home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
United Public Domain Gold 2
/
United Public Domain Gold 2.iso
/
utilities
/
pu473.dms
/
pu473.adf
/
DEPALMA
/
DEPALMA5.ASC
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-02-12
|
46KB
|
991 lines
(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS
on duplicating, publishing or distributing the
files on KeelyNet!
December 16, 1990
DPALMA5.ASC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This file courtesy of Paul Smith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TEXT FILE NOTES:
The source for the following paper was "The DePalma Research Papers"
which was printed by For The People, P.O. 15999, Tampa, FL 33684.
Most of the figures mentioned could not be reproduced in this text
file. No U.S. copyrights or patents exist on the technology
discussed.
If anyone is interested in other DePalma papers, call:
The Outer Limits BBS
300-2400 baud
(304) 327-7452
Monday-Friday
8:00am - 7:00pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1
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
Page 2
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.
Page 3
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:
Page 4
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.
Page 6
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
Page 7
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
Page 8
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
Page 9
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.
Page 10
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.
8. 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"
Page 11
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)
Page 12
[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,
Page 13
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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have comments or other information relating to such topics
as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the
Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page.
Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can be of service, you may contact
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 15
