Source : SCIENCE, 16 Nov. 1984, p. 817 Title : An Endless Siege of Implausible Inventions Author : R. Jeffrey Smith In the modern world of commerce, the U.S. patent and trademark office is a street-corner cop with the power to arrest de development of any product that promises the impossible. Its book of statutes contains the basic laws of physics, the axioms of mathematics, the fundamental principles of mechanical engineering. With paticular enthusiasm, its employees serve as guardians of the public in a never-ending battle against mechanical devices allegedly capeable of perpetual motion. This, at least, is how they see themselves. Invetors such as Joseph Newman are more apt to view them sa "a bunch of narrow-minded people who have conducted themselves outside the federal law and the human race." For more than 5 years, Newman, 48, has been frustrated in his efforts to obtain a patent for an "Energy System Having Higher Output Than Input." In 1982, the patant office told him that because such a devive is simply infeasible, his application was denied after something less than a comprehensive, time-consuming review (Science, 10 Ferbruary [1984], p. 571). Recently, however, with the help of some unexpected scientific endorsements, Newman persuaded th U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to order that his application be granted a full review by an examiner - in short, a second chance. Newman believes that the decision is a slap in the face for the patant office and a partial vindication of his claims. Actually, the dispute reveals how easy it can be for inventors to jerk the patant office around. The ruling, made by Judge Thomas Jackson on 31. October, places the office in the difficult position of determining whether Newman's "energy generation system" -- a powerful electric motor -- is adequately described in his application, and whether it is similar or identical to motors with existing patants. Neither topic was given serious consideration on the first go-around, for reasons the patent office believes obvious. The decision resulted from an unusual hearing in which a phalanx of attorneys in Newman's employ repeatedly cited patent case law, while Jere Sears, deputy solicitor in the patent office, repeatedly invoked the second law of thermodynamics. In its essence, that law states that the energy produced by a mechanical device such as Newman's woill always be less than the energy needed to opeate it. In addition to basing the case on "all of recorded science", as Sears put it, he relied heavily on an affidativ from Jacod Rainbow, a former chief research engineer at the National Bureau of Standards and well-known debunker of perpetual motion machines. Rainbow has several objections to the patent application, but his primary claim is that the motor's output of energy has been measured incorrectly. Although he has not seen the device or tested himself, he is willing to bet "any money" that it operates at well under 100 percent efiicency. As strong as the gouverment's argument was, it was sharply undercut by two affidatives. One was written by Mort Zimmerman, the president of Commercial Technology, Inc., in Dallas. Zimmerman said his 400-person firm "has independently ... constructed, operated, and tested several crud prototype devices based on th Newman invention, and has confirmed for itself that these prototype devices which embody the Newman invention operate and produce power as claimed by Newman" at more than 111 percent efficiency. Zimmerman was enthusiastic enough to purchase an option for the right to manufacture and sell Newman's motor in north Texas. (Recently, he told SCIENCE that the motor "needs further development for prctical utilization, and we're not completely convinced that we can get there.") The second affidativ was prepared from Lawrence E. Wharton, a physicist in the Laboratory For Atmospheric Sciences at the Goddart Flight Space Center in Maryland. Initially, Wharton, who volunteered his services to the patent office as a sceptic of Newman's claims, vigorously attacked Zimmerman's statement. Shortly before the court hearing, however, he recanted some of his arguments, and declared that the motor's efficiency "is in substantial excess of 100 percent" and perhaps as high as 600 percent, if Newman's measurements are correct. The change of heart came, he said, after Newman argued with him in a long telephone conversation. Both of these statements apparently made a strong impression on William Schuyler, an attorney and one-time commissioner of U.S. patents who was appointed by the judge as a "special master" to help resolve some of the technical disputes. In his report, Schuyler agreed that the operation of Newman's motor "seems clearly to conflict with recognized scientific principles relating to thermodynamics and conservation of energy." But he insisted ther was an "overwhelming" evidence that the motor's output energy exceeded the external input energy, adding that "there is no contradictory factual evidence." He went so far as to state that Newman was entitled to a patent as long as it did not conflict with any existing patents. All of this came as a great shock to Sears. It was he, not Newman, who nominated Schuyler. "We felt reasonably safe with aperson of his background," he explains. In a final pleading to the judge, Sears asked, "Why are we still paying power bills if Nwman has actually achieved his claims? The Court should exercise some common sense and refrain from joining those who apparently believe in the tooth fairy... Manifestly, this court has no power to abrogate a natural law." In his ruling, Judge Jackson accepted the major points of Schuyler's report, but said he was unwilling to conclude as yet that Newman has produced a "truly pioneering invention." That decision awaits aanother hearing, now set for January. Sears denies that this decision has any implications for the general patent review process. But one effect may be to bar the office from dealing summarily whith such unusual claimsin the future -- a development that could sharply increase the examination delays experienced by inventors with more plausible claims. To Newman, the dispute has become a crusade. Having spent thousands of dollars already in lawyer's fees, consulting fees, and court costs, he will soon pay to publish a book describing both his invention and the patent fight. He says that "the world is fortunate that I'm not afraid of a ruckus, I intend to fight this untill hell freezes over." --------------------------[ end of document ]----------------------- -------------------------[ start of document ]---------------------- Copyright 1986 Information Access Company; Copyright American Association for the Advancement of Science Science July 11, 1986 SECTION: Vol. 233 ; Pg. 154; ISSN: 0036-8075 HEADLINE: Newman's " energy output" machine put to the test; Joseph Newman BYLINE: Sun, Marjorie BODY: Newman's " Energy Output" Machine Put to the Test What's a device with a battery pack, a magnet, and a coil wired together? For the past 6 years, Joseph Newman, an inventor from Mississippi, has been loudly proclaiming that it's a revolutionary machine which produces more power than it uses. The National Bureau of Standards recently issued its own verdict after analyzing Newman's machine: "In none of tests did the device's approach 100%.... Our results are clear and unequivocal," the bureau said. Newman has gone to great lengths to try to win a patent on his energy output machine. When the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office indicated in 1984 that the device did not work, Newman sued the agency. He hired a publicist, andthe media often portrayed him as an underdog pitted against the scientific establishment. Then the court ordered Newman to submit the machine to the National Bureau of Standards for testing. Newman reluctantly complied. A physicist and two electrical engineers from the bureau tested the machine in a variety of ways to measure its energy input and output and used instrumentation that is common in research engineering laboratories. The sole power source of the device was 116 9-volt batteries. According to the test results, the device's efficiency ranged from 27 to 67%, depending on the voltage, the power drawn from the device, and the condition of insulating tape on one of the parts. (The tape kept burning from sparks generated by the machine, which caused the efficiency to drop and had to be replaced frequently.) According to John Lyons, director of the bureau's National Engineering Laboratory, the device basically converted direct current to alternating current. He noted that there are several machines already on the market that dothe same thing, but they run at 90% efficiency or higher. Newman had court permission to observe the bureau's tests, but never appeared for any of the experiments, which were conducted between March and June. His spokesman Evan Soule said Newman will ask the court to order the testing of the test equipment. Newman said in an interview, "I have no respect for the National Bureau of Standards. This is a conspiracy against me." The testing cost the bureau $ 75,000, which it hopes to recoup from the patent office. The patent office will submit the results to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which will try the case in December.