|
Joseph Newman Appears on Discovery Channel, CanadaBecomes irate when person from audience volunteers to inspect for hidden wires.
Opinion by Hal Ade and Mary-Sue Haliburton To those working in, or who may be interested in advanced, plentiful, clean energy sources: Most, if not all of us, know about Joseph Newman's energy machine: a type of magnetic motor which he claims is over-unity. On or about MArch 28th, Mr. Newman had a media conference at which his device was demonstrated. I saw a video-taped clip of the news conference on the Canadian Discovery Channel Wednesday night. It showed a small motor with what appeared to be a spinning plywood rotor, and 4 cylindrical objects attached to the stator, equidistant from each other. I would guess they were either permanent, or electro magnets, but the stator area, including the cylindrical objects, appeared to be covered with some sort of fabric, so I couldn't really tell. I clearly noticed aqua-blue sparks emanating from one or more of the cylindrical stator-mounted objects as the rotor spun. At one point a fellow from the audience, who said he was a physicist, asked to examine the rotary device to check for any hidden source of energy, such as a battery, or wires to an electrical outlet. At that point, Mr. Newman lost his temper, and yelled at the man to leave the conference area. In fact, as I saw it, Newman did not even give the fellow enough time to leave, but assaulted him as he was on his way out. Afterward, Newman appeared at a video interview with the host of "The Daily Planet", the daily show of science and technology on the Canadian Discovery Channel which showed the video-clip of Newman's conference. The host, Jay Ingram, a science journalist, diplomatically asked Newman why he assaulted the man in the audience. Newman said something about the fellow in the audience challenging Newman's claim that his device operated in any over-unity manner, and that in Newman's view, such a question was improper. (Does this justify assault???) Ingram also asked about Newman's theory on how his device worked. Newman gave a nutshell of his "gyroscopic" approach to atomic and particle spin or vibration which I was trying to fit to what I had read about electron spin and Quantum Physics from Tom Bearden and others via the Internet. Newman also made a definitive statement that energy comes from matter, as if that were its sole source. He gave me the impression that he felt that the energy for his machine came from the magnet material itself, and that there was no prior source for this energy. In any case, Newman got his "foot in the door" on a main-stream
television channel (in Canada, that is), which was good not just for Newman, but
for all those having an interest in New Free Energy. Jay Ingram, the
interviewer, did not attempt to debunk Newman's claim of over-unity. Ingram only
questioned for device functionality and for Newman's perspective and perception
as to how his invention worked. What we, the viewers, received was Newman's
pitch for his device, and I felt Ingram's interview was presented to give the
viewers the maximum possible information in the time allowed, to let the viewers
decide for themselves on the probability that Newman's energy device works in
over-unity, as claimed. Comment by Mary-SueAt the end of the interview, Newman announced that he has patents pending everywhere and that he's going into production in three months. Ingram replied that he wanted a follow-up interview three months from that date (March 29th), and Newman appeared to agree. Given that it was on a public forum, there might be some pressure to deliver. So, I wrote in to "comments@discovery.ca", specifying the program "Daily Planet" in the email title bar, and said I'd be watching for that follow-up to see if anything had happened by then. Since I've been listening to Jay Ingram for years first on CBC radio and more recently on discovery, I'm well aware of his attitudes. He gave plenty of clues indicating his scepticism regarding Newman's machine, so it was a huge feat of faking "journalistic impartiality" (which in reality doesn't exist) if he managed to give the impression of letting viewers make up their own minds! Newman's behaviour was bad, in my view, both in the act of physically turfing that man out of the meeting, and in the way he dismissed the issue of assaulting a questioner since asking questions is legitimate scientifically. Since that footage was the lead-in to the interview, Discovery was by no means trying to give people a good impression of this man. Rather I got the feeling that they gave him only just enough rope to hang himself. I still wish to reserve judgement, however. Just my impression: he appeared to know the questioner and reacted angrily as if this was a repeat of a previous incident in which the same man used a meeting as a platform for Professional-Sceptic behaviour rather than honest enquiry. In the "Beyond Invention" show (also a Canadian Discovery channel program) that was aired a few weeks ago, Newman was giving people a chance to inspect his machine and to look for wires, etc. But in that case we were seeing a much bigger device and he drove into a parking lot and set it up without wires. He also disclosed what batteries were hooked up to it. None of this type of info was included in the interview, and possibly not in the press conference. In contrast, this press-conference model was a pint-sized version of the machine seen previously. It looked cobbled together, and there's no way to tell whether it was up to the standard of the other one. Though he gives so many indications of being a bully and scam artist, I hope there might really be something to his theory of "gyroscopic" energy. Perhaps those who have spent some effort analyzing and working Schauberger's concepts of vortical energy and implosion would be in a better position to evaluate this system, should Newman give them access to it. Let's keep after the media to give us a follow-up report, so that they will keep after Newman. On the other hand, perhaps the person who should be interviewed is Tom
Bearden. Or perhaps you all have some other person to suggest who can give
authoritative analysis of these types of inventions. If so, please write to
"comments@discovery.ca",
and put "Attn: Jane Gilbert" and "Daily Planet" in the title
bar, and make your suggestion. FeedbackDid Same Thing 10 Years Ago
He got his nose all out of joint when my friend
did the same thing 10+ years ago.
* * * * There's Something to the "Newman Effect"From: Mark Solis Greetings All, (1) The "Newman Effect" is nothing more than the second-order relationship in a mutual field coupling. SERIOUS investigators already should have figured this out twenty years ago...or more. (2) Joseph Newman, while insightful in CERTAIN ways, is not exactly the world's best communicator. May I cite an historical example? (1) The Wright Brothers, known today as the fathers of modern aviation, flew for sure in December of the year 1903. (2) "Lord Kelvin" (a.k.a. Sir William Thomson), once known as "one of the greatest scientists living" (at that time), died in 1907, bellowing that the Wright Brother's first flight was a hoax. My point: sometimes, a guy can know things AND be a total jerk. One must look only at relevant items. In Newman's case, look at the MACHINE, NOT the MAN. Ditto for Kelvin, although with a different twist. It has been my experience---without fail, I might add---that "critics" of something new INVARIABLY know nothing about what they are criticizing. In the case of Newman's machine, I have yet to encounter a SINGLE critic of the machine who can even describe its basic construction, or its operating cycle, or who at least deigned to open Newman's own book and actually READ what it says, and look at the photos and diagrams. I will conclude by quoting the late Frank Edwards: "There's no such thing as an informed critic." I suppose I could add, that in this day and age of so-called "political
correctness," Newman might want to take an "anger management"
class or something.... (Nah...I doubt he'd go for it....) * * * * From: "Mark Solis" * * * * From: "Mark Solis" Joseph Newman's concept of "gyroscopic particles"--- which actually is an interesting name to use for a number of reasons---seems to be an echo of something dating back to the early twentieth century, known as "aether (or "ether") vortex theory." Not only are the similarities striking, but they are echoed again in the increasingly-accepted work of one Dr. David Bergman, author of the Bergman particle model. For further information on Bergman's model, see this link: Common Sense Science The Bergman model---to which I myself now subscribe--- uses only two assumptions to explain virtually EVERY known particle property, and as far as I know, is the only model to correctly predict all atomic and other properties without a single failure. The Bergman model is the ONLY particle model that can do this. In fact, I know of no other model in all of modern physics for which one can truthfully make such a claim. There are those who have been so astonished at this result, that they have
proposed to review Occam's Razor, thinking it to have failed. * * * * From: "Mark Solis" (2) Newman's concepts are "self taught" from his own observations. He is aware of the "establishment" view, but considers it erroneous. (Within limits, actually he's right---or possibly more directly, it is..."somewhat restrictive" [myopic].) (3) Newman has an adversarial personality, and can be VERY combative on occaision (as we have seen). That's the Newman situation in a nutshell. I once called Newman to tell him that I had succeeded (by accident, in fact) to build an electronic "Newman machine" with no moving parts. Newman yelled into the phone that it wouldn't work, proceeded to begin accusing me of trying to steal his work, and hung up on me. I thought he'd be pleased with the verification...and the "no moving parts" discovery.... Boy was I ever wrong. I did go to one of his demonstrations in Jacksonville, Mississippi, back in...1985, I think. Yes. Ephraim Fischbach had just published something that January or February on the gravitational constant. Newman had these fans with 3 D-cells which were about dead, sitting on a table. He had spun up the fans by hand around two hours or so before I got there. As the day progressed, the fans ran faster and faster, until the streamers on them were straight out by the end of the day. The table the fans were on was draped over to the floor with a sheet, so I thought, "Ha. Secret cords through the tabletop." I then picked up a fan, fully expecting to be restrained by hidden wires. NOT SO. Was I ever surprised.... >From that time forward, I planned on getting a copy of Newman's book and reading it thoroughly. I did so as soon as I returned to Shreveport. Having a circuits background, I studied what Newman had done. I also consulted with various people, most notably one Paul Bruney of Silver Spring, Maryland. Insightful fellow, I have to say. It was Paul who got me headed in the right general direction regarding Newman. I then perceived the connection (no pun intended) between the Newman machine and an ordinary AC transformer, and realized what the "Newman Effect" really was. I also began to realize what you can do with it. It's amazing what you can do with supersymmetry, initial conditions, charge and spin couplings, etc. One need but think about it. As for myself, I've already been thinking "outside the box" for a long time. In fact, I now think so far "outside the box," you can't even see it from here anymore---with the Hubble telescope! To be sure, I thought "outside the box" on a number of things
before encountering the Newman technology (and it IS a technology), but I have
to admit that Newman certainly pushed me along some on my little renegade
skateboard, so to speak. * * * * Quirky is Inventor TrademarkFrom: "Stephen R. Lawrence" <stephen{at}lawrence.newnet.co{dot}uk> See also
Page posted by SDA
April 3, 2005 |
|
|
Feed