And just for the record, I (unsurprisingly) sincerely belief that not much new technology will come out of Newman's invention. Even leaving all the contradictions to physics aside, there is a much more pragmatic argument: Any electric motor design which "only" cut backs losses by 50% (going from 90% to 95% efficency) would be of outmost commercial importance. You would be able to go (with bodyguards and lawyers if you prefer) into the development centers of Siemens, EMD, or Bombardier, demonstrate your working prototype and leave as a very rich man.
   
RI^2 = heat losses
RI*(meters/ohm) = current times distance = current momentum
Current momentum can be determined by integrating current along the length of wire (with dl as the derivative length).  It can be found in the Biot-Savart law.
To maximize current momentum / heat losses, the following should be maximized:
RI*(meters/ohm) / RI^2 = (meters/ohm)/I = cross-sectional area of wire / (resistivity * current)
But current momentum produces the magnetic field, the square of which is proportional to its energy.  So to maximize the energy of the magnetic field / heat loss.
R^2*I^2*(meters/ohm)^2 / RI^2 = R*(meters/ohm)^2 = distance^2/ohm
Just use a longer wire! I guess the mere acceleration of two opposite charges converts mass into energy, causing electromagnetic radiation. Even the simple movement of a charge can cause a magnetic field, causing acceleration, and therefore radiation! If the wire is so short, that is like shorting the battery (e.g. connecting them in series) and not using the charges to your advantage.  

OK, so I'd like to start by saying that I may more or less completely misunderstand you, but (apart from a very good remark about the mass to energy conversion), your statements look rather heterodox to me. Granted, Newman would have to have found new physics to make his machine work, but I assume we are discussing textbook physics and EE in this side note. Specifically:
 It's not the resistive (heat) losses (or other losses) which bound the electric motor's efficency to 100%. Even using a supraconducting coil and everything you wish, you won't get above 100%  the counter voltage induced by the rotation will make the input power needed to sustain rotation equal to mechanical work done.
 Equal amount of copper will give you motors of equal parameters, only with voltages and currents scaled in different, compensating directions. E.g. both thse setups will give the same magnetic field and motor operation:
 1 meter of 0,15 mm diameter copper wire (about 1 Ω) at 4 V and 4 A (stall current) and
 4 meter of 0,075mm diameter copper wire (about 16 Ω) at 16 V and 1 A (stall current)
 But I agree with your guess that the mere acceleration of two opposite charges converts mass into energy. Every time some energy is transported away from a system, the system loses mass according to E=mc²  in most cases an unmeasurable low amount. Also if you temporarily attach strings to the oppositely charged bodies, you can extract mechanical energy while reducing their distance, exactly that amount of mass will be lost (If we keep the system isolated, its total mass stays the same, e.g when letting the two bodys clonking together, the energy will first be converted to kinectic energy, then to heat, and both contribute to the mass of the system, which in effect stays constant). But in a motor the movement is periodic, so there is nothing in sight which can result in mass loss  unless some copper atoms are vanishing mysteriously or sort of transmutate into something other than normal copper.
Ouch. Not exactly briefly. Sorry.