textfiles-politics/regexConsp/dpalma5.xml

<xml><p>
    HOMOPOLAR "FREE-ENERGY" GENERATOR TEST</p>

<p>     Robert Kincheloe
    Professor of Electrical Engineering (Emeritus)
    Stanford University</p>

<p>    Paper presented at the 1986 meeting
    of the
    Society for Scientific Exploration
   San Francisco</p>

<p>   June 21, 1986
   Revised February 1, 1987</p>

<div> --------------------------------------------------------------------</div>

<p>    HOMOPOLAR "FREE-ENERGY" GENERATOR TEST
     Robert Kincheloe</p>

<p>     ABSTRACT</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

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

<p> THE SUNBURST HOMOPOLAR GENERATOR</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> GENERATOR DESCRIPTION</p>

<p> Details of the generator construction are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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. 45) and shown
 schematically in Fig. 6.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

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

<p> 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].</p>

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

<p> 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.</p>

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

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

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

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

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

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

<p>    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.</p>

<p>    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.</p>

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

<p> 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.</p>

<p> DEPALMA'S RESULTS WITH THE SUNBURST HOMOPOLAR GENERATOR</p>

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

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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:</p>

<p>    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.</p>

<p>    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.</p>

<p>    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.</p>

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

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

<p> RECENT TESTS OF THE SUNBURST GENERATOR</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> Experimental Setup</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p>    Page 5</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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%.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> Generator Tests</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> (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).</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

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

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

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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).</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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].</p>

<p> 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).</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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).</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

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

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> CONCLUSIONS</p>

<p> 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?</p>

<p>    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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> (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).</p>

<p>    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.</p>

<p> As discussed above the various data do not seem to support this
 possibility.</p>

<p>    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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p>    4. Perhaps other possibilities will occur to the reader.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> DePalma's claim of  free energy generation  could  perhaps  then
 be examined.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

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

<div> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</div>

<p>     FOOTNOTES</p>

<p>  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.</p>

<div> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</div>

<p>    REFERENCES</p>

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

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

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

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

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

<p> [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)</p>

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

<p> [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)</p>

<p> [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)</p>

<p> [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)</p>

<p> [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)</p>

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

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

<p> [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)</p>

<p> [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).</p>

<p> [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)</p>

<p> [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)</p>

<p> [Kosow, 1964] - Irving L. Kosow, ELECTRICAL MACHINERY &amp; CONTROL,
   Prentice-Hall, 1964.  (Discusses high current homopolar (acyclic)
   generators)</p>

<p> [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)</p>

<p> [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)</p>

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

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

<p> [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)</p>

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

<p> [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)</p>

<p> [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)</p>

<p> [Zeleny, 1924] - John Zeleny &amp; 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)</p>

<div> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</div>

<p> (Sysop note:  The following figure also had an accompanying drawing)</p>

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

<p> 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.</p>

<p>    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.</p>

<p> 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</p>

<p> *[99]
    (Sysop note:  a sketch appeared in this area)</p>

<div> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</div>

<p> (Sysop note:  The following figure also had an accompanying drawing)</p>

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

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> 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.</p>

<div> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</div>

<p> (Sysop note:  The following figure also had an accompanying drawing)</p>

<p> Figure 8 - Test data from report by Bruce DePalma</p>

<p>    PERFORMANCE OF THE SUNBURST HOMOPOLAR GENERATOR</p>

<p>   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.</p>

<p> 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.)</p>

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

<p> Incremental power ratio =  7560/268   28.2  watts out/watts in</p>

<p> Internal resistance of generator    62.5 micro-phms</p>

<p> Reduction of the above data gives as the equivalent circuit for the
 machine:</p>

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

<p>       BRUCE DEPALMA
       17 DECEMBER 1980</p>

<div> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</div>

<p>    Page 14</p>

<p> Figure 15 - Summary of test results at 6500 rpm</p>

<p>    I  II    III</p>

<p> 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</p>

<p>    HOMOPOLAR GENERATOR TEST - BIG SPRINGS RANCH   APRIL 26, 1986</p>

<div> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</div>

<p>X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X</p>

<p> Another file downloaded from:   NIRVANAnet(tm)</p>

<p> &amp; 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</p>

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

<p>  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.</p>

<p>    "Raw Data for Raw Nerves"</p>

<p>X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X
</p></xml>