
                      HOMOPOLAR "FREE-ENERGY" GENERATOR TEST

                                 Robert Kincheloe
                  Professor of Electrical Engineering (Emeritus)
                                Stanford University

                        Paper presented at the 1986 meeting
                                      of the
                        Society for Scientific Exploration
                                   San Francisco

                                   June 21, 1986
                             Revised February 1, 1987

       --------------------------------------------------------------------

                      HOMOPOLAR "FREE-ENERGY" GENERATOR TEST
                                 Robert Kincheloe

                                     ABSTRACT

       Known for over  150  years, the Faraday homopolar generator has
       been claimed to provide a basis for so-called  "free-energy"
       generation, in that under certain conditions the extraction of
       electrical output energy is not reflected as a corresponding
       mechanical  load  to  the driving source.

       During 1985 I  was invited to test such a machine.  While it did
       not perform as claimed, repeatable data  showed  anomalous
       results that did not seem to conform to traditional theory.

       In particular, under certain assumptions about internally
       generated output voltage, the increase in input power when power
       was extracted from the generator  over that measured due to
       frictional losses with the generator unexcited seemed to  be
       either about 13% or 20% of the maximum computed generated power,
       depending on interpretation.

       The paper briefly  reviews  the homopolar generator,  describes  the
       tests on this particular machine, summarizes and presents
       tentative conclusions from the resulting data.

       THE SUNBURST HOMOPOLAR GENERATOR

       In July, 1985, I became aware of and was invited to examine and
       test a so-called free-energy generator known as the Sunburst N
       Machine.

       This device, shown  in Figs 1a and 1b, was proposed by Bruce
       DePalma and constructed by Charya Bernard of the Sunburst
       Community in Santa Barbara, CA, about 1979.

       The term "free-energy" refers to  the  claim  by  DePalma  [1]
       (and others [2]) that it was capable of producing electrical
       output power that was not reflected as a mechanical load to the
       driving mechanism but derived from presumed latent spatial
       energy.

       Apart from mechanical frictional and electrical losses  inherent
       in the particular construction,  the  technique employed was
       claimed to provide a basis for constructing a generator which
       could supply the energy to provide not only its own motive power
       but also additional energy for external use.  From August  1985
       to  April 1986 I made a series of measurements on this particular
       machine to test these claims.

       GENERATOR DESCRIPTION

       Details of the generator construction are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.

       It consists essentially of an electromagnet formed by a coil of
       3605 turns of #10  copper  wire  around  a soft iron core  which
       can  be rotated with the  magnetic  field parallel to and
       symmetrical around the axis of rotation.

       At each end of the magnet are conducting  bronze cylindrical
       plates, on one of  which  are  arranged  (as shown in Fig.  3)
       one  set  of graphite brushes for extracting output current
       between the shaft and the outer circumference  and  a  second
       set of metering brushes for independently measuring the induced
       voltage between these locations.

       A third pair of brushes and slip  rings  supply  the current for
       the electromagnet.  A thick   sheath  of  epoxy-impregnated
       fiberglass windings allow the magnet to be rotated at high speed.

       The generator may be recognized as a so-called homopolar, or
       acyclic machine, a device   first  investigated  and  described
       by  Michael Faraday [3] in 1831 (Figs. 4,5) and shown
       schematically in Fig. 6.

       It consists of a cylindrical conducting  disk  immersed  in an
       axial magnetic field, and  can  be  operated as a generator  with
       sliding brushes extracting current  from  the  voltage  induced
       between the inner and outer regions of the disk  when  the
       rotational energy is supplied by an external driving source.

       The magnitude of  the  incremental  radial  generated   voltage
       is proportional to both  the  strength  of  the  magnetic field
       and the tangential velocity, so that in a  uniform  magnetic
       field the total voltage is proportional to the product of speed
       times the difference between the squares of the inner and outer
       brush radii.

       The device may  also  be  used  as a motor when an external
       voltage produces an radial current between the sliding brushes.

       There have been  a  number  of  commercial applications of
       homopolar motors and generators, particularly early in this
       century [4], and their operating principles are described in a
       number of texts [5].

       The usual technique is to use a stationary  magnet  to  produce
       the magnetic field in  which  the  conducting  disk  (or
       cylinder)  is rotated.

       Faraday found, however,  (Fig 7) that it does not matter whether
       the magnet itself is stationary or rotating with the disk as long
       as the conductor is moving in the field, but that rotating the
       magnet with the conducting disk stationary did not produce an
       induced voltage.

       He concluded that a magnetic field  is  a  property of space
       itself, not attached to the magnet which serves to induce the
       field [6].

       DePalma stated [7] that when the conducting disk  is  attached
       to a rotating magnet, the interaction of the primary magnetic
       field with that produced by the radial output current results in
       torque between the disk and the magnet structure which is not
       reflected back to the mechanical driving source.

       Lenz's law therefore  does  not  apply, and the extraction of
       output energy does not  require additional  driving  power.
       This  is  the claimed basis for extracting "free" energy.

       Discussions of the torque experienced by a rotating magnet are also
       discussed in the literature [8].

       Because the simple  form  shown  in  Fig.  6  has  essentially
       one conducting path, such  a  homopolar  device  is characterized
       by low voltage and high current requiring a large magnetic field
       for useful operation.

       Various homopolar devices have been used for specialized
       applications [9] (such as generators for developing large
       currents for welding, ship degaussing, liquid metal
       magnetohydrodynamic pumps for nuclear reactor  cooling,
       torquemotors  for propulsion,  etc.), some involving quite high
       power.

       These have been  extensively  discussed  in  the literature,
       dealing with such problems as developing the  high  magnetic
       fields required (sometimes using superconducting  magnets  in
       air   to  avoid  iron saturation effects), the  development of
       brushes that can handle the very high currents and have low
       voltage  drop  because  of  the low output voltage generated,
       and with counteracting armature  reaction which otherwise would
       reduce  the  output  voltage  because  of the magnetic field
       distortion resulting from the high currents.

       From the standpoint  of  prior  art,  the  design  of  the
       Sunburst generator is inefficient and not suitable for power
       generation:

            1. The magnetic field is concentrated near the axis where
               the tangential velocity is low, reducing the generated
               voltage.

            2. Approximately 4 kilowatts of power are required to
               energize the magnet, developing enough heat so that the
               device can only be operated for limited periods of time.

            3. The graphite brushes used have a voltage drop almost
               equal to the total induced voltage, so that almost all of
               the generated power is consumed in heating the brushes.

            4. The large contacting area (over 30 square inches) of
               the brushes needed for the high output current creates
               considerable friction loss.

       Since this machine was not intended as a practical  generator but
       as a means for  testing  the  free energy principle, however,
       from this point of view  efficiency  in  producing   external
       power  was  not required or relevant.

       DEPALMA'S RESULTS WITH THE SUNBURST HOMOPOLAR GENERATOR

       In 1980 DePalma   conducted  tests  with  the  Sunburst
       generator, describing his measurement technique and results in an
       unpublished report [10].

       The generator was  driven  by a 3 phase a-c 40 horsepower motor
       by a belt coupling sufficiently long that  magnetic  fields  of
       the motor and generator would not interact.  A table from this
       report  giving his data and results is shown in Fig. 8.

       For a rotational speed of 6000 rpm an output power of 7560 watts
       was claimed to require an increase of 268 watts of drive power
       over that required to supply losses due to friction, windage,
       etc. as measured with the output switch open.

       If valid, this  would  mean that the output power was 28.2 times
       the incremental input power needed to  produce  it.  Several
       assumptions were made in this analysis:

            1. The drive motor input power was assumed to be the product
               of the line voltage and current times the appropriate factor
               for a three-phase machine and an assumed constant 70% power
               factor.
               There was apparently no consideration of phase angle
               change as the motor load increased.  This gives optimistic
               results, since consideration of phase angle is necessary
               for calculating power in an a-c circuit, particularly with
               induction motors.
               It might  also  be  noted that the measured incremental line
               current increase of 0.5 ampere  (3.3%)  as obtained with the
               analog clamp-on  a-c ammeter that was used  was  of  limited
               accuracy.

            2. The output power of the generator was taken to be the
               product of the measured output current and the internally
               generated voltage in the disk less the voltage drop due only
               to internal  disk  resistance.   Armature  reaction was thus
               neglected or assumed not to be significant.

            3. The generated voltage which produced the current in the main
               output brushes was assumed  to  be the same as that measured
               at the metering brushes, and the decrease in metered voltage
               from 1.5 to 1.05 volts when the output switch  is closed was
               assumed to  be  due  to  the internal voltage drop resulting
               from the output current flowing  through  the  internal disk
               resistance that  is  common  to  both sets  of  brushes  and
               calculated to 62.5 microohms.

       Of these, the first assumption seems the most serious, and it is my
       opinion that the results of this particular test were inaccurate.

       Tim Wilhelm of Stelle, Illinois, who witnessed tests of the Sunburst
       generator in 1981, had a similar opinion [11].

       RECENT TESTS OF THE SUNBURST GENERATOR

       Being intrigued by DePalma's hypothesis, I accepted the offer by
       Mr. Norman Paulsen, founder  of the Sunburst Community, to
       conduct tests on the generator which apparently  had not been
       used since the tests by DePalma and Bernard in 1979.

       Experimental Setup

       A schematic diagram of the test arrangement is shown in Fig. 9,
       with the physical equipment  shown  in Fig. 10.  The generator
       is  shown coupled by a  long  belt to the drive motor behind it,
       together with the power supplies and metering both  contained
       within and external to the Sunburst power and metering cabinet.

       Figure 10b shows the panel of the test cabinet which  provided
       power for the generator magnet and motor field.  The 4-1/2 digit
       meters on the panel were  not  functional  and  were not used;
       external meters were supplied.

       I decided to  use  an  avaiable  shunt-field   d-c  drive  motor
       to facilitate load tests  at different speeds and to simplify
       accurate motor input power measurements.


                                      Page 5





       Referring to Figure  9,  variacs  and  full-wave  bridge
       rectifiers provided variable d-c supplies for  the motor armature
       and field and the homopolar generator magnet.

       Voltages and currents were measured with Micronta model 11-191
       3-1/2 digit meters calibrated  to  better  than  0.1%  against  a
       Hewlett Packard 740B Voltage  Standard that by itself was
       accurate to better than .005%.

       Standard meter shunts together with the digital voltmeters were
       used to measure the  various  currents.    With   this
       arrangement  the generator speed could be varied smoothly from 0
       to  over  7000  rpm, with accurate measurement  of  motor  input
       power, metered generator output voltage Vg and generator output
       current Ig.

       Speed was measured with a General  Radio  model 1531 Strobotac
       which had a calibration  accuracy of better than 2% (as  verified
       with  a frequency counter) and which allowed determination of
       relative speed changes of a few rpm of less.

       Small changes in  either  load  or  input power were clearly
       evident because of the  sensitivity  of  the  Strobotac  speed
       measurement, allowing the motor  input  power  to be adjusted
       with  the  armature voltage variac to   obtain   the  desired
       constant  speed  with  no acceleration or deceleration before
       taking readings from the various meters.

       Generator Tests

       Various tests were conducted with  the output switch open to
       confirm that generated voltage at both the output brushes (Vbr)
       and metering brushes (Vg) were proportional to speed and magnetic
       field, with the polarity reversing when magnetic field or
       direction of rotation were reversed.

       Tracking of Vbr and Vg with variation of magnetic field  is shown
       in Fig. 11, in  which it is seen that the output voltages are not
       quite linearly related to magnet current, probably due to core
       saturation.

       The more rapid departure of Vg from  linearity  may  be  due  to
       the different brush locations  as  seen  on  Fig 3, differences
       in  the magnetic field at the different brush locations, or other
       causes not evident.  An expanded  plot  of  this voltage
       difference is shown in Fig. 12, and is seen to considerably
       exceed meter error tolerances.

       Figure 11 also shows an approximate 300 watt increase in drive
       motor armature power as  the magnet field  was  increased  from
       0  to  19 amperes.

       (The scatter of input power measurements shown in the upper curve
       of Fig. 11 resulted  from the great sensitivity of the  motor
       armature current to small fluctuations in power line voltage,
       since the large rotary inertia of  the  400  pound  generator did
       not allow speed to rapidly follow line voltage changes).

       At first it was thought that this  power  loss  might  be due to
       the fact that the outer output brushes were arranged  in  a
       rectangular array as shown in Fig. 3.

       Since they were  connected  in parallel but not equidistant from
       the axis the different generated voltages  would  presumably
       result  in circulating currents and additional power dissipation.

       Measurement of the  generated  voltage  as  a  function   of
       radial distance from the  axis  as  shown  in Fig. 13, however,
       showed that almost all of the voltage differential occurred
       between 5 and 12 cm, presumably because this was the region  of
       greatest  magnetic field due to the centralized iron core.

       The voltage in the region of the outer brushes was  almost
       constant, with a measured variation of only 3.7% between the
       extremes, so that this did not seem to explain the increase in
       input power.  The other likely explanation seems to be that there
       are internal losses in the core and other  parts  of  the metal
       structure due to eddy currents, since these are also moving
       conductors in the field.

       In any event, the increase in drive power was only about 10% for
       the maximum magnet current of 19 amperes.

       Figure 14 typifies  a  number of measurements  of  input  power
       and generator performance as a function of speed and various
       generator conditions.

       Since the generator output knife switch procedure was very stiff
       and difficult to operate the procedure used was to make a
       complete speed run from zero to the maximum speed and descending
       again to zero with the switch open,  taking readings at each
       speed increment  with  the magnet power both off and on.

       The procedure was  then  repeated  with  the switch closed.  (It
       was noted that during the descending speed run the input power
       was a few percent lower than for the same speed  during  the
       earlier ascending speed run; this  was  presumably  due  to
       reduced  friction  as  the brushes and/or bearings  became
       heated.   In  plotting the data the losses for both runs were
       averaged  which gave a conservative result since the losses
       shown  in  the figures exceed the  minimum  values measured).

       The upper curve  (a)  shows  the  motor  armature input power
       with a constant motor field current of 6  amperes  as  the  speed
       is varied with no generator magnet excitation and is seen to
       reach  a maximum of 4782 watts as the speed is increased to 6500
       rpm.

       This presumably represents  the  power required to overcome
       friction and windage losses in the motor, generator,  and drive
       belt, and are assumed to remain  essentially  constant  whether
       the  generator  is producing power or not [12].

       Curve 14b shows  the  increase  of motor armature power over that
       of curve (a) that results from energizing  the  generator magnet
       with a current of 16 amperes but with the generator output
       switch  open so that there is   no   output  current  (and  hence
       no  output  power dissippation).

       This component of power (which is  related  to the increase of
       drive motor power with increased magnet current as shown  in Fig.
       11  as discussed above) might  also be present whether or not the
       generator is producing output current and power, although this is
       not so evident since the  output  current  may  affect  the
       magnetic field distribution.

       Curve 14c shows the further increase  of  motor armature input
       power over that of curves (a) plus (b) that results when the
       output switch is closed, the generator magnet is energized and
       output  current  is produced.

       It is certainly not zero or negligible but rises to a maximum of
       802 watts at 6500 rpm.  The total motor armature input power
       under these conditions is thus  the  sum  of  (a),  (b),  and
       (c) and reaches a maximum of 6028 watts at 6500 rpm.

       The big question has to do with the  generated  output  power.
       The measured output current at 6500 rpm was 4776 amperes; the
       voltage at the metering brushes was 1.07 volts.

       Using a correction factor derived from Fig. 12 and assuming a
       common internal voltage drop  due  to  a calculated disk
       resistance  of  38 microohms, a computed  internal generated
       potential of 1.28 volts is obtained which if  multiplied  by
       the   measured   output  current indicates a generated power of
       6113 watts.

       All of this  power  is  presumably  dissipated in the  internal
       and external circuit resistances,  the  brush loss due both to
       the brush resistance and the voltage drops at the contact
       surfaces between the brushes and the disk (essentially an arc
       discharge), and the power dissipated in the 31.25 microohm meter
       shunt.

       It still represents power generated  by  the  machine,  however,
       and exceeds the 802 watts of increased motor drive power  due
       solely to closing the generator  output  switch  and causing
       output current to flow by a factor of 7.6 to 1.

       If the 444  watts  of  increased  input  power  that  resulted
       from energizing the magnet with the output switch open is assumed
       to have been converted to  generated  output  power  and  hence
       should  be included as part  of  the total increased drive motor
       power required to produce generated output, the  computed  6113
       watts of generated power still exceeds  the  total input power of
       444  watts  plus  802 watts by a factor of 4.9 to 1.

       The computed output  power  even  slightly  exceeds  the total
       motor armature input power including all  frictional and windage
       losses of 6028 watts under  these  conditions  (although  the
       total   system effeciency is still less than 100% because of the
       generator magnet power of approximately 2300 watts and motor
       field power of about 144 watts which must  be  added  to  the
       motor armature power to obtain total system input power).

       It would thus  seem that if the above  assumptions  are  valid
       that DePalma correctly predicted  that much of the generated
       power  with this kind of  machine  is  not  reflected back to the
       motive source. Figure 15 summarizes the data discussed above.

       To further examine  the question  of  the  equivalence  between
       the internally generated voltage  at  the main output brushes and
       that measured at the  metering  brushes,  a  test was made of the
       metered voltage as a function of speed with the generator magnet
       energized with a current  of  20  amperes both with the output
       switch open and closed.  The resulting data is shown in Fig. 16.

       The voltage rises to about 1.32 volts  at  6000  rpm with the
       switch open (which is  close to that obtained by DePalma)  and
       drops  0.14 volts when the  switch  is closed and the measured
       output current is 3755 amperes, corresponding to an  effective
       internal resistance of 37 microohms.

       Even if this were due to other causes, such as armature reaction,
       it does not seem  likely  that  there would be a large  potential
       drop between the output   and  metering  brushes  because  of
       the  small distance, low magnetic field (and  radial differential
       voltage), and large mass of conducting disk material.

       Internal currents many times the measured output current  of
       almost 4000 amperes would  be  required  for the voltage
       difference between the outer metering  and  output   brushes   to
       be  significant  and invalidate the conclusions reached above.

       A further method  of  testing the validity of the assumed
       generated output potential involved  an examination of the
       voltage drop across the graphite brushes themselves.

       Many texts on  electrical  machinery   discuss  the  brush  drop
       in machines with commutators or slip rings.

       All of those examined agree that graphite brushes typically have
       a voltage drop that is essentially constant at approximately one
       volt per brush contact when the current density rises above 10-15
       amperes per square centimeter.

       To compare this  with the Sunburst machine the total  brush
       voltage was calculated by  subtracting the IR drop due to the
       output current in the known (meter shunt) and calculated  (disk,
       shaft,  and brush lead) resistances from  the  assumed
       internally  generated   output voltage.  The result  in  Fig. 17
       shows that the brush drop obtained in this way is even less than
       that  usually  assumed, as typified by the superimposed curve
       taken from one text.

       It thus seems   probable   that   the  generated  voltage   is
       not significantly less than that obtained from the metering
       brushes, and hence the appropriateness of the computed output
       power is supported.

       CONCLUSIONS

       We are therefore  faced  with  the  apparent  result that the
       output power obtained when  the  generator   magnet  is
       energized  greatly exceeds the increase  in  drive  power  over
       that needed  to  supply losses with the  magnet  not energized.
       This is certainly anomalous in terms of convential theory.
       Possible explanations?

            1. There could be a large error in the measurements resulting
               from some factor such as noise which caused the digital
               meters to read incorrectly or grossly inaccurate current
               shunt resistances.

       If the measured results had shown that the computed generated
       output power exceeded the input drive power by only a few percent
       this explanation would be reasonable and would suggest that more
       careful calibration and measurements might show that the results
       described above were due to measurement error.

       With the data showing such a large ratio of generated power to
       input power increase, however,  in  my  opinion  this
       explanation  of the results seems unlikely.

       (A later test showed that the digital  meters  are  insensitive
       to a large a-c ripple superimposed on the measured d-c,  but
       within their rated accuracy of 0.1% give a true average value).

            2. There could be a large difference between the measured
               voltage at the metering brushes and the actual generated
               voltage in   the   output  brush  circuit  due  to  armature
               reaction, differences in  the  external  metering and output
               circuit geometry, or other unexplained causes.

       As discussed above the various data do not seem to support this
       possibility.

            3. DePalma may have been right in that there is indeed a
               situation here whereby energy is being obtained from a
               previously unknown and unexplained source.

       This is a conclusion that most scientists and engineers would
       reject out of hand as being a violation of accepted laws of
       physics, and if true has incredible implications.

            4. Perhaps other possibilities will occur to the reader.

       The data obtained so far seems to have shown that while DePalma's
       numbers were high, his basic premise has not been disproved.
       While the Sunburst generator does not produce useful output power
       because of the internal  losses  inherent  in  the  design,   a
       number  of techniques could be used to reduce the friction
       losses, increase the total generated voltage   and   the
       fraction  of  generated  power delivered to an external load.

       DePalma's claim of  free energy generation  could  perhaps  then
       be examined.

       I should mention, however, that the obvious application of using
       the output of a "free-energy" generator to provide its own motive
       power, and thus truly  produce a source of free energy, has
       occured  to  a number of people and several such machines have
       been built.

       At least one  of  these  known to me [13], using what seemed to
       be a good design techniques, was unsuccessful.

       ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                                     FOOTNOTES

        1. DePalma, 1979a,b,c, 1981, 1983, 1984, etc.
        2. For example, Satelite News, 1981, Marinov, 1984, etc.
        3. Martin, 1932, vol. 1, p.381.
        4. Das Gupta, 1961, 1962; Lamme, 1912, etc.
        5. See, for example, Bumby, 1983; Bewley, 1952; Kosow, 1964; Nasar,
           1970.
        6. There has been much discussion on this point in the
           literature, and about interpretation of flux lines.  Bewley,
           1949; Cohn, 1949a,b; Crooks, 1978; Cullwick, 1957; Savage,
           1949.
        7. DePalma, op. cit.
        . Kimball, 1926; Zeleny, 1924.
        9. Bumby, Das Gupta, op. cit.
        10. DePalma, 1980.
        11. Wilhelm, 1980, and personal communication.
        12. The increase in  motor losses with increased load are
           neglected in this discussion because of  a  lack  of accurate
           values for armature and brush  resistances, magnetic  field
           distortion resulting from  armature reaction,  etc.   Such
           losses, while small, would  be appreciable,  however;  their
           inclusion  would further increase the ratio of generated to
           drive  power  so that the results described are conservative.
        13. Wilhelm, 1981, and personal communication.

       ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                                    REFERENCES

       [Bewley, 1949] - L. V. Bewley, letter re [Cohn, 1949a]; ELECTRICAL
         ENGINEERING, Dec. 1949, p.1113-4.  (Claims error in Cohn's paper)

       [Bewley, 1952] - L. V. Bewley, FLUX LINKAGES & ELECTROMAGNETIC
         INDUCTION, Macmillan,   NY,   1952.    (Explanation  of  induction
         phenomena and the Faraday generator)

       [Bumby, 1983] - J. R. Bumby, SUPERCONDUCTING ROTATING ELECTRICAL
         MACHINES, Claredon Press, 1983.  (Homopolar designs, high current
         brushes including liquid metal)

       [Cohn, 1949a] - George I. Cohn, "Electromagnetic Induction",
         ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, May 1949, p441-7.  (Unipolar generator as
         paradox)

       [Cohn, 1949b] - George Cohn, letter re [Savage, 1949]; ELECTRICAL
         ENGINEERING, Nov 1949, p1018.  (Responds to criticism by Savage)

       [Crooks, 1978] - M. J. Crooks et al, "One-piece Faraday generator:
         A paradoxical experiment from  1851",  Am.  J.  Phys.  46(7), July
         1978, p729-31.   (Derives  Faraday  generator  performance   using
         Maxwell's equations)

       [Cullwick, 1957] - E. G. Cullwick, ELECTROMAGNETISM AND RELATIVITY,
         Longmans &   Green,   London,  1957.   (Chapter  10,  "A  Rotating
         Conducting Magnet", pp.141-60, discusses question of flux rotation
         with magnet)

       [Das Gupta, 1961]  - A. K. Das Gupta,  "Design  of  self-compensated
         high current  comparatively higher voltage homopolar  generators",
         AIEE Trans.   Oct  1961,  p567-73.   (Discusses  very high current
         homopolar generator design)

       [Das Gupta, 1962] - A. K. Das Gupta, "Commutatorless D-C generators
         capable to supply currents more than one million amperes, etc"
         AIEE Trans.  Oct 1962, p399-402.  (Discusses very high current low
         voltage Faraday generators)

       [DePalma, 1979a] - Bruce DePalma, EXTRACTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY
         DIRECTLY FROM SPACE:  THE N-NACHINE, Simularity Institute, Santa
         Barbara CA,  6  Mar  1979.   (Discusses  homopolar generator or N-
         Machine as free-energy source)

       [DePalma, 1979b] - Bruce DePalma,  "The  N-Machine",  Paper given at
         the World Symposium on Humanity, Pasadena, CA, 12 April 1979.
         (Describes background, development of "free-energy" theories)

       [DePalma, 1979c] -   Bruce   DePalma,  ROTATION  OF   A   MAGNETIZED
         GYROSCOPE, Simularity   Institute   Report   #33,  16  July  1979.
         (Describes design of Sunburst homopolar generator)

       [DePalma, 1980] - Bruce DePalma, "Performance of the Sunburst N
         Machine", Simularity Institute,  Santa  Barbara,  CA,  17 December
         1980.  (Description of tests and results)

       [DePalma, 1981] - Bruce DePalma, "Studies on rotation leading to the
         N-Machine", DePalma   Institute,   1981  (transcript   of   talk?)
         (Discusses experiments  with  gravity  that  led to development of
         idea of free-energy machine)

       [DePalma, 1983] -  Bruce DePalma,  THE  ROTATION  OF  THE  UNIVERSE,
         DePalma Institute  Report #83, Santa Barbara, CA,  25  July  1983.
         (Uses Faraday disc to discuss universal principles).

       [DePalma, 1984] - Bruce DePalma, THE SECRET OF THE FARADAY DISC,
         DePalma Institute, Santa Barbara, CA, 2 Feb 1984.  (Claims
         explanation of Faraday disc as a free-energy device)

       [Kimball, 1926] -   A.   L.   Kimball,  Jr.,  "Torque  on  revolving
         cylindrical magnet",  PHYS.  REV.   v.28,   Dec   1928,  p.1302-8.
         (Alternative analysis of torque in a homopolar device  to  that of
         Zeleny and Page, 1924)

       [Kosow, 1964] - Irving L. Kosow, ELECTRICAL MACHINERY & CONTROL,
         Prentice-Hall, 1964.  (Discusses high current homopolar (acyclic)
         generators)

       [Lamme, 1912] - B. G. Lamme, "Development of a successful direct-
         current 2000-kW unipolar generator", AIEE Trans. 28 June 1912,
         p1811-40.  (Early discussion of design of high power homopolar
         generator)

       [Marinov, 1984]- Stefan Marinov, THE THORNY WAY OF TRUTH, Part II;
         Graz, Austria,  1984  (Advertisement  in  NATURE).   (Claims free-
         energy generator proved by DePalma, Newman)

       [Martin, 1932] - Thomas Martin (ed), FARADAY'S DIARY, Bell, 1932,
         in 5 vols.  (Transcription and publication of Faraday's original
         diaries)

       [Nasar, 1970] - S. Nasar, ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES
         & SYSTEMS, Prentice-Hall, 1970.  (Discusses principles and
         applications of acyclic (homopolar) machines)

       [Satellite News, 1981] - "Researchers see long-life satellite power
         systems in  19th  century  experiment",  Research  news, SATELLITE
         NEWS, 15  June 1981.  (Reports  DePalma's  claim  for  free-energy
         generator)

       [Savage, 1949] - Norton Savage, letter re [Cohn, 1949a]; ELECTRICAL
         ENGINEERING, July 1949, p645.  (Claims error in Cohn's paper)

       [Wilhelm, 1980] - Timothy J. Wilhelm, INVESTIGATIONS OF THE N-EFFECT
         ONE-PIECE HOMOPOLAR DYNAMOS, ETC. (Phase I), Stelle, IL, 12 Sept
         1980.  (Discusses tests on DePalma's N-Machine)

       [Wilhelm, 1981] - Timothy J. Wilhelm, INVESTIGATIONS OF THE N-EFFECT
         ONE-PIECE HOMOPOLAR DYNAMOS, ETC. (Phase II), Stelle, IL, 10 June
         1981.  (Design and tests of improved homopolar generator/motor)

       [Zeleny, 1924] - John Zeleny & Leigh Page, "Torque on a cylindrical
         magnet through which a current is passing", PHYS.  REV.  v.24,  14
         July 1924,  p.544-59.   (Theory  and  experiment  on  torque  in a
         homopolar device)

       ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

       (Sysop note:  The following figure also had an accompanying drawing)

       Figure 5 - Transcription of the first  experiment showing generation
                  of electrical  power  in  a moving conductor  by  Michael
                  Faraday

       99*. Made many expts. with a copper revolving plate, about 12 inches
            in diameter  and  about  1/5  of inch thick, mounted on a brass
            axle.

            To concentrate the polar action two small magnets 6 or 7 inches
            long, about 1 inch wide and half an inch thick were put against
            the front of the large poles, transverse to them and with their
            flat sides against them, and  the  ends  pushed  forward  until
            sufficiently near; the bars were prevented from  slipping  down
            by jars and shakes by means of string tied round them.

       100. The edge of the plate was inserted more of less between the two
            concentrated poles  thus formed.  It was also well amalgamated,
            and then contact was made with this edge in different places by
            conductors formed from equally  thick copper plate and with the
            extreme end edges grooved and amalgamated so  as  to  fit on to
            and have  contact  with  the  edges of the plate.  Two of these
            were attached to a piece of card board by thread at such

       *[99]
                    (Sysop note:  a sketch appeared in this area)

       ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

       (Sysop note:  The following figure also had an accompanying drawing)

       Figure 7 - Test of a rotating magnet  by  Michael  Faraday, December
                  26, 1831.

       255.  A copper disc was cemented on the top of a cylinder magnet,
             paper intervening,  the  top being the marked pole; the magnet
             supported so as to rotate by means of string, and the wires of
             the galvanometer connected with  the  edge and the axis of the
             copper plate.   When  the  magnet  and  disc together  rotated
             unscrew the  marked  end  of  the  needle went west.  When the
             magnet and disc rotated screw  the  marked  end  of the needle
             went east.

       256.  This direction is the same as that which would have resulted
             if the  copper  had  moved and the magnet been  still.   Hence
             moving the  magnet  causes  no  difference provided the copper
             moves.  A  rotating and a stationary  magnet  cause  the  same
             effect.

       257.  The disc was then loosed from the magnet and held still
             whilst the magnet itself was revolved; but now  no effect upon
             the galvanometer.  Hence it appears that, of the metal circuit
             in which  the  current  is  to be formed, different parts must
             move with different angular  velocities.  If with the same, no
             current is produced, i.e. when both parts are  external to the
             magnet.

       ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

       (Sysop note:  The following figure also had an accompanying drawing)

       Figure 8 - Test data from report by Bruce DePalma

                  PERFORMANCE OF THE SUNBURST HOMOPOLAR GENERATOR

             machine speed:                        6000 r.p.m.
             drive motor current no load           15 amperes
             drive motor current increase
       when N machine is loaded                    1/2 ampere max.

       Voltage output of N generator no load       1.5 volts d.c.
       Voltage output of N generator loaded        1.05 v.d.c.
       Current output of N generator               7200 amperes
       (225 m.v. across shunt @ 50 m.v./1600 amp.)

       Power output of N machine                   7560 watts = 10.03 H.p.

       Incremental power ratio =  7560/268         28.2  watts out/watts in

       Internal resistance of generator            62.5 micro-phms

       Reduction of the above data gives as the equivalent circuit for the
       machine:

       (Sysop note: a drawing            R(internal) =  62.5 micro-ohms
       appeared in this area)            R(brush)    = 114.25  "    "
                                         R(shunt)    =  31.25  "    "

                                               BRUCE DEPALMA
                                               17 DECEMBER 1980

       ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



                                      Page 14





       Figure 15 - Summary of test results at 6500 rpm

                                  I              II            III

       MAGNET POWER              OFF              ON             ON
       OUTPUT SWITCH             OPEN           OPEN         CLOSED
       SPEED                     6500           6500           6500    RPM
       MAGNET CURRENT               0             16             16
       AMPERES
       MOTOR ARMATURE POWER      4782           5226           6028
       WATTS
         INCREMENT                       444            802
       WATTS
       METER BRUSH VOLTAGE       .005          1.231          1.070
       VOLTS
       OUTPUT CURRENT               0              0           4776
       AMPERES
       GENERATED VOLTAGE                       1.280         (1.280)
       VOLTS
       GENERATED POWER              0              0          (6113)
       WATTS


            HOMOPOLAR GENERATOR TEST - BIG SPRINGS RANCH     APRIL 26, 1986

       ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X

 Another file downloaded from:                               NIRVANAnet(tm)

 & the Temple of the Screaming Electron   Jeff Hunter          510-935-5845
 Rat Head                                 Ratsnatcher          510-524-3649
 Burn This Flag                           Zardoz               408-363-9766
 realitycheck                             Poindexter Fortran   415-567-7043
 Lies Unlimited                           Mick Freen           415-583-4102

   Specializing in conversations, obscure information, high explosives,
       arcane knowledge, political extremism, diversive sexuality,
       insane speculation, and wild rumours. ALL-TEXT BBS SYSTEMS.

  Full access for first-time callers.  We don't want to know who you are,
   where you live, or what your phone number is. We are not Big Brother.

                          "Raw Data for Raw Nerves"

X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X
