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 4, 1990 DPALMA1.ASC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This file provided courtesy of Weirdbase at 314-741-2231 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TEXT FILE NOTES: The following paper by Dr. Bruce DePalma was issued with no copyright as a gift to the world. There are no USA patents on the described technology. The source for this 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. The following information appeared at the bottom of each page of the original document: DePalma Energy Worldwide 1187 Coast Village Road #1-163 Santa Barbara, California 93108 (805) 969-6442 If anyone is interested in other DePalma papers, send email to: Mark The Outer Limits BBS (300-2400 baud) (304) 327-7452 Monday-Friday 8:00am - 7:00pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ originated 29 April 1990 ON THE POSSIBILITY OF EXTRACTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY DIRECTLY FROM SPACE by: Bruce DePalma Abstract: Based upon an effect first discovered by Michael Faraday in 1831, the N machine/Space Power Generator (fig. 1) is an electrical machine which has the possibility of producing electrical energy with significantly less mechanical power input than the presently employed induction machines. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In the fall of 1831 when Michael Faraday performed the initial experiments which resulted in the discovery of the first dynamo, he also described a phenomenon which has yet to be understood in terms of conventional electrical theory. In paragraphs 255, 256, and 257 of his diary (fig. 2, ref. 1), dated December 26, 1831, is described the experiment of cementing a copper disc on top of a cylinder magnet, paper intervening, and supporting the magnet by means of a string so as to rotate axially, with the wires of a galvanometer connected to the edge and axis of the copper plate. When this combination was caused to rotate an electrical potential was found to be created. The polarity and the magnitude of the potential was found to be the same as would occur if the copper plate had moved and the magnet remained still. Faraday spent his latter years pondering the relationship between the situation of magnet and disc rotating together vis-a-vis the situation of fixed magnet and disc rotating independently. He explained the situation by positing the assumption that the magnetic field of a magnet remained stationary in space whilst the metal of the magnet revolved axially. Thus a relative motion would exist between the moving metal of the magnet and the posited stationary flux lines giving rise to the expected potential which results from the motion of a wire through a magnetic field. Through the years many attempts have been made to observe whether magnetic field lines rotate with the motion of a magnet which is rotated about an axis connecting its poles. To date, no conclusive proof has been found that the lines of force rotate with the magnet or not (ref. 2, 3). One experimenter Djuric (ref. 4) goes so far as to say: "That no experiment with the generalized homopolar generator or its classical form can resolve the puzzle, which one of the two logically possible hypotheses is correct, the moving force line hypothesis or the nonmoving force line hypothesis." In 1978, after having studied the anomalous inertial and gravitational phenomena of the precessing gyroscope through numerous experiments carried out in the prior seven years, it occurred to me that anomalous electrical phenomena might occur if the gyroscope was magnetized, the magnetic lines of force being parallel to the axis of rotation. Following in the footsteps of Faraday, I reasoned the metal of the magnetized gyroscope moving through its own magnetic field, when rotated would produce an electrical potential between the axle and the outer edge of the rotating magnetized flywheel. The voltage thus created would be described by the well known laws of electrical induction relating to the relative motion of a conducting wire and a magnetic field. As is well known, Lenz's Law applies to the forces which are generated between a current carrying wire moving in the vicinity of a magnetic pole wherein the current through the wire is the resultant of the electrical potential generated by the motion of said wire being applied to an external load. In the case of the rotating cylindrical magnetized conductor, however, it is not clear how Lenz's Law could be applied. In static measurements, current can be passed through a cylindrical magnet between the outer circumference and the central axle passing through its poles. The torque developed will be the same as one would get by suspending a copper disc over one of the magnetic poles and holding the magnet fixed (ref. 5, 6). The question is: since the rotating gyroscope possesses anomalous inertial and gravitational properties, would the back torque of the rotating magnetized gyroscope be the same with a given amount of current passing through it as would be if the rotation were blocked and a fixed torque measurement made. Despite the simplicity of the one piece rotating magnetized conductor, N machine/SPG, compared to the two piece rotating induction machine or Faraday disc, in the time since its discovery in 1831, no one had performed a test to see if the same generator principles were at work as one found in a conventional induction machine. In 1978 in Santa Barbara, California, a large electromagnetically excited N machine/SPG was constructed, the "Sunburst" machine. This machine was independently tested by Dr. Robert Kincheloe, Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University (ref. 7). The abstract of this report quotes: "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." Figure (3) and (4) show the construction of the "Sunburst" machine. Figure (5) is a graph of the input and output power vs. speed. After a thoroughgoing critique and examination of his data Kincheloe concludes: "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." The "Sunburst" machine was an experiment to determine if the rotating magnet N machine/SPG operating as an electrical generator would produce less back torque than a conventional induction machine generating the same current. A practical SPG would employ permanent or super-conducting magnets eliminating the burden of excitation of an open flux path electromagnet. Replacement of sliding carbon-graphite or copper-graphite brushes with liquid metal contacts reduces mechanical friction losses by 80%. Brush voltage drop is negligible in liquid metal sliding contacts. Both of these techniques are employed in the machines currently produced (ref. 8, 9). Applied to the "Sunburst" design the techniques of liquid metal current collectors and permanent magnets for the field excitation could result in a machine with an output/input power ratio of 5:1. A parallel program of SPG R&D has been taking place in India since 1978. P. Tewari of the Indian Atomic Power Board had developed a generalized theory of matter and energy which showed that energy could be developed from the vacuum by positing a structure for the electron. Having received the experimental results of the "Sunburst" machine he instituted an r&d program to develop practical versions of the SPG for general use. Tewari has constructed N machine/SPG apparatus which produces excess output power over that required to rotate the generator when all losses have been subtracted from the output generated power (ref. 10, 11, 12, 13). The phenomenon of direct extraction of electrical energy from space has a simple explanation based on a re-interpretation of magnetism. Heretofore it has been believed that the magnetic field comes from the magnet. The phenomenon of the magnetic field can also be explained by positing a primordial energy field, which, in the first order is uniform and homogeneous. The highly anisotropic condition of the material of the magnet, if it be the permanent variety, or the condition created by the passage of electric current through a solenoid, causes a distortion of the isotropic field which we know as magnetism. Passing a conducting wire through the spatial distortion adjacent to the pole of a magnet elicits the electric potential across the ends of the wire. Field magnets in electric generators do not run down nor does more electrical excitation need be applied no matter how much energy is being drawn from the machine. This is because the generated electrical energy is being drawn from the spatial distortion created by the field magnets. The drag and energy penalty of the conventional two piece induction electrical generator arises from the incomplete understanding of magnetism and the nature of the magnetic field. If we accept the notion that all electricity generation arises from distortions of a primordial energy field then we could look to methods of creating the appropriate distortion and concomitant energy generation without invoking Lenz's Law. Based on this interpretation the rotating magnetized conductor N machine/SPG is a method of eliciting the spatial energy without the drag associated with the two piece machines. The further conclusion is that mechanical energy is not "converted" to electrical energy in an electrical generator. The idea of "conversion" is simply an unproven assumption. Different electrical machines produce energy with different efficiencies. In these days of depletion of natural resources there would be no reason to employ the induction generator of 150 years ago when electricity could be generated much more efficiently by the simpler one-piece N machine/SPG. REFERENCES: (1) Martin, 1932, Thomas Martin (ed.), "Faraday's Diary", Bell, 1932, in five volumes. (2) Cramp and Norgrove, 1936, "Some Investigations on the Axial Spin of a Magnet and on the Laws of Electromagnetic Induction", Journal of The Institute of Electrical Engineers, vol. 78, 1936, pp. 481-491. (3) Crooks, Litvin, and Matthews, 1978, "One Piece Faraday Generator: A Paradoxical Experiment from 1851", Am. J. Phys., vol. 46(7), July 1978, pp. 729-731. (4) Djuric, 1975, "Spinning Magnetic Fields", J. Appl. Phys., vol. 46, (2), February 1975, pp. 679-688. (5) Kimball, 1926, A. L. Kimball, Jr., "Torque on a Revolving Cylindrical Magnet", Phys. Rev., vol. 28, December 1928, pp. 1302-1308. (6) Zeleny, 1924, Zeleny and Page, "Torque on a Cylindrical Magnet through which a Current is Passing", Phys. Rev., vol. 24, 14 July 1924, pp. 544-559. (7) Kincheloe, 1986, "Homopolar 'Free Energy' Generator Test", paper presented at the 1986 meeting of The Society for Scientific Exploration, San Francisco, California, June 21, 1986, revised February 1, 1987. Address: Dr. W. Robert Kincheloe, 401 Durand/ITV, Stanford, California 94305. (8) DePalma, 1988, "Initial Testing Report of DePalma N-1 Electrical Generator", Magnets in Your Future, vol. 3(8), August 1988, pp. 4-7, 27, P.O. Box 580, Temecula, California 92390 (9) United States Department of Commerce, "Business Daily", Tuesday, January 2, 1990, issue no. PSA-9999. "David Taylor Research Center, code 3311, Annapolis, Maryland 21402-5067: A Research and Development Source Sought. Broad Agency Announcement for Homopolar Machinery and Current Collector Technology." BAA details requirements for homopolar machinery for ship propulsion. Power range 25,000 to 50,000 horsepower at anticipated current levels of 50,000 to 100,000 amperes. Superconducting magnets and liquid metal current collectors are called for. "Field magnets can be normal or superconductive and located internal to the rotor or external to the stator." Describes combination of N machine/SPG connected to Faraday disc motor for "integrated electric drive" ship propulsion. (10) Paramahamsa Tewari, "Beyond Matter", Printwell Publications, Aligarh, India, 1984. (11) Paramahamsa Tewari, "Generation of Electrical Power from Absolute Vacuum by High Speed Rotation of Conducting Magnetic Cylinder", Magnets in Your Future, vol. 1 (8), August 1986, P.O. Box 580, Temecula, California 92390. (12) Paramahamsa Tewari, "Violation of Conservation of Charge in Space Power Generation Phenomenon", Paramahamsa Tewari, Chief Project Engineer, KAIGA Project, Nuclear Power Corporation, Kodibagh-581303, Karwar, Karnataka, India. (13) Paramahamsa Tewari, "Detection of Stationary and Dynamic Space Substratum", paper presented at 1990 Borderland Sciences Congress, Santa Barbara, California, June 14-17, 1990. Borderland Sciences, P.O. Box 429, Garberville, California 95440-049, U.S.A. December 7, 1990 DPALMA2.ASC -------------------------------------------------------------------- TEXT FILE NOTES: The following is a letter to Dr. Bruce DePalma from Paramahamsa Tewari. The source for this was "The DePalma Research Papers" which was printed by For The People, P.O. 15999, Tampa, FL 33684. If anyone is interested in other DePalma papers, send email to: Mark The Outer Limits BBS 300-2400 baud (304) 327-7452 Monday-Friday 8:00am - 7:00pm NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION FAX No. 08382 6045 (A Govt. of India Enterprise) TELEPHONE: Off: 7130 Res: 7194 STD Code: 08382 Gram: KYGAPOWER Karwar Telex: 08602 201 KYGA P. TEWARI KAIGA PROJECT Chief Project Engineer Kodibag - 581 303, Karwar, Karnataka. INDIA. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DO No. Kaiga-1&2/CPE/00120/90/S/287 August 13, 1990 Dear Mr. DePalma, I received your paper on "On the possibility of Extraction of Electrical Energy Directly from Space" dated 29th April 1990 quite some time ago. I was very satisfied to see that you have appropriately placed the discovery of N-Effect, N-Machine and Space Power Generator and given in brief the historical background starting from Faraday disc in 1831. The paper makes an interesting reading and I am sure it will be a historical document. The main reason for me to have not acknowledged the receipt of your valuable paper was my total pre-occupation in addition to the project's responsibility, with the development of a very new system of space power generation in which the magnetic circuit has been divided into two parts - one part stationary and the other rotating. I was keen that I should write to you on the findings of the result with this latest machine and as you know very well it has taken couple of months to develop this system. The tests are yet to be completed. However, it has been now observed through experiments that the present Space Power Generator which has 1/3 of the weight of the previous one described in my paper "Detection of Stationary and Dynamic Space Substratum", has the ratings of similar generated voltage and power while its efficiency can go higher than the previous machine. I expect to get the efficiency of this machine in the range of 500% to 600%. The reduction in the weight of the machine has become possible due to the segregation in the magnetic circuit. Only that part is kept in rotation on which the electro-magnet is mounted. I expect that total tests on this machine should be completed within 4 - 6 weeks and after that I will send you all the details. It has now become very evident that generation of electrical power can be achieved through a commercially viable system, which may take about 5 KW of total power for rotation and yet generate about 30 KW of net electrical putput. I was very glad to learn from Dr. Tom Brown that you would be reading my paper in the International Conference organised by Borderland Sciences Research Foundation. I am sure the delebrations in the conference would have been excellent. With best wishes, Yours sincerely, (P. Tewari) Mr. Bruce DePalma, U.S.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regd. Office: 424-425, World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place New Delhi-110 001. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vangard Note... I (Jerry Decker) had the good fortune to attend the Borderland Sciences 1st Congress. It was a good conference with many interesting speakers. Bruce DePalma read Tewari's paper and showed his N-Machine which uses mercury as a contact point. The unit is enclosed in a plastic housing to prevent fine mercury particles from being ejected into the open air. DePalma also showed one of his original suspended gyroscopes which showed a distinct variation in the weight and movement of a spinning mass long before the Japanese experiment which gained so much publicity. Bruce told of one of his experiments which used grass as a gravity detector. He built a mount above a rotating phonograph turntable which held a pie pan with earth and grass seed. When the turntable spun, it caused the grass to grow higher. A large weight was added to the turntable, the grass grew even higher as if the gravity in the area were somehow reduced. Another experiment using a similar technique was to mount the pie pan holding the earth and grass seed directly onto the spinning turntable. As the turntable spun, the grass grew higher than normal and slightly in TOWARDS the axial shaft of the turntable, this EVEN THOUGH THE PAN AND THE TURNTABLE WERE NOT PHYSICALLY CONNECTED. When a weighted mass was added to the spinning turntable and pie pan, the grass grew at a definitely increased angle towards the axial shaft of the spinning mass. Another phenomenon he mentioned was the slowing down of a clock when in the presence of such a field. KEELY RESEARCHERS TAKE NOTE OF THIS PHENOMENON!! Remember that Keely stated that TIME IS GRAVITY! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TEXT FILE NOTES: The following paper by Dr. Bruce DePalma was issued with no copyright as a gift to the world. There are no USA patents on the described technology. The source for this was "The DePalma Research Papers" which was printed by For The People, P.O. 15999, Tampa, FL 33684. The figures mentioned could not be reproduced in this text file. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Report #25 The Secret of the Faraday Disc In December of 1831, over 152 years ago, it was Michael Faraday who first interposed a copper disc which could be rotated between the poles of a magnet with the field lines perpendicular to the rotating disc. Faraday discovered a voltage which could be generated between the center and the outer edge of the rotating conducting disc. This voltage which was the output of the then to become known Faraday Homopolar Disc generator is extracted by sliding contacts or brushs, one on the axle and the other on the outer periphery of the rotated conducting disc. Figure (1). The Faraday disc generator was developed in the late 1890s and the early part of this century to be a high power, low voltage d.c. machine suitable for industrial applications. The behavior of the machine thus constructed was totally in line with the behavior of other electrical machinery in the sense the generation of power by the machine was accompanied always by a commensurate drag to insure the idea of a conversion from mechanical to electrical energy was supported. Implicit in this was the unstated support of the religious belief that no work could be obtained without the expenditure of an 'equivalent' amount of mechanical energy. Of course there are other religious beliefs which say that energy is an inexhaustable resource, but until the invention of a practical free-energy machine this point stays moot. A long history of the development of electrical machinery starting with the Faraday disc of figure one lead me to construct the combin- ation, figure (2). Here, instead of the magnetic flux path being closed in a yoke around the disc, the magnetic flux path is closed symmetrically through the disc with the flux linkages traveling N-3 through the radially symmetrical central portion of the path through the center of the disc; while the return path travels 3-N symmetrically through the outer periphery of the disc. A plot of the voltage profile in the disc, figure (3), shows a curve typical of currently encountered flux densities and rotational speeds. The voltages are nominal values measured with one sliding contact on the axle and the other exploring the voltage profile on the surface of the rotating conducting disc. Several things are apparent. The voltage present at any radius of the rotating disc depends only on the flux density and tangential velocity of the disc at that point. Thus it is clear from this that the voltage obtainable from a sliding contact at the edge of the rotating disc with respect of the central axis is not the sum of the voltages appearing in the disc. We can conceive electricity as a source-sink phenomenon. That is, electrons can appear at a negative pole and be absorbed at the positive pole. In terms of the operation of the Faraday disc with the magnetic field closed through the disc, this means the current flow with a load interposed between brushs placed on the outer edge and central axis of the disc, will be as shown by the arrows on figure (3). When the flux path is closed through the disc, the electrical pole normally residing on the axis or center of the disc is displaced radially. The radial displacement of the positive pole to the radius r1 means that with the indicated current flow the inner portion of the machine may be made to motor against the drag created by the extraction of electricity from the edge of the machine vs the center. The torque (or drag) created by the motoring action of a Faraday disc is proportional to the total flux linkages passing through the area of the disc illuminated by the magnetic field. In the example shown the central area is (Pi x r1 ^2), and the area of the peripheral annular ring is (Pi x ((r3 ^2) - (r2 ^2))). With a machine operated at magnetic saturation it is easy to see that with the above areas made equal drag from the machine will disappear. The Faraday disc uses inertial (centrifugal) and magnetic forces to elicit the pattern of electrical potential on the rotating disc. The production of electrical energy from a Faraday disc with the flux path closed through the disc, an N machine, without drag is just a violation of a completely unsubstantiated supposition that mechanical work input to the machine must be provided when electrical power is withdrawn. On the practical side the operation of the machine is unaffected whether the magnets are rotated with disc or not and the machine may be made self exciting by cutting a spiral into the portion of the disc covering the central pole face. Rotation of the magnets and disc together facilitates the seriesing of machines to provide higher output voltages while retaining input and output poles on the axles of the machine. The secret of the Faraday disc thus simply becomes: the Faraday disc is a free-energy machine. The anti-torques experienced in the early use of the machine supported a work-ethic paradigm which was not questioned. When the magnetic flux path is closed symmetrically through the disc instead of around the disc as in the early machines the drag associated with the flow of current disappears. An interesting thought is the drag is really an anti-torque created by something which passes through the disc and motors it in the opposite direction to the direction which would be created when it was electron current which was flowing through the disc. An interpretation consistant with the Lenz Law interpretation of the drag against a current carrying wire moving with linear velocity perpendicular to lines of magnetic flux linkage can be developed out of this. It may well be that when electrons are liberated from the edge of a Faraday disc with the circuit completed to the center; what flows through the disc may not be electrons. It may well be that a hole current completes the path through the disc. When current carrying conductors are moving through magnetic fields it may well be that electrons are not flowing through those portions of the moving conductors in which electricity is being 'generated'. Consideration will show that electron flow through a wire moving perpendicular to a magnetic field should assist the motion of the wire. The centrifugal extraction of energy from the inertial field of space was first demonstrated by Faraday in 1831. The proper interpretation of the experiment as a free energy machine has taken some time since the other possibility, of closing the flux path through the disc has never been thought of. The following description from Faraday's notes is a bit imprecise, it seems that the term screw indicates CW and unscrew indicates CCW. If this is the correct translation then this is simply a change in direction of the induced current. This comes about when both the copper disc and magnet are rotated together. In Faraday's own words (somewhat annotated) : When the magnet and disc (are rotated) together, (by) unscrew(ing or adjusting the ammeter) the marked end of the needle went west. When the magnet and disc (are) rotated (by) screw(ing or adjusting the ammeter) the marked end of the needle went east. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HOMOPOLAR "FREE-ENERGY" GENERATOR TEST Robert Kincheloe ABSTRACT Known for over 150 years, the Faraday homopolar generator has been claimed to provide a basis for so-called "free-energy" generation, in that under certain conditions the extraction of electrical output energy is not reflected as a corresponding mechanical load to the driving source. During 1985 I was invited to test such a machine. While it did not perform as claimed, repeatable data showed anomalous results that did not seem to conform to traditional theory. In particular, under certain assumptions about internally generated output voltage, the increase in input power when power was extracted from the generator over that measured due to frictional losses with the generator unexcited seemed to be either about 13% or 20% of the maximum computed generated power, depending on interpretation. The paper briefly reviews the homopolar generator, describes the tests on this particular machine, summarizes and presents tentative conclusions from the resulting data. THE SUNBURST HOMOPOLAR GENERATOR In July, 1985, I became aware of and was invited to examine and test a so-called free-energy generator known as the Sunburst N Machine. This device, shown in Figs 1a and 1b, was proposed by Bruce DePalma and constructed by Charya Bernard of the Sunburst Community in Santa Barbara, CA, about 1979. The term "free-energy" refers to the claim by DePalma [1] (and others [2]) that it was capable of producing electrical output power that was not reflected as a mechanical load to the driving mechanism but derived from presumed latent spatial energy. Apart from mechanical frictional and electrical losses inherent in the particular construction, the technique employed was claimed to provide a basis for constructing a generator which could supply the energy to provide not only its own motive power but also additional energy for external use. From August 1985 to April 1986 I made a series of measurements on this particular machine to test these claims. GENERATOR DESCRIPTION Details of the generator construction are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. It consists essentially of an electromagnet formed by a coil of 3605 turns of #10 copper wire around a soft iron core which can be rotated with the magnetic field parallel to and symmetrical around the axis of rotation. At each end of the magnet are conducting bronze cylindrical plates, on one of which are arranged (as shown in Fig. 3) one set of graphite brushes for extracting output current between the shaft and the outer circumference and a second set of metering brushes for independently measuring the induced voltage between these locations. A third pair of brushes and slip rings supply the current for the electromagnet. A thick sheath of epoxy-impregnated fiberglass windings allow the magnet to be rotated at high speed. The generator may be recognized as a so-called homopolar, or acyclic machine, a device first investigated and described by Michael Faraday [3] in 1831 (Figs. 4,5) and shown schematically in Fig. 6. It consists of a cylindrical conducting disk immersed in an axial magnetic field, and can be operated as a generator with sliding brushes extracting current from the voltage induced between the inner and outer regions of the disk when the rotational energy is supplied by an external driving source. The magnitude of the incremental radial generated voltage is proportional to both the strength of the magnetic field and the tangential velocity, so that in a uniform magnetic field the total voltage is proportional to the product of speed times the difference between the squares of the inner and outer brush radii. The device may also be used as a motor when an external voltage produces an radial current between the sliding brushes. There have been a number of commercial applications of homopolar motors and generators, particularly early in this century [4], and their operating principles are described in a number of texts [5]. The usual technique is to use a stationary magnet to produce the magnetic field in which the conducting disk (or cylinder) is rotated. Faraday found, however, (Fig 7) that it does not matter whether the magnet itself is stationary or rotating with the disk as long as the conductor is moving in the field, but that rotating the magnet with the conducting disk stationary did not produce an induced voltage. He concluded that a magnetic field is a property of space itself, not attached to the magnet which serves to induce the field [6]. DePalma stated [7] that when the conducting disk is attached to a rotating magnet, the interaction of the primary magnetic field with that produced by the radial output current results in torque between the disk and the magnet structure which is not reflected back to the mechanical driving source. Lenz's law therefore does not apply, and the extraction of output energy does not require additional driving power. This is the claimed basis for extracting "free" energy. Discussions of the torque experienced by a rotating magnet are also discussed in the literature [8]. Because the simple form shown in Fig. 6 has essentially one conducting path, such a homopolar device is characterized by low voltage and high current requiring a large magnetic field for useful operation. Various homopolar devices have been used for specialized applications [9] (such as generators for developing large currents for welding, ship degaussing, liquid metal magnetohydrodynamic pumps for nuclear reactor cooling, torquemotors for propulsion, etc.), some involving quite high power. These have been extensively discussed in the literature, dealing with such problems as developing the high magnetic fields required (sometimes using superconducting magnets in air to avoid iron saturation effects), the development of brushes that can handle the very high currents and have low voltage drop because of the low output voltage generated, and with counteracting armature reaction which otherwise would reduce the output voltage because of the magnetic field distortion resulting from the high currents. From the standpoint of prior art, the design of the Sunburst generator is inefficient and not suitable for power generation: 1. The magnetic field is concentrated near the axis where the tangential velocity is low, reducing the generated voltage. 2. Approximately 4 kilowatts of power are required to energize the magnet, developing enough heat so that the device can only be operated for limited periods of time. 3. The graphite brushes used have a voltage drop almost equal to the total induced voltage, so that almost all of the generated power is consumed in heating the brushes. 4. The large contacting area (over 30 square inches) of the brushes needed for the high output current creates considerable friction loss. Since this machine was not intended as a practical generator but as a means for testing the free energy principle, however, from this point of view efficiency in producing external power was not required or relevant. DEPALMA'S RESULTS WITH THE SUNBURST HOMOPOLAR GENERATOR In 1980 DePalma conducted tests with the Sunburst generator, describing his measurement technique and results in an unpublished report [10]. The generator was driven by a 3 phase a-c 40 horsepower motor by a belt coupling sufficiently long that magnetic fields of the motor and generator would not interact. A table from this report giving his data and results is shown in Fig. 8. For a rotational speed of 6000 rpm an output power of 7560 watts was claimed to require an increase of 268 watts of drive power over that required to supply losses due to friction, windage, etc. as measured with the output switch open. If valid, this would mean that the output power was 28.2 times the incremental input power needed to produce it. Several assumptions were made in this analysis: 1. The drive motor input power was assumed to be the product of the line voltage and current times the appropriate factor for a three-phase machine and an assumed constant 70% power factor. There was apparently no consideration of phase angle change as the motor load increased. This gives optimistic results, since consideration of phase angle is necessary for calculating power in an a-c circuit, particularly with induction motors. It might also be noted that the measured incremental line current increase of 0.5 ampere (3.3%) as obtained with the analog clamp-on a-c ammeter that was used was of limited accuracy. 2. The output power of the generator was taken to be the product of the measured output current and the internally generated voltage in the disk less the voltage drop due only to internal disk resistance. Armature reaction was thus neglected or assumed not to be significant. 3. The generated voltage which produced the current in the main output brushes was assumed to be the same as that measured at the metering brushes, and the decrease in metered voltage from 1.5 to 1.05 volts when the output switch is closed was assumed to be due to the internal voltage drop resulting from the output current flowing through the internal disk resistance that is common to both sets of brushes and calculated to 62.5 microohms. Of these, the first assumption seems the most serious, and it is my opinion that the results of this particular test were inaccurate. Tim Wilhelm of Stelle, Illinois, who witnessed tests of the Sunburst generator in 1981, had a similar opinion [11]. RECENT TESTS OF THE SUNBURST GENERATOR Being intrigued by DePalma's hypothesis, I accepted the offer by Mr. Norman Paulsen, founder of the Sunburst Community, to conduct tests on the generator which apparently had not been used since the tests by DePalma and Bernard in 1979. Experimental Setup A schematic diagram of the test arrangement is shown in Fig. 9, with the physical equipment shown in Fig. 10. The generator is shown coupled by a long belt to the drive motor behind it, together with the power supplies and metering both contained within and external to the Sunburst power and metering cabinet. Figure 10b shows the panel of the test cabinet which provided power for the generator magnet and motor field. The 4-1/2 digit meters on the panel were not functional and were not used; external meters were supplied. I decided to use an avaiable shunt-field d-c drive motor to facilitate load tests at different speeds and to simplify accurate motor input power measurements. Referring to Figure 9, variacs and full-wave bridge rectifiers provided variable d-c supplies for the motor armature and field and the homopolar generator magnet. Voltages and currents were measured with Micronta model 11-191 3-1/2 digit meters calibrated to better than 0.1% against a Hewlett Packard 740B Voltage Standard that by itself was accurate to better than .005%. Standard meter shunts together with the digital voltmeters were used to measure the various currents. With this arrangement the generator speed could be varied smoothly from 0 to over 7000 rpm, with accurate measurement of motor input power, metered generator output voltage Vg and generator output current Ig. Speed was measured with a General Radio model 1531 Strobotac which had a calibration accuracy of better than 2% (as verified with a frequency counter) and which allowed determination of relative speed changes of a few rpm of less. Small changes in either load or input power were clearly evident because of the sensitivity of the Strobotac speed measurement, allowing the motor input power to be adjusted with the armature voltage variac to obtain the desired constant speed with no acceleration or deceleration before taking readings from the various meters. Generator Tests Various tests were conducted with the output switch open to confirm that generated voltage at both the output brushes (Vbr) and metering brushes (Vg) were proportional to speed and magnetic field, with the polarity reversing when magnetic field or direction of rotation were reversed. Tracking of Vbr and Vg with variation of magnetic field is shown in Fig. 11, in which it is seen that the output voltages are not quite linearly related to magnet current, probably due to core saturation. The more rapid departure of Vg from linearity may be due to the different brush locations as seen on Fig 3, differences in the magnetic field at the different brush locations, or other causes not evident. An expanded plot of this voltage difference is shown in Fig. 12, and is seen to considerably exceed meter error tolerances. Figure 11 also shows an approximate 300 watt increase in drive motor armature power as the magnet field was increased from 0 to 19 amperes. (The scatter of input power measurements shown in the upper curve of Fig. 11 resulted from the great sensitivity of the motor armature current to small fluctuations in power line voltage, since the large rotary inertia of the 400 pound generator did not allow speed to rapidly follow line voltage changes). At first it was thought that this power loss might be due to the fact that the outer output brushes were arranged in a rectangular array as shown in Fig. 3. Since they were connected in parallel but not equidistant from the axis the different generated voltages would presumably result in circulating currents and additional power dissipation. Measurement of the generated voltage as a function of radial distance from the axis as shown in Fig. 13, however, showed that almost all of the voltage differential occurred between 5 and 12 cm, presumably because this was the region of greatest magnetic field due to the centralized iron core. The voltage in the region of the outer brushes was almost constant, with a measured variation of only 3.7% between the extremes, so that this did not seem to explain the increase in input power. The other likely explanation seems to be that there are internal losses in the core and other parts of the metal structure due to eddy currents, since these are also moving conductors in the field. In any event, the increase in drive power was only about 10% for the maximum magnet current of 19 amperes. Figure 14 typifies a number of measurements of input power and generator performance as a function of speed and various generator conditions. Since the generator output knife switch procedure was very stiff and difficult to operate the procedure used was to make a complete speed run from zero to the maximum speed and descending again to zero with the switch open, taking readings at each speed increment with the magnet power both off and on. The procedure was then repeated with the switch closed. (It was noted that during the descending speed run the input power was a few percent lower than for the same speed during the earlier ascending speed run; this was presumably due to reduced friction as the brushes and/or bearings became heated. In plotting the data the losses for both runs were averaged which gave a conservative result since the losses shown in the figures exceed the minimum values measured). The upper curve (a) shows the motor armature input power with a constant motor field current of 6 amperes as the speed is varied with no generator magnet excitation and is seen to reach a maximum of 4782 watts as the speed is increased to 6500 rpm. This presumably represents the power required to overcome friction and windage losses in the motor, generator, and drive belt, and are assumed to remain essentially constant whether the generator is producing power or not [12]. Curve 14b shows the increase of motor armature power over that of curve (a) that results from energizing the generator magnet with a current of 16 amperes but with the generator output switch open so that there is no output current (and hence no output power dissippation). This component of power (which is related to the increase of drive motor power with increased magnet current as shown in Fig. 11 as discussed above) might also be present whether or not the generator is producing output current and power, although this is not so evident since the output current may affect the magnetic field distribution. Curve 14c shows the further increase of motor armature input power over that of curves (a) plus (b) that results when the output switch is closed, the generator magnet is energized and output current is produced. It is certainly not zero or negligible but rises to a maximum of 802 watts at 6500 rpm. The total motor armature input power under these conditions is thus the sum of (a), (b), and (c) and reaches a maximum of 6028 watts at 6500 rpm. The big question has to do with the generated output power. The measured output current at 6500 rpm was 4776 amperes; the voltage at the metering brushes was 1.07 volts. Using a correction factor derived from Fig. 12 and assuming a common internal voltage drop due to a calculated disk resistance of 38 microohms, a computed internal generated potential of 1.28 volts is obtained which if multiplied by the measured output current indicates a generated power of 6113 watts. All of this power is presumably dissipated in the internal and external circuit resistances, the brush loss due both to the brush resistance and the voltage drops at the contact surfaces between the brushes and the disk (essentially an arc discharge), and the power dissipated in the 31.25 microohm meter shunt. It still represents power generated by the machine, however, and exceeds the 802 watts of increased motor drive power due solely to closing the generator output switch and causing output current to flow by a factor of 7.6 to 1. If the 444 watts of increased input power that resulted from energizing the magnet with the output switch open is assumed to have been converted to generated output power and hence should be included as part of the total increased drive motor power required to produce generated output, the computed 6113 watts of generated power still exceeds the total input power of 444 watts plus 802 watts by a factor of 4.9 to 1. The computed output power even slightly exceeds the total motor armature input power including all frictional and windage losses of 6028 watts under these conditions (although the total system effeciency is still less than 100% because of the generator magnet power of approximately 2300 watts and motor field power of about 144 watts which must be added to the motor armature power to obtain total system input power). It would thus seem that if the above assumptions are valid that DePalma correctly predicted that much of the generated power with this kind of machine is not reflected back to the motive source. Figure 15 summarizes the data discussed above. To further examine the question of the equivalence between the internally generated voltage at the main output brushes and that measured at the metering brushes, a test was made of the metered voltage as a function of speed with the generator magnet energized with a current of 20 amperes both with the output switch open and closed. The resulting data is shown in Fig. 16. The voltage rises to about 1.32 volts at 6000 rpm with the switch open (which is close to that obtained by DePalma) and drops 0.14 volts when the switch is closed and the measured output current is 3755 amperes, corresponding to an effective internal resistance of 37 microohms. Even if this were due to other causes, such as armature reaction, it does not seem likely that there would be a large potential drop between the output and metering brushes because of the small distance, low magnetic field (and radial differential voltage), and large mass of conducting disk material. Internal currents many times the measured output current of almost 4000 amperes would be required for the voltage difference between the outer metering and output brushes to be significant and invalidate the conclusions reached above. A further method of testing the validity of the assumed generated output potential involved an examination of the voltage drop across the graphite brushes themselves. Many texts on electrical machinery discuss the brush drop in machines with commutators or slip rings. All of those examined agree that graphite brushes typically have a voltage drop that is essentially constant at approximately one volt per brush contact when the current density rises above 10-15 amperes per square centimeter. To compare this with the Sunburst machine the total brush voltage was calculated by subtracting the IR drop due to the output current in the known (meter shunt) and calculated (disk, shaft, and brush lead) resistances from the assumed internally generated output voltage. The result in Fig. 17 shows that the brush drop obtained in this way is even less than that usually assumed, as typified by the superimposed curve taken from one text. It thus seems probable that the generated voltage is not significantly less than that obtained from the metering brushes, and hence the appropriateness of the computed output power is supported. CONCLUSIONS We are therefore faced with the apparent result that the output power obtained when the generator magnet is energized greatly exceeds the increase in drive power over that needed to supply losses with the magnet not energized. This is certainly anomalous in terms of convential theory. Possible explanations? 1. There could be a large error in the measurements resulting from some factor such as noise which caused the digital meters to read incorrectly or grossly inaccurate current shunt resistances. If the measured results had shown that the computed generated output power exceeded the input drive power by only a few percent this explanation would be reasonable and would suggest that more careful calibration and measurements might show that the results described above were due to measurement error. With the data showing such a large ratio of generated power to input power increase, however, in my opinion this explanation of the results seems unlikely. (A later test showed that the digital meters are insensitive to a large a-c ripple superimposed on the measured d-c, but within their rated accuracy of 0.1% give a true average value). 2. There could be a large difference between the measured voltage at the metering brushes and the actual generated voltage in the output brush circuit due to armature reaction, differences in the external metering and output circuit geometry, or other unexplained causes. As discussed above the various data do not seem to support this possibility. 3. DePalma may have been right in that there is indeed a situation here whereby energy is being obtained from a previously unknown and unexplained source. This is a conclusion that most scientists and engineers would reject out of hand as being a violation of accepted laws of physics, and if true has incredible implications. 4. Perhaps other possibilities will occur to the reader. The data obtained so far seems to have shown that while DePalma's numbers were high, his basic premise has not been disproved. While the Sunburst generator does not produce useful output power because of the internal losses inherent in the design, a number of techniques could be used to reduce the friction losses, increase the total generated voltage and the fraction of generated power delivered to an external load. DePalma's claim of free energy generation could perhaps then be examined. I should mention, however, that the obvious application of using the output of a "free-energy" generator to provide its own motive power, and thus truly produce a source of free energy, has occured to a number of people and several such machines have been built. At least one of these known to me [13], using what seemed to be a good design techniques, was unsuccessful. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ FOOTNOTES 1. DePalma, 1979a,b,c, 1981, 1983, 1984, etc. 2. For example, Satelite News, 1981, Marinov, 1984, etc. 3. Martin, 1932, vol. 1, p.381. 4. Das Gupta, 1961, 1962; Lamme, 1912, etc. 5. See, for example, Bumby, 1983; Bewley, 1952; Kosow, 1964; Nasar, 1970. 6. There has been much discussion on this point in the literature, and about interpretation of flux lines. Bewley, 1949; Cohn, 1949a,b; Crooks, 1978; Cullwick, 1957; Savage, 1949. 7. DePalma, op. cit. 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" AIEE Trans. Oct 1962, p399-402. (Discusses very high current low voltage Faraday generators) [DePalma, 1979a] - Bruce DePalma, EXTRACTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY DIRECTLY FROM SPACE: THE N-NACHINE, Simularity Institute, Santa Barbara CA, 6 Mar 1979. (Discusses homopolar generator or N- Machine as free-energy source) [DePalma, 1979b] - Bruce DePalma, "The N-Machine", Paper given at the World Symposium on Humanity, Pasadena, CA, 12 April 1979. (Describes background, development of "free-energy" theories) [DePalma, 1979c] - Bruce DePalma, ROTATION OF A MAGNETIZED GYROSCOPE, Simularity Institute Report #33, 16 July 1979. (Describes design of Sunburst homopolar generator) [DePalma, 1980] - Bruce DePalma, "Performance of the Sunburst N Machine", Simularity Institute, Santa Barbara, CA, 17 December 1980. (Description of tests and results) [DePalma, 1981] - Bruce DePalma, "Studies on rotation leading to the N-Machine", DePalma Institute, 1981 (transcript of talk?) (Discusses experiments with gravity that led to development of idea of free-energy machine) [DePalma, 1983] - Bruce DePalma, THE ROTATION OF THE UNIVERSE, DePalma Institute Report #83, Santa Barbara, CA, 25 July 1983. (Uses Faraday disc to discuss universal principles). [DePalma, 1984] - Bruce DePalma, THE SECRET OF THE FARADAY DISC, DePalma Institute, Santa Barbara, CA, 2 Feb 1984. (Claims explanation of Faraday disc as a free-energy device) [Kimball, 1926] - A. L. Kimball, Jr., "Torque on revolving cylindrical magnet", PHYS. REV. v.28, Dec 1928, p.1302-8. (Alternative analysis of torque in a homopolar device to that of Zeleny and Page, 1924) [Kosow, 1964] - Irving L. Kosow, ELECTRICAL MACHINERY & CONTROL, Prentice-Hall, 1964. (Discusses high current homopolar (acyclic) generators) [Lamme, 1912] - B. G. Lamme, "Development of a successful direct- current 2000-kW unipolar generator", AIEE Trans. 28 June 1912, p1811-40. (Early discussion of design of high power homopolar generator) [Marinov, 1984]- Stefan Marinov, THE THORNY WAY OF TRUTH, Part II; Graz, Austria, 1984 (Advertisement in NATURE). (Claims free- energy generator proved by DePalma, Newman) [Martin, 1932] - Thomas Martin (ed), FARADAY'S DIARY, Bell, 1932, in 5 vols. (Transcription and publication of Faraday's original diaries) [Nasar, 1970] - S. Nasar, ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES & SYSTEMS, Prentice-Hall, 1970. (Discusses principles and applications of acyclic (homopolar) machines) [Satellite News, 1981] - "Researchers see long-life satellite power systems in 19th century experiment", Research news, SATELLITE NEWS, 15 June 1981. (Reports DePalma's claim for free-energy generator) [Savage, 1949] - Norton Savage, letter re [Cohn, 1949a]; ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, July 1949, p645. (Claims error in Cohn's paper) [Wilhelm, 1980] - Timothy J. Wilhelm, INVESTIGATIONS OF THE N-EFFECT ONE-PIECE HOMOPOLAR DYNAMOS, ETC. (Phase I), Stelle, IL, 12 Sept 1980. (Discusses tests on DePalma's N-Machine) [Wilhelm, 1981] - Timothy J. Wilhelm, INVESTIGATIONS OF THE N-EFFECT ONE-PIECE HOMOPOLAR DYNAMOS, ETC. (Phase II), Stelle, IL, 10 June 1981. (Design and tests of improved homopolar generator/motor) [Zeleny, 1924] - John Zeleny & Leigh Page, "Torque on a cylindrical magnet through which a current is passing", PHYS. REV. v.24, 14 July 1924, p.544-59. (Theory and experiment on torque in a homopolar device) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ENERGY FROM SPACE An Engineer's Invention Excites Interest In a tiny room in a Bombay suburb, an electrical engineer works on a machine that seems to have been conceived in a Sci-Fi book - a generator which can ostensibly produce electricity from nothing. But the machine's creator, Paramahamsa Tewari, 51, is not an eccentric inventor from one of Sukumar Ray's fantastic tales. He is a senior engineer with the Department of Atomic Energy's Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC). Tewari created a minor sensation 10 years ago when he produced the theory that space is filled with a dynamic medium whose swirling motion is the source of all matter and energy. He called it the Space Vortex Theory (SVT) which postulated that at the heart of the electron was a void whose high speed rotation within a vacuum could produce energy from space. Interestingly, it was the Theosophical Society which had first published Tewari's theory by arranging a special lecture in 1977 at Adyar in Madras. The theosophists were excited by Tewari's ideas since they were remarkably close to observations about the electron put forward by Annie Besant's associate, the clairvoyant Charles W. Leadbeater, in the book "Occult Chemistry." However, the first indication that Tewari's ideas about the structure of space were more than just a mystic vision came earlier this year at a conference in Hanover organised by the German Association of Gravity Field Energy. The Space Power Generator (SPG) invented by Tewari won the first prize of Rs 25,000 from among 25 similar machines presented at the conference by scientists from all over. Tewari's generator is actually a simple machine, consisting basically of a magnetised cylinder rotating at high speed with the help of a motor. Power from this device is extracted by connecting a wire between the surface of the cylinder and its axis. According to the engineer- inventor, the SPG produces two-and-a-half to three-and- a-half times more power than it consumes, defying the basic physical law of conservation of energy which says that the output of energy cannot be more than the input. Tewari says the excess power comes from the inter-atomic space of the rotating cylinder - it is the movement of the "voids" in the spinning cylinder which creates additional energy out of the space between the machine's axis and the magnet. Tewari admits that his theory sounds incredible taking into account the existing laws and that he would never have developed it had he been trained as a physicist and not an engineer, since it is so divergent from conventional physics. But, he says, it would have been difficult for him to go on with work on the SVT and the generator were it not for encouragement from two US physicists, John A. Wheeler, director of the Centre for Theoretical Physics at the University of Texas, Austin, and Bruce DePalma, formerly a lecturer in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "But for DePalma, I wouldn't have been able to tie up my theory," says Tewari. "He was working on similar ideas and kept sending his results to me." Though Tewari, who is slated for transfer to the NPC's Kaiga Project in Karnataka as chief project engineer, has pursued his interest in physics in his spare time, he has received infrastructural support from the NPC for putting together his extraordinary new machine. The SPG was built under Tewari's supervision at the Tarapur Atomic Plant. "Tewari's prototype SPG can be considered a major breakthrough," says S. L. Kati, managing director of NPC. Before leaving for Hanover, Tewari addressed a meeting of scientists and engineers at the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre on his theory. But most physicists remained sceptical about his findings. Undaunted, he is experimenting with a new model of the SPG since his return, which he feels will be an improvement. He eventually hopes to create a prototype for a generator which could deliver 50 kw to 100 kw of electricity. "The encouragement I received abroad has been a great help, and hopefully within a year, I will be able to build an experimental model which could ultimately prove commercially viable," he says. Tewari, of course, is not the only engineer hoping to build the ultimate power generation machine - one which will run perpetually since it will extract energy from space - as the Hanover conference demonstrated. In fact, DePalma, the first inventor to create such a machine, is presently conducting experiments in California in anticipation of a breakthrough which could lead to commercial production. Their work promises to create ultimately a machine which appears to come straight out of a futuristic fantasy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 October 1989 An Introduction to Free Energy Physics by Bruce DePalma It should be appreciated here that the ideas which are presented are coming from the mind of one man. The mind of this one man is permeated by the sea of space, which is the repository of all knowledge. What we see is what we get is the substance of this essay. Space, i.e. the vacuum, is filled with a sea of particles. I call them Psions. The Psion flux is responsible for the Brownian motions and "zero point energy" fluctuations. The isotropic Psion flux moves at the speed of light. The Psions interact with matter only slightly -- enough to cause Brownian motions and heat transfer. The Psion as an elemental particle principle is not perfect, it contains the defect of weight or mass which makes momentum transfer possible. Its principle property is memory. That is, the Psion remembers the material space it has just passed through, and retains the impression for a given (quantized) relaxation time depending on the strength of the impression. Everyone is under the impression that antennas "radiate" electromagnetic energy. Consider the condition where the electrical excitation in the conductors of the antenna is transported (at the speed of light, C) to the observer by the Psion flux. The energy absorbed by the hysteresis of space, (as Tesla observed it), or the imperfection of the Psion interaction. The Psion hypothesis offers two great advantages. The first is free energy, and the second is the result of the wish of the desirer, the formulator of the experiment. The first hypothesis of free energy is: Energy is only created or destroyed, and is not converted from one form to another. If all the energy liberating processes of the material world are considered as drawing their energy from the free energy field of space, then the amount of work we expend in liberating this energy becomes a result of the perfection of our ideas in the resolution of an experiment, (i.e. the production of energy). The electrical generator does not convert the mechanical input to an electrical result. The gasoline engine does not convert the latent heat of combustion of the fuel to visible work energy. The fuel which is burned is the result of the imperfection of the process for the recovery of (energy in this manner) from space. A perfect electrical generator would reflect understanding of the material universe to the extent that an energy liberation process could be materialized (i.e. constructed in material form), which would not consume itself or alter as the result of the energy which was being liberated (from the free energy substrate). The proof of this idea resides in the N machine/Space Power Generators being simultaneously developed in the U.S.A. and Indian Nuclear Power Board Laboratories in Karwar, India. The Psion is so named because it coincides with the intelligent part of reality we call the mind. The mind is a result of it, and it is the result of the mind. Descriptive reality can take us no further than this. The experimenter is the result of the experiment, is the final result. Thus the wish or the desire of the experimenter is turned into the result of his experiment. A man detects particles or waves depending under which hypothesis he is operating. The impression of the light is brought to the experimenter by the Psion flux, the result of his experiment is what he wants to detect. If he wants particles he uses a photon detector, if he wants waves he uses a diffraction grating. This explains all particle and nuclear physics. Man's role as creator can only be elaborated through resolution of discipline and related forms. The result of the experiment is what man wanted so he must perfect his own principles and resolve his thought -- which is what we make into reality, Man and his machines. I want to add a thought about quantization. States are distinguished one from another by what I call the least distinguishable thought. This is reflected in the decibel scale of hearing, and the musical scales of notes. After interaction with a material object the Psion retains an impression which has a certain relaxation time. In general, the relaxation time must be long enough to satisfy terrestrial measurements of the inverse square law; but for intergalactic distances the quantum measurement effect of the least distinguishable measurement would take place so that at a certain distance, light would just fade out. Thought and time will give many other attributes to the Psion hypothesis. Has man reached his limit or not. Every theory is a crutch to further-out places. A possible thought: A free energy society could create anything it wanted. There might be some point in the history of the future when man might just forget himself -- and start over again. Bruce DePalma ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ng. This explains all particle and nuclear physics. Man's role as creator can only be elaborated through resolution of discipline and related forms. The result of the experiment is what man wanted so he must perfect his own principles and resolve his thought -- which is what we make into reality, Man and his machines. I want to add a thought about quantization. States are distinguished one from another by what I call the least distinguishable thought. This is reflected in the decibel scale of hearing, and the musical scales of notes. After interaction with a material object the Psion retains an impression which has a certain relaxation time. In general, the relaxation time must be long enough to satisfy terrestrial measurements of the inverse square law; but for intergalactic distances the quantum measurement effect of the least distinguishable measurement would take place so that at a certain distance, light would just fade out. Thought and time will give many other attributes to the Psion hypothesis. Has man reached his limit or not. Every theory is a crutch to further-out places. A possible thought: A free energy society could create anything it wanted. There might be some point in the history of the future when man might just forget himself -- and start over again. Bruce DePalma ------------------------------------------------------------------------------