Slashdot Mirror

Looks like the inventor may have stumbled upon the so-called "Newman Machine."

A more detailed analysis, including a DIY kit (several of which are shown built on YouTube), was made in '98 for your review. Testing on one variation, schematics provided, resulted in an apparent measurement of overunity.

Both inventions may actually have been anticipated by US Patent 2928959 granted to L. M. Christian in 1956. See http://www.google.com/patents?id=JDlIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#PRA1-PA3,M1

How about a real "perpetual energy" machine a la Newman's generator? It's not really a perpetual device, just uber efficient. I saw it featured on Beyond Invention on the Science Channel last night. Two interesting points; the government sabotaged his demonstration by grounding it and the patent office refuses to give him a patent for his design. He was also purportedly offered $200 million for the design, but refused without a guarantee that the generator would be produced for public use. He's had it scrutinized by dozens of scientists and engineers who've signed affidavits, so there must be something to it.

JOE NEWMAN! http://www.josephnewman.com/

Just to amplify your comment, most (cheap) volt meters have too low a resistance to measure potential on a tiny capacitor, such as a human body (~250 pF), because the voltmeter would discharge the capacitor before it could get a reading.

Someone else replied about measuring downed power lines, but that would: (a) not require a voltmeter to read over 1000 volts and (b) not require an ultra-high-impedance static-charge electrometer.

BTW, let's do the numbers: 40,000 volts across a 250 pF capacitor would have potential energy of 1/2 CV^2 = 0.2 Joules. If you think that 0.2 Joules is enough energy to melt macroscopic amounts of plastic or burn carpet, much less almost enough to incinerate a human body, I have a hot investment tip for you.

Science is supposed to be the search for the truth

Not really. Science is the process of forming predictive theories from empirical evidence. Truth is a slippery thing, scientific knowledge is generally regarded to be a simply be an approximation of the 'truth'.

when so-called scientists put forward theories that are unsupportable by evidence and insist that the theories are true anyway, that is hardly science

Well, not all theories are strongly supported, and what one person calls strong support, someone else may call weak support. Science is much like religion in that there is no one single accepted version of anything, and its certainly possible that those who hold a particular view may be irrationally attached to it (few people like to have something into which they've invested much time show to be wrong (although there are many researchers who know that mistakes will be made, and don't form those kinds of attachments to a theory).

Every dating method we have has been shown to be questionable. But do they examine the questions and see if a better method can be found, or do they attack those who dare to point out the the methods are flawed?

All knowledge is questionable. It is more productive to attempt to advance on a foundation that is known to be incomplete than to attempt the impossible task of building a perfect foundation.

The dating methods used, when used properly, are reliable within their accepted margins of error. If you have strong evidence that shows that a particular dating technique is invalid, I'd suggest you publish it. I suspect that you, like most people, know very little about how hard many other people have worked to make sure that the dating techniques used are as accurate as possible.

Faith is God in never against science.

True enough. The principles of rationality that many who practice scientific methods hold may lead them away from beliefs of faith, but the two are certainly not incompatible. Many religious scientists find creation all the more humbling the more they learn about its details.

But false science (Evolution) is against God

You'll be hard pressed to demonstrate that the theory of evolution is false science. Many people have done much sound research that supports the theory, that makes it good science. That doesn't make it right, it just means it isn't false science. False science is what the hucksters like Joseph Newman push. A theory can be wrong even if sound scientific methods went into its generation.

False science done with the intention of defrauding others may certainly be against God's wishes, but I don't see how good science that leads one to the wrong conclusion could be. Unless of course it is now a sin to be mistaken.

Yes, some supporters of evolution have falsified data and lied, actions that are decitful and wrong. That does not invalidate the entire theory, which has many interlocking strong lines of evidence.

They do exist and are proven to work, you just don't hear about it, since the powers that be would rather you didn't.

For example see http://www.josephnewman.com/

Also google for overunity devices..

if you use 5 miles of wire it can be a motor AND a generator, and convert the mass of the wire directly to energy! Check it out!