Talk:Newman's energy machine

message: Look at these pictures of eddy currents:
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/EddyCurrents/Graphics/EC_princ2.gif
http://www.engineersedge.com/inspection/image/eddycu9.gif
Then look at Joseph Newman's "gyroscopic particles"
http://www.josephnewman.com/more-info.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_currents
Bingo.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite possibly.  However, eddy currents don't explain his claimed (but never convincingly demonstrated) 'over unity' performance.  For that you need some yet-to-be-explained matter-to-energy conversion or a repeal of the 1st law of thermodynamics. SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up Larmor formula.  That's E=mc^2 right there.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 07:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still doesn't prove the claim of more energy coming out than being put in. — NRen2k5(TALK), 12:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Internets can't do that. You have to physically be there.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Breakthrough discovery: Newman's Gyroscopic Particles are simply EDDY CURRENTS!!!

message: Bob Park's "What's New" newsletter of March 5, 2010 has an item on the Newman machine, and has this to say about this article:
Coverage of the Joe Newman case in Wikipedia is terrible. It's a remarkably useful encyclopedia, but you need to verify.
I'm not at all familiar with this subject, and wouldn't know where to begin in improving the article, nor do I know in what way Park feels the article is faulty.  I did want to point this out, though, so that someone who is knowledgable about the subject can do whatever clean-up is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "nor do I know in what way Park feels the article is faulty" He's saying that the case between Newman vs. Quigg needs more information. It probably should have its own section.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 12:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps.  I've e-mailed him for specifics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Park's "What's New" on this article 

message: What the article needs is radical slimming down to just the facts for which there is secondary & tertiary references.  We need to say only what is known for a fact - and not the things that various parties claim without evidence.  The result would be a very short article - on a largely irrelevent court case between a charlatan and the US patent office. SteveBaker (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I don't think I have the time to help much. Yilloslime TC 16:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Go for it!  We can't ever be sure that a "true believer" won't pop up out of the woodwork - but what needs to be removed is more or less all of the stuff that Newman claims - for which he is the only source.  Primary sources are not encouraged - so we're fully justified in drastically pruning them...doubly so because the article is currently giving vastly undue weight to a "way out there" fringe theory.  We can prune all of his claims down to a single "Newman claims that..." paragraph - which we can easily source.  My proposal to slim it down has not been contested in the 9 months it's been there.  The only editors who have expressed an interest are in favor of the change, so we have a clear (albeit a bit minimalist) consensus.  I'd have attacked the article myself - but I'm a little busy elsewhere right now. SteveBaker (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.  I haven't been paying much attention to this article and it's really gotten amazingly bad (I'm not surprised Bob Park criticized it).  I'll start whacking away at it tonight.Prebys (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that - it helps.  The only other "believer" who ever seriously contributed here was User:ESoule - who eventually turned out to be Newmans' publicity agent.  His COI issues would disqualify him from editing the article anyway.  Hence there are no obstacles to a significant clean-up. SteveBaker (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

text: OK, I think it's more or less the appropriate length now.  Perhaps someone would like to add back a little more detail, but I think I'm done for now.Prebys (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent!  Good job.  Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Bob Park would be happier with this version.  Maybe I'll email him.Prebys (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed slim down of the article 

message: "The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman" is the title of his book, but not a suitable title for the article unless the topic of the article is the book.  For the present article, a more suitable title would be "Joseph Newman's energy machine" (without the caps), with the book title also mention (with caps) in the lead.  Any opinions on which way to go here?  Make it about the book, or make a better title?  Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this article is about the machine, not the book, so the title should be changed. The article should not be about the book because the book doesn't meet any WP:NBOOK threshold. It's the machine that's notable (or notorious, depending on your POV). ~Amatulić (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend "Newman's energy machine", variations of which appear in lots of books.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I think it's noteworthy just how long this thing has been around.  I corrected the article to show the patent was originally filed in 1979 (which makes it consistent with the entry in the Perpetual motion article). Some comments make it appear that he'd already been hawking the device for some time before that, but I've been unable to find a WP:RS.  Anyone know of any references prior to 1979? Prebys (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: is it possible to make high tourqe low amp motor run on 9v batterys? i dont care about perpetuial motion or over unity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.240.100 (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course.  With enough of them, you could do anything you wanted.  Nothing particularly magical or impressive about it.KaturianKaturian 15:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible? 

message: The lead is far too detailed. It needs to be a summary. Anyone want to take a stab at it? Rklawton (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead included details that weren't covered in the article body. I have shortened the lead and expanded the Patent application section in the article body with the material that was in the lead. I'll raise a caution that the material I moved contained quotations that are probably real, but need to be cited to sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, that's awesome, thanks! Rklawton (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I've had a pass over this removing material cited to Newman. I came here from Joseph_Westley_Newman which is a new article written by someone with an obvious conflict of interest. I've also edited that to strip any claim that the perpetual motion machine works, for obvious reasons. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've proposed deletion of the Joseph_Westley_Newman article.  There's really nothing notable about him.KaturianKaturian 23:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defringification 

message: I disagree with the recent complete removal of "perpetual motion machine" from the lead; the edit summaries do not really justify the removal. One of the cites in the article does in fact so describe it; https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2107.html . I agree it was overemphasised in the lead, given Newman's attempt to dress the machine up with assertions about mass conversion, but there is an apparently solid cite that so describes it and hence it is appropriate to use the expression in the lead.  Pinkbeast (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the phrase "perpetual motion" was used in the lead constituted original research and/or misrepresented the cited sources (that is, neither Newman nor the NBS ever said it was a perpetual motion machine). I have added it back in, clarifying that the first patent application was rejected by the USPTO as a perpetual motion machine, and I cited the first court appeal of that rejection. While I was at it, I repaired the already-existing citation to the second appeal. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure about this - sure, Newman dressed up his perpetual motion machine with an explanation of why it wasn't, but I think all perpetual motion machine kooks/scammers now do that. That said, I'm not that unhappy with what we've got now, so let's leave it be. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perpetual Motion is simply plain English for an over unity device which is what this claims to be. Most patents avoid the use of plain English ;-) Unibond (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, it claimed to be a mass conversion device. Which is also obviously bogus, but a different kind of bogus. Newman was quite careful to avoid an obviously testable over unity condition with the device running on electricity but producing torque (and if he'd been more careful, like the current reactionless drive kooks, he'd have produced some spurious measurements of losses of mass...) Pinkbeast (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "perpetual motion machine".