Joe Newman reprised at the writtendescription blog
Michael Risch has a post on the Newman saga titled The Quest to Patent Perpetual Motion .
I tried to write a comment, but because I had logged on from a machine (not my own) I got bounced quickly as an imposter performing
"suspicious activity."
For now, I include a link to an earlier 2007 post on IPBiz, which contains an interesting comment.
Rislove: WHY IS THE USPTO PATENTING PSEUDOSCIENCE?
LBE actually saw the 1984 CBS Evening News broadcast with Dan Rather, which left viewers with the impression that Newman could be right.
As energeticforum.com writes
There was no one on the CBS Evening News to challenge Newman's claim. On the contrary, the report included endorsements from two "experts" who had examined Newman's Energy Machine. Roger Hastings, a boyish-looking Ph.D. physicist with the Sperry Corporation, declared, "It's possible his theory could be correct and that this could revolutionize society." Milton Everett, identified as an engineer with the Mississippi Department of Transportation, told viewers, "Joe's an original thinker. He's gone beyond what you can read in textbooks." Watching the CBS broadcast that evening, most viewers must have been left wondering how the Patent Office could be so certain Joe Newman was wrong.
In 1986, the Orlando Sentinel had an article which included text:
Physicist Roger Hastings, highly respected manager of the Sperry Corp.'s Superconductive Electronics Technology Center was an original skeptic. Not now:
''On Sept. 19, 1985,'' he said in an affidavit, ''the motor was operated at 1,000 and 2,000 volts battery input, with output powers of 50 and 200 watts respectively. Input power in these tests were 7 and 17 watts, yielding efficiencies of 700 percent and 1,400 percent.
''Every experiment that I have performed shows that the energy output of the device is indeed larger than the energy input. The future of the human race may be dramatically uplifted by the large-scale commercial development of this invention.''
Hastings said he thinks Newman's auto engine prototype will succeed. The original power source would be a dry cell battery pack.
''I firmly believe . . . that Mr. Newman's car will consume at least 15 times less energy from the batteries than present commercial electric cars,'' Hastings said. ''This energy savings could be used for any combination of longer running time, higher speed, or larger vehicle compared with present designs. Newman's car motor will operate on high voltage, will have high torque at low current, and will probably consume a fraction of one horsepower.''
link: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1986-11-02/news/0270090077_1_newman-energy-invention
An article in the 1985 Los Angeles Times contained the text: "This is not a perpetual motion machine and Joe has never said it was," said Hastings, who agreed that with "intensive development" Newman's machine could "run a home or a car."
I tried to write a comment, but because I had logged on from a machine (not my own) I got bounced quickly as an imposter performing
"suspicious activity."
For now, I include a link to an earlier 2007 post on IPBiz, which contains an interesting comment.
Rislove: WHY IS THE USPTO PATENTING PSEUDOSCIENCE?
LBE actually saw the 1984 CBS Evening News broadcast with Dan Rather, which left viewers with the impression that Newman could be right.
As energeticforum.com writes
There was no one on the CBS Evening News to challenge Newman's claim. On the contrary, the report included endorsements from two "experts" who had examined Newman's Energy Machine. Roger Hastings, a boyish-looking Ph.D. physicist with the Sperry Corporation, declared, "It's possible his theory could be correct and that this could revolutionize society." Milton Everett, identified as an engineer with the Mississippi Department of Transportation, told viewers, "Joe's an original thinker. He's gone beyond what you can read in textbooks." Watching the CBS broadcast that evening, most viewers must have been left wondering how the Patent Office could be so certain Joe Newman was wrong.
In 1986, the Orlando Sentinel had an article which included text:
Physicist Roger Hastings, highly respected manager of the Sperry Corp.'s Superconductive Electronics Technology Center was an original skeptic. Not now:
''On Sept. 19, 1985,'' he said in an affidavit, ''the motor was operated at 1,000 and 2,000 volts battery input, with output powers of 50 and 200 watts respectively. Input power in these tests were 7 and 17 watts, yielding efficiencies of 700 percent and 1,400 percent.
''Every experiment that I have performed shows that the energy output of the device is indeed larger than the energy input. The future of the human race may be dramatically uplifted by the large-scale commercial development of this invention.''
Hastings said he thinks Newman's auto engine prototype will succeed. The original power source would be a dry cell battery pack.
''I firmly believe . . . that Mr. Newman's car will consume at least 15 times less energy from the batteries than present commercial electric cars,'' Hastings said. ''This energy savings could be used for any combination of longer running time, higher speed, or larger vehicle compared with present designs. Newman's car motor will operate on high voltage, will have high torque at low current, and will probably consume a fraction of one horsepower.''
link: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1986-11-02/news/0270090077_1_newman-energy-invention
An article in the 1985 Los Angeles Times contained the text: "This is not a perpetual motion machine and Joe has never said it was," said Hastings, who agreed that with "intensive development" Newman's machine could "run a home or a car."
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 8:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home