mirror of
https://github.com/nhammer514/textfiles-politics.git
synced 2024-10-01 01:15:38 -04:00
700 lines
38 KiB
HTML
700 lines
38 KiB
HTML
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>dpalma5</title>
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="../CSSstyle.css"/>
|
|
<!--Fill in your link line for CSS and JS in the XSLT here! -->
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<h1 id="title-index">Politics-Conspiracies-Project</h1>
|
|
<nav id="menu">
|
|
<a href="../index.html">
|
|
<div class="button">Home</div>
|
|
</a>
|
|
<a href="../fulltext2.html">
|
|
<div class="button">Fulltext</div>
|
|
</a>
|
|
<a href="../analysis.html">
|
|
<div class="button">Analysis</div>
|
|
</a>
|
|
<a href="../gallery.html">
|
|
<div class="button">Gallery</div>
|
|
</a>
|
|
<a href="../methods.html">
|
|
<div class="button">Methods</div>
|
|
</a>
|
|
<a href="../about.html">
|
|
<div class="button">About</div>
|
|
</a>
|
|
<a href="../GitHub.html">
|
|
<div class="button">GitHub <img alt="github icon"
|
|
src="https://logos-download.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/GitHub_logo.png"
|
|
width="15"/>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</a>
|
|
</nav>
|
|
<h2>dpalma5</h2>
|
|
<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>
|
|
<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 <span class="LOC">Sunburst</span> N
|
|
Machine.</p>
|
|
<p> This device, shown in Figs 1a and 1b, was proposed by Bruce
|
|
DePalma and constructed by Charya Bernard of the <span class="LOC">Sunburst</span>
|
|
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
|
|
<span class="LOC">Sunburst</span> 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 <span class="LOC">Sunburst</span>
|
|
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 <span class="LOC">Sunburst</span>
|
|
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 <span class="LOC">Sunburst</span> 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 <span class="LOC">Sunburst</span> 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 <span class="LOC">Sunburst</span> 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 <span class="LOC">Sunburst</span> 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>
|
|
<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>
|
|
<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 & 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 & 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 <span class="LOC">Sunburst</span> homopolar generator)</p>
|
|
<p> [DePalma, 1980] - Bruce DePalma, "Performance of the <span class="LOC">Sunburst</span> 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 & 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
|
|
& 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 & 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>
|
|
<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>
|
|
<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>
|
|
<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>
|
|
<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>
|
|
<p>X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X</p>
|
|
<p> Another file downloaded from: NIRVANAnet(tm)</p>
|
|
<p> & 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>
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|