National Bureau of Standards
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

BACK to Contents

June 26, 1986


At the request of the Patent and Trademark office, and in accordance with several court orders, between March and June 1986 the National Bureau of Standards conducted tests on a device submitted for testing by Joseph Newman.

The purpose of the measurements was to test the inventor's claim that the output power from the device was greater than the power which was supplied to the device from a battery pack.

Answers to some questions about the NBS tests are provided below.

1. Did the NBS tests support the inventor's claim?

No. For all conditions tested, the input power from the batteries exceeded the output power from the device. That is, the device did not deliver more energy than it used.

2. How did the NBS findings compare with the laws of physics?

The NBS results show that the device behaves in a manner which is entirely consistent with well-established laws of physics.

3. Was NBS specially equipped to conduct the tests?

NBS is a Federal science and engineering research laboratory that specializes in measurements. NBS is responsible for maintaining U.S. standards for electricity and has extensive experience and facilities for measuring the performance of electrical equipment. The electrical characteristics of Newman's device required NBS to combine a variety of instrumentation in order to conduct valid tests. The combination of instruments and test plan were designed specifically for Newman's device since it is not a standard device.

All of the measurement devices were made up of conventional, well-documented instrumentation. Due to its specialized nature, however, this instrumentation would not generally be found in most research laboratories.

4. What kinds of tests did NBS run on the device?

Since the device was not a standard piece of equipment, NBS needed to design a special test plan and put together and calibrate a variety of measurement devices in order to conduct the tests and ensure the accuracy and reliability of the results.

NBS ran a series of extensive measurements of both the energy input and output on the single device submitted by Mr. Newnan. These measurements were made both separately and simultaneously, and by several different instruments and methods to ensure consistency. All of the measurement devices were carefully selected to ensure that they were appropriate to the electrical characteristics of the Newman device. (For instance, the presence of sharp "spikes" in output meant that certain measurement devices such as analog dc ammeters were not appropriate.) Also, all measurement instrumentation was carefully calibrated in advance and special steps were taken to ensure that electromagnetic interference would not affect the measurement readouts. Separate checks were made to ensure that all data obtained were consistent and valid. The tests were conducted over a period of more than two months.

5. Why did NBS' results differ from those arrived at by others who say Newman's claims are correct?

NBS did not examine in detail the testing procedures, conditions, or test results of others during the course of the Bureau's test program. The Bureau's test procedures, conditions, and test results as outlined above are well documented in the report. The tests adhered to the strictest standards for making accurate and reliable measurements.

6. What effect will the NBS test results have on the pending litigation involving Mr. Newman's lawsuit against the Patent and Trademark office?

NBS ran tests on the device to provide information deemed necessary and appropriate by the Patent and Trademark Office and the court. NBS is not a party to the litigation and cannot comment about the possible legal implications of this report.

7. Did Mr. Hewman have an opportunity to witness these tests?

Yes. The Patent and Trademark Office notified Mr. Newman's attorney several times of the test schedule, making it clear that Mr. Newman was invited to witness the tests. Neither Mr. Newman nor any of his representatives attended any of the tests.

8. Briefly, how does the device operate?

The device submitted to NBS by Mr. Newman consisted of a battery pack, a commutator which was connected to a permanent magnet, and a coil of wire. The permanent magnet is rotated by the varying magnetic field produced by the coil. The device drew energy from a battery pack, stored some of that energy and wasted some of it, with the remaining energy serving to power the load on the device.

9. How efficient was Newman's device?

The device's efficiency -- defined as the the ratio of output power to input power -- varied depending on the voltage, load on the device, and the condition of the tape on the device's commutator. If the device had simply transferred the energy from the batteries to the load, under this definition of efficiency it would have been 100 percent efficient. For comparison purposes, if a wire had been used instead of the device, the wire's efficiency would have been near 100 percent (with the only losses resulting from the wire's electrical resistance).

To support the inventor's claim, the device would have had to show an efficiency of greater than 100 percent. In none of the NBS tests did the device's efficiency approach 100 percent. The efficiency ranged between 27 and 67 percent (after correcting the test data for measurement offsets).

10. Could the device be useful even if it does not provide more energy than it uses?

NBS did not explore that question, but the device did not provide more energy than it used.

BACK to Contents