THE ENERGY MACHINE

Where all this leads to is the "Energy Machine invented by Joseph Newman of Lucedale, Miss., who has sued the Patent Office for not granting him a patent. He claims the machine produces more electric power than is used to drive it, and several physics or engineering Ph.D's state that their measurements on his machine confirm his claim. The essence of the invention was not published until August of this year in The Energy Machine ($38.45 from J. Newman, Rt. 1, Box 52, Lucedale MS 39452). It is receiving considerable publicity, including a color supplement of the New Orleans Times-Picayune (9/29/80), and several readers have asked for my comment.

The book makes it very difficult to separate the details of the machine from the author's naive speculations about magnetism, which are, to the extent that I can follow them, totally invalid, and which keep interfering with a simple description of the machine. But then, it might still work regardless of a nonsensical theory. (Lenses and mirrors worked at a time when optics was confused or false, and mostly nonexistent.)

It appears to consist of a large coil, inside which an electric motor rotates a permanent magnet. The coil is connected to a special type of commutator (switching device) turning with the magnet; it successively shorts and open-circuits the coil, tapping its induced voltage as that of the output power, which is claimed to be several times larger than the input power rotating the magnet.

Newman does not claim to create energy, but only, in effect, to liberate it from atoms and "gyroscopic particles," and that aspect, were it otherwise sound, would not violate the conservation of energy. (The pump of an oil well uses far less energy than is contained in the pumped oil.) But quite regardless of any theories, I have not been able to make out completely what is physically supposed to be going on. The method of measuring the input and output power is open to criticism, but let us assume (though I am not at all convinced of it) that the output is really greater than the input; then it is possible, for example, that the difference is supplied by the energy stored in the magnet, which will gradually be demagnetized (reminiscent of a fuel tank being depleted).

But a permanent magnet is not a simple piece of metal defined by weight and shape, or even alloy. It has a complicated curve of magnetization, and another of demagnetization; without knowledge of its characteristic points (none of which are given), one can neither calculate its energy, nor repeat the experiment under the same conditions.

This and other points should, in strict theory, prevent me from forming an opinion; in practice they reveal a failure to understand what is essential in an experiment supporting such claims, and that leads me to believe that the machine is extremely unlikely to be a genuine energy producer or to be worthy of a patent.

What I do believe is that Newman is not a swindler; he is a well-intentioned layman who genuinely believes in his invention. He will probably blame the failure of his machine to gain acceptance on a biased world, incapable of throwing off its orthodox preconceptions. In this he has a long and sad series of predecessors. Though their theories were erroneous and their efforts futile, the tenacity with which they worked on their inventions deserves a certain kind of admiration.

They are not at all in the class of petty swindlers who trick people; and the latter, in turn, tower above the frauds with academic degrees who abuse both science and their academic standing for political ends.