IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO CREATIVE GIFTS, INC., FASCINATIONS TOYS & GIFTS, INC., and WILLIAM HONES Plaintiffs, CIV.97 1266 LH/WWD v. UFO, MICHAEL SHERLOCK, KAREN SHERLOCK Defendants. EXPERT REPORT OF MARTIN SIMON Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(B) 1. I am Martin Simon, Administrator of Lecture Demonstrations at the University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Physics and Astronomy, 405 Hilgard Ave, Los Angeles CA 90095. I received my M.S. degree in Physics from UCLA in 1987. I have been on the staff of the Physics and Astronomy department since 1993. A list of publications is attached as Exhibit 1. 2. I expect to receive a consulting fee of $1,200 per day for my work in this matter. No part of my compensation depends upon the outcome of this matter. 3. I began studying the physics of the levitron in 1995. In May of 1996 I presented a paper on the levitron at the American Physical Society/American Association of Physics Teachers joint meeting in Indianapolis. I then submitted a paper on "Spin stabilized magnetic levitation" which was published in the American Journal of Physics in April 1997. I was invited to give a talk on that subject at the American Association of Physics Teachers meeting in New Orleans in January 1998. 4. I have reviewed the expert reports of Edward and William Hones, Harry Manbeck, Peter Campbell, the "Hones Patent", the "Harrigan Patent", the "Hidden History of the Levitron", and all scientific papers I am aware of which relate to the subject of permanent magnetic levitation. 5. In early 1996 I had a number of phone conversations with William Hones and Edward Hones. In the summer of 1996 I met with Roy Harrigan. One of my written communications to William Hones and the response from his lawyer is already in evidence in this proceeding. 6. I would expect to testify on the following areas: the Hones patent, conversations with William and Edward Hones, the Harrigan patent, and the plaintiff’s expert reports including those of Harry Manbeck and Peter Campbell. 7. My first impression after reading the Hones patent was that it couldn’t possibly describe the invention of the levitron. The discovery related by the Hones patent is that a magnet stabilized against flipping can be levitated over a base magnet with a square or polygonal, but not a circular shape. The magnetic field configuration that led to this claim was calculated by the programs developed by Ed Hones and described in his affidavit. The problem is that these fields are physically impossible. They would violate the most fundamental laws of magnetostatics. This can be proved easily as is done in my AJP paper. These nonphysical fields led to a silly prediction of stable levitation for a base with a square periphery, violating Earnshaw’s theorem. Earnshaw’s theorem is taught to freshman physics and engineering students and is one of the most fundamental facts known to those involved in designing magnetic fields. When I pointed this out to Ed Hones in a phone conversation he told me that Dr. Michael Berry had also told him the same thing. He said that he still didn’t understand where his programs had gone wrong. Any conclusions drawn from the Hones code about magnetic field configurations are suspect. 8. The above makes ludicrous the opinion of expert Dr. Peter Campbell expressed in number 10 of his report that "the Hones’ Patent and Affidavits demonstrate that they have developed a good theoretical understanding of magnetic levitation, …". 9. In fact, the invention and commercialization of the levitron depends on the gyroscopic precession of a spinning magnetic top over a suitable base. The novel element which distinguishes the levitron from earlier unsuccessful attempts at levitating permanent magnets is the stabilization produced by the gyroscopic precession. The invention is described fully in the Harrigan patent. 10. Once someone knows that gyroscopic stabilization works and sees what a suitable base is, it is a simple matter to come up with many configurations which will work. 11. Anyone skilled in the art of magnetic field design would immediately recognize that the magnetic field topology in the space above Harrigan’s dish shaped base could be produced by many commercially feasible base configurations. Perhaps the simplest such configuration is a ring magnet, suitable versions of which are cheaply produced commercially in large numbers for applications such as audio speakers. 12. Harrigan’s patent itself correctly teaches in column 2, line 63 "Similarly, in those embodiments which use the entire upper surface of one polarity, it appears to be preferable that the central region thereof be weaker or lower than the peripheral region to avoid having the top slide to one side." (my emphasis). The weak center configuration taught by Harrigan is exactly the configuration used in the commercial levitron. 13. In reality, the exact direction of the magnetization vectors in the base has only a small effect on the field topology in the levitation region and anyone with ordinary skill in magnet design would know this. The weak center idea has far more effect on the field topology. 14. The discussion about magnetic shells and magnetization vectors in the plaintiffs affidavits and expert reports is mainly an irrelevant smokescreen hiding larger scientific crimes. The facts reported about magnetic shells in Hones patent column 2, lines 37-52, are well known. What the Hones patent claims is novel, the essence of the patent, is the following paragraph in the Summary of the Invention, column 2, lines 53-66. "A previously unrecognized characteristic of the magnetic field above a magnetic shell is that the shape of the outer periphery of a shell affects the stability of a levitation system using the shell. In particular, a magnetic shell with polygonal shaped periphery, especially a rectangular or a square shaped periphery, has a region located a few centimeters above the surface of the shell and along the diagonals of the polygonal shape where the magnetic field gradients are such as to provide both lifting (dHxdz) and centering (dHx/dz) forces on a magnetic dipole positioned in that region. Other non-polygonal shapes, such as circular, elliptical, etc. do not appear to provide a region where both lifting and centering forces exist." (sic, equation errors are in the original) As discussed in 7. above, this essential "teaching" of the Hones patent is totally wrong and has no commercial value. It is interesting that the plaintiffs and their experts don’t defend this "patentable discovery" at all. 15. To the extent additional information is brought to my attention during the course of this proceeding, I reserve the right to supplement this report. Los Angeles, California _______[signature]_____________ Date: 4/20/1998 Martin Simon