This is the reply I got from Joseph Newman to my note about the ZPEnergy site and the fact that he is the first inventor to be featured in the Devices section.
I read a lot about his struggle to get his invention recognized. I still have to read his book but, somehow, I feel he has something important to offer and it is time somebody takes action and looks seriously at his energy machine performance and what it can be used for in the current stage of development.
I think he has an original style but, I put myself in his place and realize how difficult is to "explain" the truth and make yourself believed when your claim is "unbelievable" based on what we know now! Here is his message in its entirety.
Thank you Joseph and we hope for your direct input soon!
Thank you for your personal efforts to assist in bringing forth this revolutionary energy technology!
I will include below the following two statements by Joseph Newman that you may wish to use in some way:
I. First Statement by Joseph Newman:
"The great 19th century innovator of electromagnetism, Michael Faraday, gave personal praise to Professor Thompson of Glasgow as being almost the only one who understood him, when Michael Faraday wrote:
"How few understand the PHYSICAL lines of force! They will not see them, yet all the researches on the subject tend to confirm the views I put forth many years since. Thompson of Glasgow seems almost the only one who acknowledges them. He is perhaps the nearest to understanding what I meant. I am content to wait convinced as I am of the truth of my views."
Michael Faraday recognized that the lines of force of a magnetic field are real, kinetic, physical, and mechanical in nature. This has been ignored in the past 150 years.
Now, ironically and appropriately, history repeats itself in this century.
The following is quoted from Professor Yun Li of E&EE of Glasgow following information sent to him about my work:
"Thank you for sending me such an interesting article (SPECIAL REPORT). I have forwarded the following information to some 100 colleagues. You may get queries from them. If you send further details regarding the motor, I'd be very interested in receiving them."
The following letter was sent to approximately 100 colleagues of Professor Li in response to the article about my work:
"What an interesting article to read! The following mentioned two Glasgow Alumni. One is "Thompson of Glasgow", i.e., William Thompson (Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907, who entered Glasgow University at age of 10). The other is James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879).
"The article described that an electric motor provides an energy as high as the nuclear energy. Do you believe it? You may not believe, probably correctly, that Maxwell's conclusion that electricity, magnetism and light were part of the same phenomenon is true for static (not steady-state) magnetism. Have magnetic mono-poles been found? We know that permanent magnet comes from the aligned gyroscopic self-spin of iron atoms. Owing to the absence of monopoles, the PM can magnetize (almost without losing its own energy) many steel iron pieces (since the flux can always close its loop on its own without the help of further external energy). On contrast, electricity cannot do static charges like this. So I believe in this article, for the energy the motor generates perhaps comes from the coil or PM losing a couple of their spinning atoms.
"The underlying engineering point that this article tries to make is that atoms of a copper wire are aligned by the input voltage and thus the voltage, not the current, should be the driving force of a motor. Thus the motor needs zero current at steady-state. I remember in Wen Soong's PhD thesis, he also mentioned that in an optimal operation the back e.m.f. would be as high as the input voltage at steady-state, which means zero current and power consumption.
Dr. Yun Li"
Professor, Electrical Engineering, Glasgow
A return letter was sent to Professor Li, thanking him for his sincere efforts on behalf of this important technology. Professor Li responded:
"You are welcome. That was at least what I as an academic engineer should and could do, as I believe new inventions should not be dismissed before people understand them.
Professor Yun Li, Glasgow"
FACT: I now have constructed a prototype of my new energy Motor/Generator such that with a load of a 42-inch fan blade, would cause the voltage within a battery pack consisting of 6-volt dry cell batteries to increase. This has been verified by oscilloscope readings measured properly across the battery pack.
FACT: All conventional teachings state that the battery voltage should decrease with such a load being placed on a conventional motor.
In light of the courage and scholarly honesty of Professor Li of Glasgow, I thank Professor Yun Li for his overseas support."
Joseph Westley Newman
Conventional motors are designed with small coils and operate on HIGH CURRENT, low voltage. Joseph Newman's Motor/Generators have generally been
designed with the optimal purpose of "achieving the LEAST amount of current
inputted to have the GREATEST amount of atom alignment in the conductor
material (which causes the GREATEST magnetic field)." It is Joseph Newman's position that because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the
nature of electromagnetism, all conventional motors have been designed with
II. Second Statement by Joseph Newman:
"To those objective and honest people who have corresponded with me concerning my Energy Machine:
I write the following for you only to help you truly understand the truth.
1) The facts of history prove that the conventional science of the times has been blatantly biased and prejudiced against New Discoveries. This is now the case!
2) The scientists of 1820 were so biased in their pious teachings of the time, e.g., "There is NO connection between MAGNETISM and ELECTRICITY!", that they would not even place a magnet parallel with a copper wire and make a circuit.
The reason that they would not do so is because they were so biased in their view that a conductor should behave exactly like conventional magnetic materials (such as iron) that they would only place a magnet at right angles to a conductor and then make a circuit to a battery. As a result, the magnet remained at right angles to the conductor.
Triumphantly, the professor at the time (such as Oersted) would tell young students: "See -- there is NO connection between magnetism and electricity."
As every engineering student in college knew, two magnets placed at right angles to one another and then released, would instantly align parallel with one another. As to perfectly exemplify the biases and prejudices of the scientists of the times, history says it for me:
One of the most significant discoveries of the human race was made in the classroom as a result of a student arranging the above-described-test BACKWARDS to the original directions provided by his professor, Oersted.
The student arranged the MAGNET PARALLEL to the CONDUCTOR WIRE and when Oersted completed the circuit to the battery, INSTANTLY THE MAGNETIC PIVOTED TO RIGHT ANGLES with the CONDUCTOR.
Such action proved that there WAS INDEED A CONNECTION BETWEEN MAGNETISM AND ELECTRICITY. The scientific community throughout Europe was astounded and many thinking individuals were EXCITED.
Note: Such scientists were so totally biased in their minds that a CONDUCTOR should act EXACTLY AS MAGNETIC MATERIALS that they could not SEE the TRUTH until a young student literally 'goofed up' their original incorrect instructions which were accepted as the learned knowledge of the time.
Note: If one learns from one's mistakes, then the scientific community of 1820 should have been rendered HUMBLE by its error. History has proven that THEY WERE NOT so humbled! I say this because members of the scientific community continued to make the same, BIASED MISTAKES --- BACK-TO-BACK!
Explanation: Since these members of the scientific community observed that the magnet would not be affected by the conductor unless the current was flowing --- then, these members of the scientific community did EXACTLY THE SAME THING AGAIN* when they ONCE AGAIN WRONGLY CONCLUDED:
"The conductor was dormant like a water pipe carrying water and the magnetic field comes only from the current."
[*These members of the scientific community still in their minds --- even to this day --- wanted the conductor to behave like conventional magnetic materials and affect the magnet.]
Note: If the members of the scientific community were truly made HUMBLE by their FIRST BLATANT MISTAKE, then they would have concluded:
"A CONDUCTOR DOES NOT ACT LIKE CONVENTIONAL MAGNETIC MATERIALS: BUT TOTALLY OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE EXPECTED AND AS A RESULT WE WILL MAKE NO SNAP JUDGEMENTS ABOUT A CONDUCTOR UNDER ANY TEST."
History proves that they have done the opposite.
A Special Master and Technical Expert hired by a Federal Court to evaluate my technology concluded that the Plaintiff (Joseph Newman), "PRESENTED OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE INVENTION WORKS --- THERE IS NO CONTRADICTORY FACTUAL EVIDENCE."
I proved that the MAGNETIC FIELD OF A CONDUCTOR COMES FROM THE CONDUCTOR and NOT the current!
It has now been 31 years since I, as a young man, started my life's work for humanity. My fundamental book, THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN, proves that I have developed not only a New Energy Source but also a Unified Field Theory. This fact was first brought to my attention by scientific colleagues of Dr. Robert Smith who, at the time (in the late
1970s), was Chief of Space and Environmental Research of NASA at Huntsville, Alabama.
These individuals stated, in essence, that "they would not began to attempt to debate with me and wished to compliment me on my efforts to develop a Unified Field Theory."
Fact: I had not pursued my work in electromagnetism with this purpose (of unifying the fields) in mind. To the contrary --- I was totally committed to finding the TRUTH about MAGNETISM and therefore in my honesty, as I made new discoveries, I automatically applied them to providing answers to general mechanical questions in science for which there were NO MECHANICAL EXPLANATION:
1) Why do magnets mechanically attract and repel?
2) Why, mechanically, if one pushes a conductor downward at right angles to the lines of force of a magnet does the current produced travel in ONE GIVEN DIRECTION and then, if one pushes the same conductor upwards, the produced current travels in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION?
3) Why, mechanically, if one flips the magnet over 180 degrees and repeats the test in (2), does one obtain results which are exactly opposite to test (2)?
4) And of extreme mechanical importance: Why, mechanically, when the conductor is pushed down or up parallel with the lines of force of a magnet --- NO MATTER HOW VIGOROUS THE MOTION OF THE CONDUCTOR (as long as parallel to the lines of force) --- is there NO CURRENT PRODUCED?
HOW DOES THE CURRENT "KNOW" WHICH WAY TO TRAVEL --- OR NOT TO TRAVEL AT ALL?
5) Why, mechanically, can one move a conductor at a "snail's pace" at right angles to a magnetic field and suddenly, the CURRENT will travel at basically the SPEED OF LIGHT? [allowing for resistance]
6) Why, mechanically, does light sometimes behave as a "particle" and at other times as a "wave?"
7) Why, mechanically, is there a particular angle to the Earth's True Axis towards the Sun? And many additional questions relating to astronomical/gravitational observations.....
8) What is the BASIC, MECHANICAL, BUILDING ENTITY OF ALL MATTER?
9) What is GRAVITY?
10) What is INERTIA?
Fact: In my fundamental book I answer ALL OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS (and many more) with ONE SIMPLE MECHANICAL EXPLANATION: THE GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE!
[Such is accomplished by applying the mechanically known laws of a gyroscope!]
Example: Consider the question of why light behaves as both a "particle" and a "wave." The gyroscopic composition of all matter is a real, mechanical, gyroscopic particle and reacts to pressure. Light acts as a particle travelling through larger to smaller holes, except that with extremely small holes light mechanically acts as a wave. Of course, just like fluids or gases travelling through extremely small holes, the pressure increases. So too with light. The pressure causes the gyroscopic particles of light to mechanically act as a wave. [Refer to pages 171 to 179 of my book.]
The consistent, single mechanical explanation of the Gyroscopic Particle explaining the composition of a magnetic field automatically led me to apply such mechanical effects to the subject of Astronomy. The mechanical nature of the gyroscopic particle provides specific answers to such astronomical questions.
The chances that my work --- through years of dedicated study, thought, experimentation, and application of a single mechanical explanation to numerous unexplained facts of science by the use of the known laws of the gyroscope applied to the gyroscopic particle composition of all matter --- is only an accident, especially in view of the fact that there is NO mechanical explanation provided for these numerous observations (but only mathematical observations of their RESULTS) .... is, as the statisticians of NASA, as stated by Dr. Robert Smith, said: "THE CHANCES OF JOSEPH NEWMAN BEING WRONG WERE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE."
All of my work is clearly and lovingly provided in 580 pages of my book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, written for Humanity. To those thinking people who strive to help me, I salute you.
Joseph Westley Newman
THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN
"The natural, inertia effect of an Obvious mass is a result of the 'speed' of the gyroscopic-action-particle which is the basic building entity of all mass."
--- JOSEPH W. NEWMAN