977 lines
45 KiB
Plaintext
977 lines
45 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: EXTRACTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FROM SPACE FILE: UFO3269
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
*********************************************************************
|
|
* -------->>> THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo <<<------- *
|
|
********************************************************************* |