Site hosted by Build your free website today!

CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE WORLD'S TOP 1000 LIST! Subject: Transcript Information -- Part 1
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 12:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: (Evan Soule)

To all Forum members,

The following information is taken from the transcript of the original post-trial brief submitted and prepared by attorney John P. Flannery, II, with respect to Joseph Newman's lawsuit against the patent office.

[The information contained herein may help others to understand the technology. I apologize for the length of the transcripted material (and any typographical errors), but I hope to have provided some additional background material. Actually, this is only a 'fraction' of all the Transcripted Proceedings/Depositions/Reports which would easily occupy a stack of papers over 8 feet high. Also, there are two sketches attached to Part 1-A: 1) Figs. 5 & 6 and 2) Schematic/9000# Unit


A. The evidence at trial demonstrates:

(1) that plaintiff Joseph Newman claims a device, a motor-generator, that produces more external output energy than the external input energy required to run the device, (2) that he achieves this result by releasing, not creating, energy and therefore does not violate either the first or second law of thermodynamics, (3) that he has built various prototypes to demonstrate this technology, (4) that qualified experts in physics, mechanics and radio electronics have taken external input and output measurements and evaluated the efficiency of Joseph Newman's prototypes, constructed by Joseph Newman and others, and concluded that his devices operate "in the extremely efficient manner" Joseph Newman claims, and the testimony at trial by these same experts was clear and convincing.

The most concise description of the device and its performance characteristics was rendered by Dr. Roger Hastings a physicist [former Professor of Physics and presently employed by the Unisys Corporation; he is an expert in the technology of magnets, has made patent disclosures primarily for magnetic sensor technology, has published in the field of magnets, and has designed and invented motors] who stated that Joseph Newman's devices:

. . . are large, air core, permanent magnet motors.

He said,

The most important design rule specified by the inventor is that the length of wire in the motor coil be very long; enough so that the switching time between current reversals is shorter than the time required for the propagation of the current wavefront through the coil. Various models contain up to 55 miles of wire, with air core coil inductances of up to 20,000 Henries.

By this configuration, Dr. Hastings testified,
The permanent magnet armatures have very large magnetic moments. Thus, the motors exhibit high torque with low current inputs. The motors generate large back current spikes consisting of pulsed r.f. [radio frequency] in the 10-20 MHz frequency range. These spikes provide large mechanical impulses to the rotor, energize fluourescent tubes placed across the motor, and tend to charge the dry cell battery pack.

As a result, Dr. Hastings concluded, and this Court^* finds, that:
The total generated energy, consisting of [a] mechanical work, [b] mechanical friction, [c] ohmic heating and [d] light --- is many times larger than the battery input energy.

The following findings address: (1) the "impossibility" of Joseph Newman's device, (2) a description of the invention, and (3) the proof of operability.

[^* Ref. Report of the Special Master, William Schuyler, Jr., who is a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office and an electrical engineer. William Schuyler specifically stated in his Report that the: "Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office and this Court is overwhelming that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his invention in which the output energy exceeds the external input energy; there is no contradictory factual evidence."]

B. Plaintiff Joseph Newman's Invention is not "impossible."

Plaintiff Joseph Newman filed in the Patent and Trademark Office an Application for Patent Serial No. 179,474, entitled "Energy Generation System Having Higher Output than Input."

Plaintiff Joseph Newman sought patent protection for a "system for generating obvious work motion, or electomagnetic energy (fields of force) or electric current and [that] results in greater output of energy than the initial input..." [Jt. Ex 00007 (Patent Application) and following.]

Plaintiff distinguished his device from the prior art, the "many devices" used to produce electrical and mechanical energy as each of these precedent "systems would only put out, at most, work equal to the work initially put into the system..."

Plaintiff claimed Einstein's theory of special relativity encompassed the high speeds --- approaching the speed of light --- associated with electromagnetic system such as his and the additional energy his system "released." [Note: Dr. Johnson testified on behalf of defendant PTO Commissioner that electromagnetic waves propagated at the speed of light and there is therefore a relationship between electromagnetic waves and the mass/energy conversion propounded by Einstein.]

After the [original] Patent Examiner Donovan F. Duggan* rejected Joseph Newman's claims, Dr. Hastings explained to the Board of Patent Appeals that "in every conversion of energy, there is a corresponding conversion of mass [to energy] according to Einstein's theory"** and cited as an example, "two atoms that combine and give off light in a reaction." Hastings told the Board of Patent Appeals that "the two atoms weigh less after the reaction than before the reaction."***

[*Note: On September 12, 1983, a Federal District Court in Texas found that Donovan F. Duggan's "knowledge of electrical theory may have been inadequate for his responsibilities." (See Lindsey vs. the United States, Civ. Action Nos. TX-79-60-CA. TX-81-39-CA.) This Texas case involved the same Examiner Duggan and another inventor, Ralph Lindsey. The Federal District Court in Texas also found that Examiner Duggan rejected the patent application of Ralph Lindsey because he (Duggan) "misunderstood" the nature of the device and therefore "carelessly and incorrectly perceived" it to be a "perpetual motion machine." The Court found that Duggan summarily rejected the Lindsey application with a "cryptic comment" failing to provide "such clear and full disclosure of reasons for rejection as required by the regulations." The Court found that once Duggan was "convinced" it was a "perpetual motion machine," he "seemed unable to consider the design on its own merits." The Texas Court concluded that, as a result of Duggan's negligence, Lindsey failed to receive a patent that was later issued instead to a Mr. Davis for a similar device.]

[**Note: In 1919, Albert Einstein wrote: "The most important result of a general character to which the special theory of relativity has led is concerned with the conception of mass. Before the advent of relativity, physics recognized two conservation laws of fundamental importance, namely the law of the conservation of energy and the law of the conservation of mass; these two fundamental laws appeared to be quite independent of each other. By means of the theory of relativity, they have been united into one law. Einstein, RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY 46-47, 1916, reprinted by Bonanza.]

[***Note: To give some notion of the magnitude of a mass-energy conversion, Dr. Hastings estimated that "one gram of matter, if totally consumed, would run a home for a thousand years."]

One Board of Patent Appeals Member, however, objected "that wasn't true." Although Hastings insisted not only that it was true, but that he "could produce a whole stack of text books that would tell him that that was true," the Board Member "still objected" and "then in an opinion that was written later, the Board Member quoted from a book that was written in 1911." (Specifically: Reed's COLLEGE PHYSICS, MacMillan Company, 1911.)

It was not until 1919 that Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was confirmed. (See J. Bernard Cohen's REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE, Belknap Publishers, 1985.)

The Board of Patent Appeals therefore ignored the evidence of operability submitted because they concluded that Joseph Newman's device was "impossible."

Plaintiff Joseph Newman, dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals, brought this action under 35 U.S.C. Section 145.

The Patent Office's expert belatedly conceded during cross-examination at the trial of this action that Joseph Newman's device, if it worked as Joseph Newman claimed, did not violate the First or Second Laws of Thermodynamics and therefore was not "impossible".

The trial of this matter was therefore concerned with Plaintiff's proof of operability.

End of Transcript Information, Part 1 Transcript Information, Part 2 continued.....Back to the Newman Homepage

Send email to if you like.

11445 East Via Linda, NO. 416
Scottsdale, Arizona 85259
(480) 657-3722

This web page was provided by Angelfire Communications.
The material on this page are the responsibility of its author, not Angelfire Communications.