Site hosted by Build your free website today!

CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE WORLD'S TOP 1000 LIST! Subject: Transcript Information -- Part 5
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 12:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: (Evan Soule)

Transcript Information, Part 5 (Continued from Part 4):

4. By this Back Current, the Device Recharges and Extends the Life of Batteries that Are Not Rechargeable.

Joseph Newman's invention extends the lifetime of batteries that are not rechargeable.^10 Following the testing of a figure 6 embodiment (with a 90 pound rotor), Dr. Hastings concluded, "the batteries powering the Newman motor outlive the expectations of the manufacturer."

[^10. JN's invention uses "non-rechargeable" D.C. batteries and may use a power supply as Dr. Hastings did at the Hilton Hotel in New Orleans, but not without care or the back current can destroy the power unit even with a 6 amp fuse and a 7,000 volt lightning arrestor. In one series of tests, the maximum input voltage was 3,500 volts and the input current was only 10 milliamps. Before one power unit was destroyed [in this particular test series], a calorimeter test was also conducted but was aborted when Dr. Hastings noted that a quart thermos bottle was heating to a "very bright" orange. Joseph Newman prefers to use D.C. batteries not only to avoid destroying power units, but because D.C. batteries store the back charge. JN's invention does operate with "rechargeable" batteries, but the batteries "very quickly disintegrate" and are destroyed.]

Dr. Hastings used 124 1.5-volt alkaline batteries at two-thirds their fresh voltage (or 125 volts) to spin the 90-pound rotor, requiring a minimum of 13 watts to keep the rotor spinning.

According to the battery manufacturer's charts, Dr. Hastings calculated that at a current drain of 250 milliamps, required to run the device, the battery source should be "very dead" after two hours of running time; Joseph Newman's invention, however, ran for ten hours and still "the voltage has not dropped perceptibly."^11

[^11. This same demonstration also showed that the mechanical energy, the power required to spin up the rotor, exceeded the available electrical energy by a factor of 10.]

When the same batteries were subsequently worn down [while connected to a conventional motor] to a point which they would not even run a 1-1/2 volt toy [conventional] motor with a tiny rotor, they were then connected to the Newman motor/generator with a 90 pound rotor and the rotor achieved a frequency of 4.5 Hz in about 20 seconds.

Ralph Hartwell and Milton Everett ran additional tests on this same [conventional] toy motor and obtained similar results. Ralph Hartwell, a battery expert, tested the figure 6 prototype (with the 90 pound rotor) to determine whether it could recharge exhausted batteries. Hartwell took 8 1-1/2 volt penlite batteries and "thoroughly discharged them" over a five-day period. Then he took them to Joseph Newman's lab and connected them to the same [conventional] toy motor that Hastings had used; the toy motor ran for 1 minute, 15 seconds, and then stopped. Hartwell then connected the "dead" batteries to Joseph Newman's invention and it ran for 75 minutes; the device was always in full view of Hartwell and the event was recorded on videotape.

Because Hartwell has to leave and couldn't wait [the segment was recorded for a TV news story to be later broadcasted], he disconnected the batteries from Joseph Newman's invention and then connected the batteries to the original [conventional] toy motor. This time, the toy motor ran for 2 minutes, 25 seconds, almost twice as long as before [on batteries that are not supposed to be rechargeable].

Milton Everett^12, a mechanical engineer, ran the same test; the batteries went dead after 2 - 1/2 minutes; he recharged the "dead" batteries using Joseph Newman's invention for 285 minutes, longer than Hartwell had, and, as a result, the recharged batteries ran the toy motor for 10 minutes, again longer than Hartwell's test. These results demonstrate that the recharged battery's power is directly proportional to the time JN's invention is permitted to recharge the battery.

[^12. Milton Everett, employed by the State of Mississippi, Bureau of Geology, and formerly employed as a biomass specialist with the State's Department of Energy and Transportation, has been a mechanical engineer serving government agencies and contractors for over 35 years.]

Asked whether he was aware of any other motor or generator that produces a back current which adds a charge to the battery, Dr. Hastings testified, "No, not at all." In response to the Court's inquiry whether this was "totally unique," Dr. Hastings testified, "That's right." Nor was there any evidence to contradict Dr. Hastings' assertion.

Defendant Commissioner implied that Plaintiff's battery re-charging effect was not new. Toward the conclusion of the trial, Defendant Commissioner introduced Mr. Eubank's "Method of Reconditioning Dry Cells." Defendant Commissioner, however, ignored the fact that Mr. Eubank's method of re-charging required an external A/C power supply, whereas Plaintiff's does not; more than that, Mr. Eubank's method may not recharge a battery discharged below 10% of its original voltage whereas Joseph Newman's invention does.

5. The Only Way to Eliminate this Back Current is to Ground the Device.

Dr. Hastings further testified that the only way he knew to eliminate the back current was to ground the motor; he testified, "We never grounded his [Joseph Newman's] motors, unless we wanted to get rid of that back spike; then we did ground it."

6. The Device Also Demonstrates Mechanical Efficiency Greater than Unity.

Dr. Hastings measured the mechanical output of another figure 6 prototype of JN's device (90 pound rotor), comparing its output with that of a D.C. permanent magnet motor known to be 80% efficient over a broad range of torques.^13

[^13. In other words, even as the mechanical loads to the motor shaft may vary, the efficiency of the motor remained constant at 80%, according to the manufacturer's performance chart.]

The 80% D.C. motor, driven by eight 1.5 volt alkaline batteries connected in series, while drawing 2 amps of current, connected by a V-belt drive to a water pump, pumped water for a specified period.

By comparison, the Newman motor, also driven by eight 1.5 volt alkaline batteries connected in series, but drawing only .2 amps of current (I), pumped the same amount of water over the same time period.^14

[^14. As there was some speculation that the output of JN's invention was as a result of the inertia of the rotating mass --- the 90 pound magnet in this case --- Dr. Hastings measured the torque the motor would develop when it was not rotating as compared to the D.C. motor and found that the static torque was tremendous, indeed, the torque per watt of input power was 87 times larger, and thus belied the speculation that the output was based on inertia.]

Thus both motors did the same work, pumped the same amount of water, but JN's invention was 10 times more efficient than the D.C. motor, as it required one-tenth the current.^15

[^15. Dr. Hastings measured the voltage across both battery packs at the outset of the experiment and "while the motors were running," he measured the current drain. To verify that the current drain for the D.C. motor and the Newman invention was, as measured, 2 amps and .2 amps, respectively, Dr. Hastings ran both the D.C. motor and the Newman invention and observed that the rate of battery discharge corresponded to the manufacturer's battery charts for the currents measured.]

As the D.C. motor's efficiency was known to be 80%, then the efficiency of one of Joseph Newman's inventions was calculated to be 800%. See below:

                                 Newman Motor           D.C. Motor

Input Power:                     I x V                  I x V

                                 (.2 amps) x V          (2 amps) x V

Efficiency of Motor:             X (unknown)            80% (known)

                                 _________________      ________________

Output Power:                    Effic. x Input      =  Effic. x Input

                                 X      x (.2) x V   =  80%    x (2) x V

Solving for X                    X                   =  80%    x (2) x V


                                                                (.2) x V

                                                     =  160%



                                                     =  800%

Milton Everett, a mechanical engineer, independently obtained similar results on the same figure 6 prototype which Hastings had tested. Everett used a water pumping test to compare JN's invention with a motor that, at a minimum, was 40% efficient. Again, Joseph Newman's motor required one-tenth the current to accomplish the same work. The converse statement is that one obtains ten times as much work from a Newman Motor/Generator.

End of Transcript Information, Part 5 Transcript Information, Part 6 continued....Back to the NewmanHomepage

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

Send email to if you like.

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