the magnetic field produced by the strong back-voltage generated by breaking the circuit at the commutator, which can thereby generate a magnetic field of the same polarity as the one produced by current going forward from the battery. The back-voltage would have to be backwards and greater so as to store greater electrical energy (by a quadratic function) in polarity opposite of the back-voltage and back-current via alignment of the magnetic moments of copper atoms.[9] As predicted by Kirchhoff's circuit laws, the increase in resistance due to opening the circuit combined with the current stabilizing properties of the inductor create a negative capacitive voltage drop across the inductor, thereby producing a large negative voltage opposing the polarity of the battery, and the more extreme the change, the greater the slew rate of the back-voltage, and this would cause greater strength in the alignment of magnetic moments copper atoms that also rises quicker. For high inductance coils, alignments of magnetic moments in copper would dissipate more slowly relative to the heat (power) dissipated per copper mass via the back-voltage and back-current that acts to unalign the magnetic moments. So, only by a relatively large and quick signal would the back-voltage produce a magnetic field through the electromagnet with the same polarity that would be observed with the initial, forward-moving, current.[9] Newman's associate, who supports Newman's interpretation of the device, made the unlikely claim that the magnetic field strength derived from alignment of magnetic moments of copper atoms facilitated by the back-voltage (a brief electric field pulse opposing battery voltage following an increase in resistance by opening the inductive circuit via the commutator) produces mechanical power in the general direction the same time that heat is also produced from the current in opposition to the battery voltage. This would imply some limited restoration of battery voltage simultaneous to the production of mechanical energy in the same direction as would be derived from current going from the battery.[11]

At large, Newman's most controversial claim is that energy conversion between different forms allows the machine's mechanical rotor output to be greater than what would be suggested by energy drained from the battery bank, while still not being a perpetual motion machine. Newman's independent conclusions are in direct conflict with what scientists understand from the laws of classical electrodynamics applied to motors lacking these unconventional modes of operation, and no articles in respected textbooks or peer reviewed journals make any direct references to them.

[kmarinas86]

I have worked on the Newman Machine for quite sometime. I used to believe that all you need is a larger coil or what have you to have the nice effect, but what I was really doing was changing certain parameters that enhanced the effect that I originally was not aware of. Then I saw Newman's book online:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5MF8ZFAJ

Upon looking at the appendix, it became clear that copper has magnetic moments which could be aligned to produce magnetic fields. However, I soon noticed that this alignment would counteract the voltage source, because diamagnetic materials, including copper, seek to diminish the magnetic field generated. From here, it made more sense to me that both the forward current and backward voltage-spike contributed to the overall magnetic field desired in a Newman motor. The backwards current-spike and forward voltage input had the OPPOSITE AND UNDESIRABLE effect!

I should clarify:

I originally had one big coil made of three smaller coils connected in series. Now I have three smaller coils connected at the end, not the beginning, in parallel. Before each of the three coils, I have 1/3 of the original battery pack. The voltage per turn is the same because while each pack has one-third the voltage, each is connected to 1/3 of the turns. That is why I expect RPMs to remain the same. Applying 1/3rd the battery pack to 1/3rd as many of the coils results in the same current density in that coil (because the current will be the same and so will the gauge of wire. I have just today connected the coils in this manner, but I have yet to get all my batteries recharged and connected so I can test the idea.

Part of my plan for the next month is to create three groups of batteries each individually each connected to a coil; three coils in all. The ends of these three coils will be connected to a multimeter then connected to the commutator through which it will be linked to the three ends of all three battery packs. The key differences and similarities are the following:

SIMILARITIES
1. The volts per turn will be "the same" for the same number of batteries
1a. This means the RPM will NOT CHANGE.
2. The current density in the wire will be "the same".
2a. This means the heat loss in the wires will be "the same".
1&2. Therefore, the power drawn will be "the same".
3. When back-spikes are not occurring, the torque of the motor per given rpm will be the same given the same current density in the wires.
3a. The L/R time constant of the device will not change because potential energy in the magnetic field per given heat loss in the wires will not change.
3ai. Reason: L/R is proportional to (0.5*Inductance*Current^2)/(Resistance*Current^2)

DIFFERENCES
1. The voltage input will be 1/3rd as much and current input will be 3 times as much.
2. The current density at the commutator will TRIPLE.
3. The heat loss at the (low resistance commutator) will increase NINE TIMES.
4. During collapse of the portion of the magnetic field derived from three times the forward current, "the same" magnetic potential energy will be dumped on one times as much stray charge in the circuit over ONE-THIRD AS MUCH the distance, because the coils are divided into three.
4a. The result during back-spikes, on a volume-by-volume basis, is an electric field strength (voltage/distance) THREE TIMES GREATER the result being an energy density of the electric field NINE TIMES GREATER.
4b. The key is for that electric field to be absorbed and converted into magnetic potential energy. This is the result of magnetic moments of copper, which normally cancel each other out, collectively opposing the curl of the magnetic field B created by the PULSE of the E-field (i.e. back EMF). This uses up the electric dipole moments generated from circularly aligned dipole moments of copper at right angles to the incoming electric field and anti-parallel to the curl of the B-field produced by the PULSE. Collectively, the summation of the dipole moments' fields have magnitude surpassing the field of the back-spike, just as a weak magnet fixed to a heavy iron plate can cause a much stronger magnet to rotate toward it.
4c. With special care, an arbitrarily small motor can have arbitrarily high torque, under a SPECIFIC range of circumstances!
4ci. The moments of aligned copper atoms must be dis-aligned following the trail of the back-spike.
4ciA. This heat, but more importantly, the ambient heat, does the WORK to dis-align the circularly arranged copper magnetic moments via disalignment of the electric dipole moments they are derived from, however the heat can only do this after the electric field of the back-EMF has dissipated.
4ciA1. Think of it this way, THE DEVELOPMENT OF turns of current (i.e. INCREASES of electric field or flux) generate a magnetic fields with two poles, and likewise, the ACT of ALIGNING curled lines of magnetic flux also generate ELECTRIC FIELDS WITH TWO POLES!

CONCLUSION: The energy of the Newman machine does NOT come from the copper mass, but the ambient heat absorbed by the copper atoms that does the WORK that restores their potential energy!

Refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Energy_Machine_of_Joseph_Newman

[hartiberlin]

Looking forward to your results.
Many thanks for the updates !

[kmarinas86]

Looking forward to your results.
Many thanks for the updates !

Results: Not good.

While the voltage was 1/3rd the original setup.
The current went up by about 1.7*3.
Total power in increased by 1.7.
The speed went DOWN 1.7
Residual torque went DOWN as well.
I would say the output fell by 1.7^3 so the efficiency FELL by 9x.

Splitting up the coil and battery pack into parts in a Newman motor: MY BAD IDEA (Not Newman's Idea).

I got it working again in the more efficient setup with only one coil and one pack. 

I guess I have only two choices to further progess: Increase the voltage and increase the fan diameter =P.

__________________________________________________

Below is a plan I made in the last week which I hope to finish in the next month:

I can get a scaled up version of my fan (METAL) for $200 and it is 32" so will do (32/19.375)^5 or 12 times the work per revolution at the same rpm. I predict that the rpm will fall as follows:

(32/19.375)^5/y^2 = (((10/9)y)^2-1^2)/((10/9)^2-1^2)

Solve for y:

((10/9)^2-1^2)*(32/19.375)^5 = y^2(((10/9)y)^2-1^2)
(0.234568)*(32/19.375)^5 = y^2(((10/9)y)^2-1)
2.882771 = y^2(((10/9)y)^2-1)
2.882771 = (10/9)^2y^4-y^2
0 = (10/9)y^4-y^2-2.882771
y^2=1.986
y=1.41

(1-1/1.41) = a 29% drop in rpm relative to 19.375" fan setup

This assumes:
1) Adding the 19.375 inch fan, where there used to be none, drops the rpm by 10%
2) The torque will increase by the square of the current
3) The current will increase inversely to the rpm (assuming that period << inductance/resistance)

(32/19.375)^5/y^2 = Increase in torque = 8.7 times
(32/19.375)^5/y^3 = Increase in power = 6.2 times
(32/19.375)^5/y^4 = Increase in efficiency = 4.4 times
(32/19.375)/y = Increase in fan tip speed = 1.2 times

To get the same efficiency increase by increasing the voltage, I would have to increase voltage by 4.4 times! But at that point, I am likely to be in the regime of magnetic saturation, and to bypass that, I would have to further increase the coils....

The maximum increase in efficiency I can get with this method is:

((10/9)^2-(1/y)^2)/((10/9)^2-1^2) = 5.26

Which increases with larger y.

This is assuming that adding the 19.375" fan blade decreases the rpm by (1-1/(10/9)) or 10%.