By Joseph Newman - Inventor
The following
is now a long-over due response to the NBS Test originally conducted
on Joseph Newman's motor/generator. [Actually this response
was written at the time of its the original testing --- buy many
did (and do) not know of this response.]
Following
the dismissal of the findings of the court-appointed Special Master,
(a former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office [with "impeccable
credentials" according to Judge Jackson & nominated as Special
Master by the Patent Office] who said that the "evidence was overwhelming"
that the Newman motor/generator worked), Federal Judge Jackson
(who appointed the Special Master) ignored his own Special Master's
findings and imposed upon Joseph Newman a fee of $11,000.00 for
the Special Master's Report. (Judge Jackson [of Microsoft
case fame] was the federal judge hearing the case brought by Joseph
Newman against the Patent Office.)
Judge Jackson
then remanded the case BACK to the Patent Office --- Joseph Newman's
judicial adversary --- for further action. It was then recommended
by the Patent Office that the NBS formally test Joseph Newman's
invention. Under the original NBS test conditions, Judge
Jackson 1) refused to order the NBS to prepare a testing program
in advance of delivery of the energy machine to the NBS, 2) refused
to permit Joseph Newman the right to have an expert present for
testing, 3) stated that the test results would be issued in secret
to Judge Jackson who said in the court record that "it (the results)
will be held under seal until we determine that it ought to be
exhibited to the public.", and 4) gave the NBS an open-ended period
of testing.
On behalf
of Joseph Newman, attorney John Flannery filed a WRIT OF MANDAEMUS
with the U.S. Court of Appeals, seeking to reverse Judge Jackson's
unfair testing conditions in favor of those open testing procedures
originally proposed by Joseph Newman.
On January
13, 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued
a court order upholding Joseph Newman's WRIT OF MANDAEMUS against
Judge Jackson. The higher court sternly rebuked Jackson
for ordering "highly irregular" testing procedures that denied
Joseph Newman the "fundamental fairness" guaranteed him by the
Federal Rules. Jackson had originally ordered Joseph Newman
to surrender his energy machine of the National Bureau of Standards
so that Office might dismantle or even destroy it. Instead,
the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected ALL of Jackson's conditions
for testing and supported Joseph Newman's position. [As
it turned out, this did no good, because Jackson/NBS/Patent Office
did exactly what they wanted to do anyway.] The higher Court
criticized Judge Jackson for authorizing the destruction of Joseph
Newman's invention and giving "no reason for barring petitioner
from observing all the tests on his device, or from knowing in
advance what tests are to be conducted (by the NBS)," The higher
Court concluded: "Such procedures are highly irregular, and taint
the evidentiary value of the test results."
SPECIFICALLY,
THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED THAT: 1) the NBS tests
be prepared in advance of the energy machine's delivery to the
NBS, 2) Joseph Newman be present for testing as well as have an
expert on his behalf, 3) the energy machine could not be dismantled
or destroyed without Joseph Newman's consent, 4) the NBS would
have 30 days AND NO MORE to test the energy machine, and 5) the
results would be issued openly and publicly to all parties.
However, after
Joseph Newman delivered his energy machine prototype to the NBS
on January 24, 1986, the following happened: During the
authorized and original 30-day test period (from January 24, 1986
to February 24, 1986) the NBS did not conduct a SINGLE test!
The Patent Office and the NBS asked the Court of Appeals to change
its mind and let the NBS dismantle and destroy the energy machine.
On February 12, 1986, for the second time, the Court of Appeals
said "NO: The NBS's representative, Dr. Hebner, has not attested
to his inability to test the device, or that its structure is
concealed, or that a test program cannot be reasonably conducted
to ascertain whether the device performs as disclosed in the patent
application and "on reconconsideration, we affirm the prior order."
The NBS still
refused the test the energy machine and to run a single test unless
they were permitted to destroy the invention. They told
the Court of Appeals BEFORE they ran the test that Joseph Newman's
invention was a hoax! (Hardly the comment of an "unbiased"
testing agency.) The NBS then offered dozens of excuses
--- each of which Joseph Newman anwswered --- in an effort to
run the (30 day) clock while they waited for permission to destroy
the energy machine, e.g., the NBS insisted on communicating by
mail, rather than by telephone. In another instance, the NBS required
Joseph Newman to travel 1,000 miles from Mississippi to Maryland
to move a single wire a single inch. Apparently the wire
had come loose while the machine was in the possession of the
NBS. Joseph Newman flew to Maryland and reconnected the
loose wire, but the NBS still refused to test the energy machine
or even tell Joseph Newman when or how they would test it.
During the
1,000 mile trip to connect the wire by moving it one inch, an
event occurred WHICH WOULD HAVE GREAT SIGNIFICANCE LATER ON.
The approximately 135-lb energy machine delivered to the NBS would
--- if not restricted --- "pump" back-emf into the battery pack
and thus proceed to overcharge and damage the batteries by shorting
them out internally. Normally, Joseph Newman placed 4-foot fluorescent
bulbs in the circuit to act as a "release valve" to reduce this
back-emf into the batteries. Since it was inconvenient to
carry 4-foot bulbs to the NBS offices in Maryland the day Joseph
Newwman traveled there from Mississippi to reconnect in several
minutes the loose wire, Joseph Newman simply grounded the energy
machine to shunt away the back-emf and prevent it from damaging
the batteries.
What is most
ironic is that NBS officials saw Joseph Newman GROUND the energy
machine and they ASSUMED that he ALWAYS grounded it --- even for
testing! The NBS officials were not interested in mastering
Joseph Newman's technical process and understanding the principles
involved. Instead --- like "monkey see, monkey do" --- they later
grounded the energy machine during their secret testing of the
confiscated energy machine (see below). This action would
have important ramifications with respect to the validity of the
actual NBS test. [It should be added that Joseph Newman
has NO intention of "educating the NBS personnel." They
were supposed to be the experts; Joseph Newman's attitude was,
"Let's see what the 'experts' do."] Moreover, before the NBS ran
any tests, Joseph Newman's attorney sent the NBS a NON-GROUNDED
schematic of the circuit used to test the energy machine.
And the reader
should be reminded that over five years earlier Joseph Newman
transported an 800-pound unit from Mississippi to Maryland and
asked the NBS to test the device. [This was shortly after
he had filed his original Patent Application.] The NBS refused
to even look at the unit! In addition, since Joseph Newman has
over 30 Affidavits from physicists, electrical engineers and electrical
technicians attesting to validity of the machine while the Patent
Office had NOT ONE affidavit to the contrary, Joseph Newman's
position was that the Patent Office's refusal to grant him a patent
was groundless. ADDITIONAL HISTORICAL NOTE: early in the
application process Joseph Newman was told by a patent office
examiner "Mr. Newman, we believe that your invention works, but
your technical description is inadequate." Joseph Newman
appealed this decision and was informed by the next higher examiner:
"Mr. Newman, we believe that your technical description is adequate,
but your invention does not work." It was at this point that Joseph
Newman initiated his lawsuit in the Federal Court against the
Patent Office.
BACK TO
THE STORY OF THE NBS TEST: Well, the "experts" at the
National Bureau of Standards did nothing during the court-ordered-and-authorized-30-day-test-period
that expired on February 23, 1986. On Monday, 10:30AM on
February 24, 1986, Joseph Newman's attorney, John Flannery, appeared
at the Maryland headquarters of the National Bureau of Standards
where the energy machine was being held. Armed guards met John
Flannery and refused to permit him to secure and return Joseph
Newman's property. Mr. Flannery was informed that he had
until 12 noon of that day to appear at an emergency meeting in
Federal Judge Jackson's courtroom. Should Flannery fail
to appear, Jackson would immediately issue a warrant for his arrest.
Attorney John
Flannery did appear in the courtroom of Judge Thomas Penfield
Jackson by 12 noon. He was promptly informed by Judge Jackson
that the energy machine of Joseph Newman was NO LONGER THE PROPERTY
OF HIS COURT and that it was now under the COMPLETE CONTROL of
the National Bureau of Standards and that the invention would
NOT be returned to Joseph Newman --- even after the agreed-upon
30-day NBS test period had expired. Joseph Newman's attorney
John Flannery then asked Judge Jackson to remove himself as the
Judge in the case because of demonstrated personal bias and prejudice.
Jackson denied that he was prejudiced and refused to tell Joseph
Newman what authority permitted the Judge to violate the Court
of Appeals Order (see above). As Joseph Newman said, "Since
when in this country can a court take away a person's property,
seize it without even a hearing and in violation of a standing
order from an appellate court? Something is very wrong here."
On March 3,
1986, as a result of the Court's questionable procedures, Joseph
Newman made an Affidavit in support of a motion to disqualify
Judge Jackson for his demonstrated bias and prejudice. On
March 7, 1986, the District Court held a status conference to
consider giving the NBS more time to test the energy machine in
violation of the original 30-day time limit authorized by the
U.S. Court of Appeals.
Immediately
before the status conference began, Jackson's law clerk handed
Joseph Newman's attorney John Flannery an order denying Joseph
Newman's motion to disqualify Judge Jackson as insufficient, but
without any discussion as to why the pleadings were factually
insufficient. Judge Jackson then held attorney John Flannery
in contempt for merely mentioning the pending motion to disqualify
him. Jackson then gave the PTO/NBS until June 26, 1986 to test
the energy machine --- 150 DAYS AFTER THE ENERGY MACHINE WAS
ORIGINALLY DELIVERED.
Joseph Newman
could not financially afford to be present with counsel and expert
for the 12-hour workdays the NBS claimed they worked each day
on testing the energy machine. It would have cost Joseph
Newman over $60,000 to attend the tests and is one of the reasons
that the U.S. Court of Appeals authorized the original 30-day
test period limit. Former PTO Commissioner Mossinghoff misappropriated
$100,000 to run the unprecedented tests which were in violation
of the original order of the U.S. Court of Appeals. And
according to the Patent Office, the tests cost approximately $75,000.00.
Although Joseph Newman has the "right" to attend the later, unauthorized
tests on his now-confiscated energy machine, it was a "right"
that he could not financially afford to exercise. Joseph
Newman is not a large corporation. He is an inventor who
lives by what he invents. Worse, the Patent Office said
that they expect Joseph Newman to reimburse the Patent Office
for ALL NBS tests!
IT IS, IN
FACT, JOSEPH NEWMAN'S POSITION THAT ALL PTO/NBS/JUDGE JACKSON
ACTIONS TAKEN AFTER THE FEBRUARY 24, 1986 CONFISCATION WITHOUT-DUE-PROCESS
OF HIS PROPERTY ARE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. As a result
of this position and of the expense in attending 90 additional
days of testing, Joseph Newman did NOT IN ANY WAY wish to appear
to endorse the NBS proceedings by being present for their testing.
Also, it should be noted that BEFORE the NBS ran any tests, Joseph
Newman's attorney, John Flannery, forwarded to the NBS a schematic
of the circuit used to test the energy machine. It plainly
showed NOT to connect the energy machine to ground.
Prior to the
expected release of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) test
(conducted by three individuals) results on June 26, 1986, Joseph
Newman issued a national press release --- sent to over 1,500
members of the press --- which predicted that the NBS test results
would be negative and that a "mockery of justice is expected to
continue in the chambers of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson."
On June 26,
1986, the NBS unsurprisingly said that Joseph Newman's device
did not work. Moreover, Jackson set a trial date for December
8, 1986. (Up to this point, Jackson had held a series of expensive
hearings to determine if a trial was warranted. Jackson
refused to relieve himself from the case due to bias, and Jackson
refused to give Joseph Newman a trial by jury. In fact,
a Patent Office attorney once told Joseph Newman's attorney, "We
would hate to see this case tried by a jury.")
It is ironic
that as a consequence of the Patent's Office disregard of the
Court of Appeals requirement that the NBS notify Joseph Newman
of what tests they intended to run, Joseph Newman did not know
how the NBS "tested" his machine until AFTER the NBS issued its
report. Consequently, Joseph Newman discovered that the NBS DID
NOT ACTUALLY TEST HIS INVENTION AT ALL.
In one of
his press releases, Joseph Newman writes: "In his April
9, 1984 Statutory Declaration before a Federal Court, page 10,
NBS expert Jacob Rabinow claimed the following: 'It is my
opinion since Mr. Newman does not use a tightly-coupled iron structure
around his armature, that the efficiency of his motor should be
very low when used purely as a motor.' Following the release of
the June 26, 1986 NBS Report (which has been challenged by Dr.
Roger Hastings and other scientific experts), NBS spokesman Matt
Heyman boastfully stated to the newsmedia that: 'the energy machine
invention was so inefficient that if one wanted to operate an
ELECTRIC FAN, then don't use the Newman Invention hooked to a
battery, but rather use a simple conducting wire from a battery
to a conventional motor.' The above two statements by NBS
representatives Rabinow and Heyman are ESPECIALLY IRONIC because
on July 30, 1986 --- in conjunction with his appearance before
the Senate Subcommittee Hearing --- Joseph Newman demonstrated
his latest, portable energy machine prototype which operated as
a MOTOR (without Rabinow's 'tightly-coupled iron structure around
the armature') to power a home-appliance ELECTRIC FAN at an efficiency
rate that proved the Patent Office and the NBS dead wrong.
Again."
Dr. Roger
Hastings, Senior Physicist with a major research corporation concluded
that the Patent Office's trial expert, the National Bureau of
Standards --- the preeminent national testing laboratory --- failed
to measure the energy in Joseph Newman's energy machine although
it had the energy machine for 150 days. Dr. Hastings said
that the NBS simply didn't know what they were doing. "The Court
of Appeals gave the Patent Office 30 days to test the energy machine
and required the Patent Office to tell us in advance what tests
they were going to run during the 30-day test period authorized
by the U.S. Court of Appeals," said John Flannery, Newman's counsel.
"But their expert, the NBS, kept the device 150 days and never
told us what tests they were going to run during this 30-day period,"
he concluded.
In his evaluation,
Dr. Hastings wrote that the NBS "results reflect a total lack
of communication between the NBS and Newman or any other expert
on Newman's technology." "If they told us what they were
doing, we might have been able to avoid this waste of time and
resources of Joseph Newman and the taxpayers as well," said Flannery.
Dr. Hastings
said in his evaluation that the NBS allowed energy to escape from
Newman Energy Machine and then, instead of measuring the output
energy from the machine, they measured the power consumed by resistors
"placed in parallel with the Newman motor, and called this power
the output." Dr. Hastings concluded, "The primary r.f. (radio
frequency) power was shunted to ground." As for measuring
output, Hastings said the NBS's test was "equivalent to stating
that the output of an electric motor plugged into a wall socket
is given by the power used by a light bulb in the next room which
is on a parallel circuit." "The NBS test results came as
no surprise to me," said Joseph Newman, "I never expected that
we would get a fair shake from the Patent Office's expert.
What I am surprised about is how badly they did the job."
If the Patent
Office and the NBS had complied with the Court of Appeals Order,
Joseph Newman would have had a second opportunity to reinforce
what was already obvious from the schematic diagram forwarded
to the NBS --- that they should NOT connect Joseph Newman's energy
machine to ground. Joseph Newman could have told the NBS that
they were in error. But since the NBS and the Patent Office
failed to give Joseph Newman any notice --- contrary to the U.S.
Court of Appeals Order --- of the tests they intended to run during
the 30-day test period authorized by the Court of Appeals, the
Patent Office and the NBS wasted Joseph Newman's resources and,
by their estimates, $75,000.00 of federal taxpayer's monies misappropriated
by former Patent Office Commissioner Mossinghoff.
The Republican
Study Committee of Congress wrote in its May 9, 1986 REPORT: "Joseph
Newman has received arbitrary and unfair treatment at the hands
of the Patent Office and Judge Jackson. Congress should
act because the Executive and Judicial branches have failed this
American citizen. In light of Congress' oversight responsibilities
and the fact that it is empowered by the Constitution to issue
patents, the fact that the preponderance of evidence is in Joseph
Newman's favor, and the fact that this invention is potentially
beneficial to hundreds of millions of people, it is totally in
order for Congress to grant Newman a patent and to allow the American
marketplace to decide the value of this invention."
SUMMATION
OF ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS:
GROUND:
The NBS shunted energy from the Newman invention to ground without
measuring and lost this energy.
RESISTORS:
The NBS measured energy spent in resistors but not in or by Newman's
invention.
Dr. Hastings:
"In the NBS testing, the Newman motor was connected directly to
ground, thus eliminating the excess r.f. power from the system."
Dr. Hastings:
"The NBS test is equivalent to stating that the output of an electric
motor plugged into a wall socket is given by the power used by
a light bulb in the next room which is on a parallel circuit."
Principal
points concerning deficiencies of the NBS test conducted by three
individuals:
1) The
input voltage into the energy machine was restricted. This
is exactly opposite to the Technical Process taught by Joseph
Newman who teaches that the input voltage should be maximized
and the input current should be minimized. The three individuals
at the NBS did the opposite.
2) As
Dr. Roger Hastings wrote in his statement: "In the NBS testing,
the Newman motor was connected directly to ground." --- as a result,
the excess output power was shunted away.
3) The
NBS test did not measure the output of Newman's motor --- instead,
he says, the tests measured the output of parallel resistors.
As a result, Dr. Hastings says, "Their measurements are therefore
irrelevant to the actual functioning of the Newman device."
4) No
attempt was made by the NBS to measure the heat generated in the
motor windings.
5) No
attempt was made by the NBS to measure the mechanical output of
the Newman motor --- only the electrical output.
Note:
Last year, the A&E Network presented a Special regarding Joseph
Newman's work and featured a discussion of the above events which
further updated the incompetent nature of the tests performed
by the NBS.
|
