Showing posts with label magnetic engines. Show all posts

Tuesday, 12 June 2012

The De Palma-Tewari Free Energy Magnetic Induction Motor

Bruce Eldridge De Palma was the son of noted orthopaedic surgeon Anthony DePalma and the elder brother of film director Brian De Palma. Bruce was a well-known figure in the Free energy suppression community.

Panacea has some brief detail of this energy suppression case profiled on the energy suppression page. His N-machine Homopolar generator is a device based on the Faraday disc and was reported to produce up to five times the energy required to run it.

Reference

After Bruce's death his research was discontinued. A close friend of Bruce, Paramahamsa Tewari had been under some instruction and was in partnership with Bruce to produce the N machines.

Paramahamsa Tewari made a breakthrough in a method of electrical power generation. He has been granted an Indian Patent (Application number 397/Bom/94) for an increased efficiency homopolar generator.

This device is described by the theoretical papers in this web site as a Space Power Generator (SPG).Both Bruce's, and Tewarie's research and prototypes have been discontinued to this day!

Taken from Link showing the tested N machine prototype.

Quote from Tewari's web site:

The Space Power Generator is proven technology that produces 200-300 percent over-unity energy.

Experiments conducted during the last 10 years have indicated that his Space Power Generator (SPG) is operating at over-unity efficiency. Many researchers have performed experiments with these devices, also called homopolar generators or unipolar dynamos. The devices usually consist of a rotating magnetic disk called a Faraday homopolar generator in which electrical current is passed from the center of the disk to its edge.

Toby Grotz, of Wireless Engineering, visited India in December of 1997 to perform an independent set of measurements of the Tewari SPG. Using calibrated high-accuracy instruments, traceable to the National Bureau of Standards, tests were conducted that confirm Tewari's measurements. - End quote - Reference

For further detail please consult the web sites mentioned. Tewari has been shut down, exactly as Bruce was, this can only be due to cartel based influence. This has also been due to the mainstream faculties’ lack of investigation into the process.

The proposed granted Panacea research and development centre will nullify this from happening in future and will conduct all relative tests relating to this technology.

Panacea will pledge grants and engineers support towards this R&D once granted. If you're a member of the public or a scientific group who can aid in grants for the center or help the implosion communities please contact Panacea.

Bruce and Tewari have also done a number of technical papers which are relative to power engineering faculties and will be submitted, investigated and taught in the Panacea centre.

Further technical reference to both devices can be found here:

Link http://www.rexresearch.com/depalma/depalma.htm

Link http://www.rexresearch.com/tewari/tewari.htm (see below)

From Panacaea-BOCAF @ http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/depalmatewari.htm

rexresearch.com

Space Energy Generator

By Paramahamsa TEWARI

"Trombly's design is distinctly different from DePalma's. Trombly used the "closed-path" homopolar design, whereas DePalma used an "open-path" design. Trombly's worked, an DePalma's almost worked. Tewari received Trombly's clsoed path design in the mail, from DePalma, who happened onto an international patent application design, without Trombly's knowledge. Because Tewari's theoretical physics were in line with these technologies, and because, as head of nuclear power safety at the nuclear power station near Bombay, he had time, equipment, and funds, he tried out the Trombly/Kahn design, and succeeded..."

Email from Dr W. S. Eidelman (1-03)

Generation of Electrical Power from Absolute Vacuum

By P. Tewari

The universe can be broadly divided into space and dynamic matter with its motion governed by an intelligent scheme that permits an organized movement of all cosmic material bodies like moons, planets, stars and galaxies In addition to space and matter, another basic entity, energy, was shown to be the constituent of all universal matter as per Einstein's Theory of Relativity, propounded at the start of this century.

The interconvertibility of matter and energy extended the domain of universal reality from visible matter to invisible energy. Some recent experiments performed in USA and India and possibly in other countries too, have produced certain astonishing results as per which electrical power can be generated from absolute vacuum or space which is a phenomenon hitherto unknown. This new finding shall force a positive conclusion on substantial reality of space and will further enlarge the domain of basic reality from matter and energy, as known today, to the whole of the universal space.

Electric power is a phenomenon of current flow in an electrical conductor at some voltage or electric pressure. On the nature of electric current, it was discovered by the close of 19th century, that it is constituted of electrons, the subatomic particles that carry basic unit of electric charge. In electric power generators, electrons are produced from atoms of a conductor as it cuts through a magnetic field, and external power is therefore required to produce electrons and make them flow in load circuit.

The external sources of power in modern technology of power generation are mainly thermal, hydroelectric and nuclear. Electric power production today is a process of conversion of energy from one form to another rather than 'generation' in a true sense. Whereas the newly discovered process of generation of electric power from 'absolute vacuum' does not need any raw material like coal, nuclear fuel or a hydrogen source.

At the face of it, it sounds unbelievable, that vacuum which is considered by current scientific theories as a void or a state of nothingness can ever generate energy out of its own substratum. As per modern physics while 'absolute vacuum' or 'space' can no doubt transmit electromagnetic energy, in the absence of universal matter and its associated energy fields, there can be no energy-content that is ‘reality’ in space.

The concept of ether filling all space and atoms as 'vortices of ether' introduced by Rene Descartes(1596-1650) and developed to a great extent by the close of 19th century found no favour in the early 20th century. Though the domain of reality was extended from matter to energy by Einstein's Relativity Theory, yet space devoid of universal matter ceased to have any substantiality. In the new phenomenon of space power generation (SPG) electrical power is produced by rotating at high speed conducting disc magnets or electromagnets, named as N-Generator by Bruce De Palma, a U.S. inventor. In 1978 he discovered that electrical power produced by such a device did not require an equivalent energy input to the drive motor that rotated the N-Generator. The experimental results are in violation of the 'law of conservation of energy' unless it is supposed that the additional energy is generated within the interatomic vacuum or space in the rotating body of the N-Generator. A new theory on space, energy and matter, Space Vortex Theory (SVT) which posits the concept of dynamic space as the most fundamental substratum of reality, and electrons as 'vortices of space' explains the principles behind SPG phenomenon.

As per SVT, all universal matter is created from substantial space, just as bubbles, vortices and waves are produced in an ocean of water. It is space that has manifested as planets, stars and galaxies is the conclusion of SVT. Space is more fundamental than matter. There is no point in space that is devoid of reality. Thus the domain of reality already extended from matter to energy by Relativity Theory encompasses the whole of the universal space as per SVT.

A space power generator consists of a soft-iron core on which electromagnet coils are wound. Both the coils and the iron core are rotated together, there being no relative motion between the magnetic field and the soft iron conductor of the core. A vortex of space is formed in the rotating iron, due to which electrical charge is produced, which interacts with orbital electrons of the iron atoms and sets them free. The free electrons are interacted with the magnetic field creating positive and negative polarities between which output power at high current and few volts is drawn.

In the future when the newly discovered principles of SPG are made technically viable, electrical generators of capacity in tens of kilowatts and of sizes comparable with conventional electrical generators will be providing electrical power to remote regions, presently with no power distribution network and for such installations where power requirement of each unit is limited to say about 10~ kW.

The space power generators will require initial drive before becoming self-sustaining, for which conventional diesel engines or battery power will be needed. A number of units of N-generators installed at one location can meet larger load requirements for rural electrification and may be smaller towns as well. Modern technology is well advanced to undertake construction of these new machines that do not require any such specialized items of materials that need long time development. High speed rotation of machines and collection of power at few volts but very large currents will require special attention in the development of space power generators.

On space being filled with energy that created matter, Michelson in 1899 had remarked, "Suppose that an ether strain corresponds to an electric charge, an ether displacement to the electric current, ether vortices to the atoms; if we continue these suppositions, we arrive at what may be one of the grandest generalization of modern science, namely, that all the phenomena of the physical universe are only different manifestations of the various modes of motion of one all pervading substance, the ether". At the close of 19th century, the concept of ether filling all space as introduced by Descartes was about to be recognized as the basic reality. Earlier to Descartes, Thales (624-546 B.C) a Greek philosopher considered water as the primary substance in the universe.

The Upanishadic Rishis of Bharat, however, thousands of years ago, proclaimed that 'Akasha’ or space is the first element that gave birth to air. From air was born fire or heat and their various combinations produced water and earth. Very rightly indeed, did the Upanishads discriminate among the five elements pinpointing the akasha as the most fundamental entity potent with energy. This experiment on generation of power from space will reestablish Vedantic philosophy of eternal existence of Akasha as a substratum, the ‘one reality' out of which the cosmic worlds arose. The new science of space power generation will scientifically vindicate the vedantic science on the evolution of the universe.

The N-Generator has been further developed in the USA by De Palma, Trombly and Kahn, who could generate about 45 Kw of power with an input of only 9 Kw, thus getting an incremental power ratio of output further to input, about 5. Bruce De Palma is also further developing his N- generator, trying to achieve perpetual motion. He is quite close to success. The model of space power generator built at Tarapur Atomic Power Station for demonstration of the new principle gave an incremental power ratio of output to input about 2.5. This machine is proposed to be taken to West Germany for demonstration at Hannover in an International Conference for Gravity Field Energy, that will be held there in mid-March 1987.

From letters received from USA, West Germany and many other countries, it is evident that the 'over-unity' system which is the name given to space power generation, is catching attention of world scientists and engineers. Being an entirely new technology, it has presently some controversy too associated with its development, especially in USA. The proposed conference at Hannover being organised by Dr Hans Nieper, President, German Association of Gravity Field Energy, West Germany, Hannover, to which I have been invited to deliver a talk on 'Space Vortex Theory' will hopefully be an interesting forum to discuss with scientists and engineers, the new and novel phenomenon of Space Power generation.

Today's need for power is met by man at the cost of ecological balance that nature inherently devises through its forests, rivers, mountains end oceans, and atmospheric belt of air. The pollution of planet through excessive combustion of coal, oil and gases, deforestation and other hazards to the maintenance of clear environment in populated areas, will be prevented to a good extent with the development of power generation from Vacuum.

Maybe it is the final jump of progress in power generation technology that energy is produced from space, which is not only the cleanest resource for power, but will also outlive all forms of cosmic matter both inanimate and animate.

Violation of Law of Conservation of Charge in Space Power Generation Phenomenon

by P. Tewari
( Chief Project Engineer, Kaiga Project, Nuclear Power Corp., Karwar, India)

(Reprinted from Magnets In Your Future )

Introduction ~

It has been hitherto believed in physics that the total electric charge in the Universe is a constant quantity, and if additional charge appears in some region, it is only at the expense of the charge deficit in some other regions. It is a basic law that electric charge is conserved and cannot be destroyed or created. Precise experiments on a Space Power Generator (SPG) which has been now further developed to demonstrate the commercial viability of the newly discovered phenomenon of space power generation however, totally violate the existing law of conservation of charge, by generating output electrical power much in excess of the input electrical power. Since electric charge is a form of basic energy, the law of conservation of energy will need to be enlarged to incorporate in it the dynamics of absolute vacuum (Ref. 1), which in a state of rotation generates fundamental field to produce electrical charge and energy.

Description of the SPG ~

Figure (1): Space Power Generator

The SPG shown in Figure (1) is a further developed form of the machines described (Ref. 2,3) in earlier issues of this magazine. A non-magnetic shaft interconnects two mild steel rotors on which two electromagnets are mounted. Electric power at 1.5 volt dc and high amperes is drawn fro each unit, with the help of copper-graphite brushes when the machine runs at 2860 rpm directly coupled and driven by an induction motor. The power is drawn between the inner rotor’s cylindrical surface and the shaft through dc shunts that enable measurements of high dc current.

The SPG weighs about 150 kg and is fabricated out of 120 mm thick mild steel plate. The two units enable generation of power at more than 3 volts dc by appropriate series connections between the two coils. The electromagnet’s coils are 16 swg super enameled wire with 216 turns in each coil. The feature that brings improvements (Ref. 4) in this machine is the larger diameter of the rotors that produce higher dc voltage at comparatively lower speed, not exceeding 3000 rpm. Also the twin units with a single coil in each unit double the amount of power.

Test Results ~

The drive motor (DM) takes no-load current of 2.6 amperes (1300 watts) to rotate itself and the SPG to overcome windage and friction at 2870 rpm. The no-load voltage internally generated in each unit of the SPG is adjusted to 1.5 volts dc between the shaft and the inner rotor by the control of the dc excitation current in the two electromagnets’ coils connected in series. The excitation current is 31 amperes, the total dc resistance of the two coils being 2.5 ohms. The power given to the electromagnets is 31 x 31 x 2.5, that is, 2400 watts.

The two shunts with calibration of 200 amperes for 75 mV are now connected across the two output circuits. The dc currents measured in each circuit are almost equal to 2613 amperes corresponding to 98 mV reading of the shunt. The output electrical power of each unit is 2613 x 1.5 watts, that is 3919 watts. Total electrical power from the two units is 7839 watts. As the SPG is electrically loaded, the current of DM rises to 10 amperes, showing a rise of 7.4 amperes over the no-load current, and corresponding to a rise in input electrical power of 3700 watts.

The load current of the DM of 10 amperes amounts to the total electrical input to the DM of 5000 watts, out of which 1300 watts is utilized to overcome the no-load losses. The remaining electrical input of 3700 watts generates 7839 watts of electrical output power, giving the efficiency of space power generation in this particular machine as 211.8%. Assuming electromagnetic efficiency of the DM as 80%, the efficiency of the electrical energy generation of the SPG will rise to 264.75%

If the excitation power of 2400 watts given to the SPG is deducted from the SPG of 7839 watts, the balance electrical output of 5439 watts still exceeds the total electrical input of 5000 watts by 439 watts, giving the total system efficiency of 105.9% while, in addition the DM-SPG set runs as a perpetual system drawing 1300 watts of power from space.

Quantum of Space Power ~

The quantum of electrical charge produced due to the rotation of space in a rotating electromagnet and the electrical power produced when the power is withdrawn through an electric circuit, as discussed in an earlier article (Ref 2), is given by:

(1) P = (1.8) LNr²10^-5 kW

where, P is the power in kW, L is the axial length of the SPG in centimeters, N is the revolutions per second, and ‘r’ is the radius in centimeters of the SPG on the inner rotor surface.

The derivation of the above relation was based on the assumption that the radius of the spherical void at the center of the electron as discussed in space vortex theory (Ref. 1, 2) is 1.5 x 10^-11 cm. More precise measurements in space power generation experiments, however, show that the coefficient 1.8 in equation (1) should be 2.5, and the void radius at the electron’s center should be taken as 10^-11 cm. With these corrections the space power equation (1) now becomes:

(2) P = (2.5) LNr²10^-5 kW

Substituting the values, L = 12, N = 47.6, and r = 11.43 in Eq. (2), P = 5.85 kW.

Since there are two units of the SPG on the shaft, total power from the two units will be 11.7 kW, which is 1.5 times the output power drawn from the machine in the above test. With additional brushes and reduced brush contacts at about 3000 rpm, the above machine will have capacity to produce about 12 kW of power. If the SPG is driven at 6000 rpm both the voltages and currents will be doubled, producing 4 times output of about 48 kW. Since the excitation power remains constant, much higher total system efficiency is expected though the efficiency of the SPG as computed above will remain constant at 211.8%.

Conclusion ~

The mass-energy equation of Einstein brought forth a universal law that an electron like all matter contains energy in its structure. A further enlargement of this law is that the electron itself is energy, where "energy" in physical terms is a state of vacuum in rotation. Even at ordinary speed of rotation of an electromagnet, the interatomic space of the iron core develops velocity fields of vacuum that qualitatively act like additional charge within the rotating system and liberate orbital electrons of the iron atoms. The interaction of the magnetic field and free electrons form polarities (Ref. 2, 3). It is possible to commercially develop a machine that can not only rotate itself perpetually but also generate additional electrical energy in kilowatts and higher range. The law of conservation of charge and the law of conservation of energy are applicable within the systems confined to material interactions alone and not to the medium of space which is a dynamic entity that can rotate and create charge at ordinary speeds, and can rotate and create electrons at the speed of light.

References ~

1) Paramahansa Tewari: Beyond Matter; 1984, Printwell Publications, Aligarh, India.

2) P. Tewari: Magnets In Your Future 1(8), August 1986; P.O. Box 580, Temecula, CA 92390.

3) P. Tewari: Magnets In Your Future 2(12), December 1987.

4) Bruce DePalma: "Report on the Initial Testing Phase of DePalma Energy Corporation"

See India Patent Specification

High Efficiency Space Power Generator

Paramahamsa Tewari

Patent Specification and further information from Borderland Research @ http://www.rexresearch.com/tewari/tewari.htm

Complete patent specifications @ http://depalma.pair.com/Tewari/Tpatent.html

For more information about the De Palma N-Machine see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/ search/label/n-machine

For more information about free energy devices and theories see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/ search/label/free%20energy

Help This Unique Independent Site Survive

Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!

Just click in the jar -

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @ New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the page @ http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

The Prince of Centraxis - http://centraxis.blogspot.com (Be Aware! This link leads to implicate & xplicit concepts & images!)

This site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a small but heartfelt donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper!

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Wednesday, 26 May 2010

NASA Overunity Test Team

NASA scientists Nelson & House willing to verify overunity electromagnetic machines

by Sterling D. Allan - Pure Energy Systems News

A couple of NASA scientists have been following the free energy world for years and would like to believe that Tesla type of technology is possible that harnesses limitless energy from the environment via electromagnetic means. One of them has a lab set up to test such claims.

Mike Nelson and Ken House, who work on the Space Shuttle project in Huntsville, Alabama have been following the free energy world for years and would like to believe that Tesla type of technology is possible that harnesses limitless energy from the environment via electromagnetic means.
However, this is not a free-for-all invitation for anyone who thinks they have an overunity device. Mike and Ken's pre-requisites are pretty stringent.
In their spare time, they are willing to put their reputation at stake in validating bona fide electromagnetic overunity (more energy out than what was put in). But "spare time" is the key word. They don't have much of it, so they don't want to spend time on things that haven't first been tested to show overunity by others; and they want to review the data that has been collected.
They don't represent NASA, but at least their testing can add the clout of "NASA scientists" to it.
Ken has a motor test and design lab, and they will be shooting a video soon that shows the set-up.
One critique I would give here regarding Ken and Mike's proposed testing, is that oscilloscopes may not be the best equipment for accurately measuring output, inasmuch as some of these exotic technologies may be harvesting a so-called "radiant energy" component that might not show up on the meter. The input electricity can be characterized by an oscilloscope, but the output is best measured mechanically in terms of real work performed, with the supposed added help of the free energy coming into the system. Ken and Mike acknowledge the need to test the output in terms of mechanical work done, but also mention that oscilloscopes would be helpful. I'm doubtful of the latter.
So if you have such a device, read through the correspondence below to get a feel for the pre-requisites; and once you have the information that satisfies those pre-requisites, feel free to contact Mike to relay your information and set up a test.
Visit the PESWiki page for more info, including correspondence from the NASA scientists describing their pre-requisites.
One critique I would give here regarding Ken and Mike's proposed testing, is that oscilloscopes may not be the best equipment for accurately measuring output, inasmuch as some of these exotic technologies may be harvesting a so-called "radiant energy" component that might not show up on the meter. The input electricity can be characterized by an oscilloscope, but the output is best measured mechanically in terms of real work performed, with the supposed added help of the free energy coming into the system. Ken and Mike acknowledge the need to test the output in terms of mechanical work done, but also mention that oscilloscopes would be helpful. I'm doubtful of the latter.
So if you have such a device, read through the correspondence below to get a feel for the pre-requisites; and once you have the information that satisfies those pre-requisites, feel free to contact Mike to relay your information and set up a test.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQFKdsyVIwT2m6Ehm342PSLRcLsJ4j5JYyPLOABiudS-c5mc0I_gOYwcaTL-gpOcIjGySpoB6-Qg9Bdh4lPOQvADUZIoziKnKSs1DLA_2sjMpf7d10xO6sInVnwo_zUFmjQnwup4JikNw/s400/misterq_device.jpg

Correspondence

On May 18, 2010 2:31 PM Mountain; Nelson, Michael A. (MSFC-ER22) wrote: (slightly edited)
Hey Sterling,
I have to say right up front that we aren’t going to have a lot of time to test a flood of motors claiming OU at this time. We may be able to look at one a month if they pass a preliminary test data review. If properly screened, we should not be wasting our time on motors that have no hope of OU.
If I get some time I may be able to contribute a little video tour of my electric motor expert’s (Ken) motor test and design lab and talk about how a motor is properly tested. Don’t get your hopes up too much. We’ve really got to find the time to shoot a little video of this to show people the lab and how we test motors. I’ll send you a note when we have that ready.
I spoke to my electric motor guy, Ken House, and he is fine if you want to put some information about us testing motors on a webpage. People will need to understand that we are doing this outside of our official NASA duties and work load. And no one needs to send us a motor or bring us a motor until we’ve had a chance to look at test data on the motor and determine if the motor appears to be over unity. If a motor appears to be over unity and it looks as though the data has been properly collected then we may want to bring the motor physically into our lab and test it further.

Qualifying Attributes: Art Porter's GAP motor

The workmanship of the designer will also play a role in our decision to look at a motor design further. I understand that people are working from their garage, but if anyone is serious about designing a highly efficient motor I expect them to go to the trouble of building a quality prototype along the lines of the effort that Art Porter put into his GAP motor.
We need a full schematic of how the motor is built and an explanation for how the motor designer believes it to work. A video of the motor operating and the designer describing how it operates is very helpful. The designer then needs to show us how they have tested their motor. We need to see their test schematic. We need to see where they are connecting their test leads.
Also, the designer needs to test their motor under a known mechanical load. If they don’t have a dynamometer available, then the simplest way to do this is to simply have their motor lift a known weight by winding a string or flexible cable of some sort around a spindle. This will serve as their homemade “dynamometer” if you will. We need to know the amount of weight lifted, the height the weight is lifted and the speed the weight is lift to get an output power measurement. Normally the speed is determined by the RPM’s of the output spindle. So, if the designer knows the height lifted with each RPM then all we need to know is the RPM’s of the spindle (not the motor if gear ratios are involved) to have the lifting speed.
The designer needs to measure the amount of current and voltage being delivered to their motor with a digital oscilloscope. We can recommend a brand and model. The oscilloscope needs to be adjusted such that a few cycles of the motor operation are captured within the oscilloscope screen. The voltage and current levels need to be adjusted to fill up the oscilloscope screen so that details of the input voltage and current can clearly be seen. Additionally and most important of all, the data values that are plotted on the oscilloscope screen need to be captured and saved to a CSV file so that they may be analyzed in a spreadsheet. We use Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to do this analysis.
Now the designer needs to perform several tests with their motor. We need to see this data captured when their motor is under no load to see how fast the motor will spin with no load. We need to see how much current and voltage their motor requires when they apply full power and prevent the motor from spinning and then we need to see their data when the motor is doing work by lifting a weight at a constant speed.
With all of this data, we can characterize the motor and get an understanding for the power curve for the motor and also determine the motor’s efficiency. We would like for the designer to video tape each of these test runs that we have described here.
That is all there is to it.
We are not out to embarrass anyone. If anyone wanted to have their motor tested privately with the results kept off of the web and away from the public we will honor that request.
By the same token, we are engineers and not theoretical physicists. We are not going to set about to rewrite any laws of physics simply because we are getting something that appears to be OU from some device that we test. We will simply report the facts of how we set up, how and what we measured, and our conclusion will be “unexplained anomaly”.
With all of this information, we should be able to get to the bottom of what is going on with any motor. If after all of this, the motor still appears to be over unity, we would need to bring it into our lab for further review and analysis. We would not be able to hold any schedule on how long our review and analysis would take. We would certainly be anxious to get to it as soon as we could but I can never be certain how much time I might have for these extra-curricular activities. So, we really couldn’t be held to much of a schedule to turn around our analysis on a motor that we physically had in house.
We don’t care how a motor is built. We ask for a motor schematic just to make sure the input current and voltage is measured at the appropriate location. But we really don’t care how the motor is designed. It could be a black box for all we care. All that really matters when you are attempting to determine whether a motor is over unity is a measurement of what is being input into the motor and a measurement of the work that is being output by the motor.
Proper measurement of the input and output is what we find to be the most common mistake made when people are attempting to determine if a motor is over unity. A lot of people fool themselves into thinking that they have an over unity engine when they improperly measure the current and voltage across an isolated coil in their motor schematic. When you are testing a motor, it is better to treat the motor as if it is a black box and only measure the input watts and output watts. And we like to measure the output watts as a mechanical load so there is no confusion about how much work an electrical motor can actually perform.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh90zXnphWa2jFS4VZ-N6zXxjUl1q48vI42eHFdKC7TYljC7nmi7fqSTJdPV9loQysphm3B3enByU48q5NnK5NcBR0VeF9fFh6QlaiR4QBJdFT4oHc2BUiLni_ijOWk9rguPEC3TWAQc4A/s400/os2rp8.jpg

On May 20, 2010 1:16 PM Mountain; Nelson, Michael A. (MSFC-ER22) wrote:
To: Paul
Our testing facility is setup to test the mechanical output of electric motors so that we can characterize them for the application they are being designed for. That is the primary purpose of our facility. We have very precise means of characterizing electrical to mechanical systems. I don't have a problem with measuring electrical to electrical types of systems but that is really not what we prefer to do. It is just that we are billing ourselves as an electric motor testing site meaning that we are expecting to look at electric motors which convert electrical energy into mechanical energy by definition. I really am not interested in opening this up to testing every kind of an OU apparatus out there that takes electric power in one side and spits it out the other side with or without moving parts in between. When we start getting away from measuring output mechanical energy, then we are starting to open the door wider than we are interested in going.
If your application is simply to turn around and generate electricity from an electric motor then we can at least tell you how efficient that your electric motor is at producing mechanical energy. I got to believe that is valuable information to you because if you have a system that produces more electricity output than you are putting into it then you don't know whether the over unity is coming from the mechanical energy within your system or the efficiency of your electric generation portion of your system. If I show you that your motor converts about 80% of the electricity that you input into mechanical energy, assuming that the mechanical and electrical power generation side of your motor are electrically decoupled, you will know that you have an over unity electric generator.
If your generator is somehow electrically dependent upon the power input, then about the only way that you can determine if you have an OU device is to strictly measure the electrical energy output by the system. It would not make sense to try and measure the mechanical energy internal to that kind of system because it is mechanical energy that is not intended to carry any load other than what is required to generate the electrical output produced by the end to end system.
So, like I said above, we prefer to look at electric motors instead of electricity converters. We just need to take this on a case by case basis and right out of the starting gate I'm saying that while I won't rule out looking at an electric input to electric output system, our priority is going to be the mechanical output systems. What I envision is someone out there will come forward with an EV Gray type of electric motor that will have a mechanical output that is far over unity and we would be able to test that and confirm those results. We wouldn't be able to explain it but we would be able to test it and report what we find. People just have to understand that we are in the testing business and not in the explaining business if we ever see results that don't seem to conform to accepted laws of physics. That’s a big if and it is something that Ken and I have yet to see.
On May 14, 2010 4:45 AM Mountain; Nelson, Michael A. (MSFC-ER22) wrote: (slightly edited)
Hey Sterling,
It's fine to post this thread with my full name and NASA email address. If someone tries to abuse it I’ll just put them on a block list.
I feel we have considerable expertise in the field of electric motors. and within limits we are volunteering to take a look at some of these motors claiming to be over unity.
No, this would not be done in our official capacities with NASA. My current official capacity is working the main propulsion systems for the space shuttle and new vehicle development.
Electric motors are out of my field of expertise so I rely on an electrical engineer friend of mine, Ken House, and his electric motor design and test facility to look at these over unity motors. Ken has been looking at possible over unity motors for years. He’s still waiting to find one.
Feel free to include me in your contact list and contact me any time. […] I’m also one of your many friends on Facebook.
I’ve been a fan of your website for years. It’s the best source of new ideas concerning energy on the web. There is a good mix of legitimate ideas with a lot of off the wall stuff. I’m especially hopeful of the EMC2 corporation fusion reactor work being funded by the NAVY. We should know if this is going to pan out by this time next year. If it does, it can truly be world changing technology.
As I have time I occasionally try to go and checkout some of the more interesting free energy claims for myself. I’m friends with Bradley Lockerman of the John Searl story […]. So far I’ve come up dry in locating something that is actually working. But I remain optimistic that I will.
I’m writing this to you from the engineering support console room in Huntsville Alabama. We are launching today and we are the middle of loading propellant on board the Shuttle for a 1:20 PM CST launch today.
May 14, 2010
On May 13, 2010 5:16 PM Mountain; Nelson, Michael A. (MSFC-ER22) wrote: (slightly edited)
If I hire Southwest Research to independently verify some test results for me, then it is up to me as to what I do with those results and the fact that they were obtained from Southwest Research. As long as Southwest has said they'll stand behind their test results, why do I care whether they advertise the results or I do?
My statements about this being something done in our spare time has to do with schedule priorities. Unless someone wants to approach us with funding, we may get to it today or next month. We'll get to it as our priorities allow.
A doctor can save your life whether he is getting paid by your insurance company or he is doing it for free as a volunteer. His skill and knowledge are just as valuable with or without a formal agreement. The result is exactly the same. So, you decide whether our knowledge and skill with electric motors is worth anything to you whether it is on a contract with you or we are doing it in our "spare time".
I'm sorry, we are not going to commit to a love affair with a particular motor design simply because it appears to be over unity from our analysis and review. Also, we don't claim to be physicists looking for violations of the conservation of mass and energy. If after we review or analyze a motor, our data contradicts known laws of physics, the anomaly goes into the category of an "unexplained anomaly". Anything more from us would reach beyond the scope of simply measuring the efficiency of a particular motor design. But, with that said, in our minds, a credible "unexplained anomaly", is the first step in bringing attention to something and inviting different opinions to better understand what is going on.
But that is the extent of the advertisement something is going to get from us if it appears to be over unity.
We are volunteering our knowledge, skill, and expertise. If you want it, let us know.

Some time prior to the above correspondence, Mike wrote the following to Pete Collins (slightly edited)
We are not in the business of selling anything.
We will stand by whatever we can prove to ourselves is correct. And we will show how we have measured and what our results are. But anyone has to remember, we are putting our spare time into this. So, if someone doesn’t agree with our results or how broadly we are publishing them, we don’t have time to argue with them. They are free to publish our results themselves to the four corners of the earth as far as I’m concerned. There is no official government form for applying for any of this and we don’t sign any contracts to do this. This is an informal look where we offer our expertise and our facilities within limits meaning funded projects get first priority with our equipment. We will be happy to sign an NDA if requested. Because all of this is in our spare time, our results will be more like on the back of an envelope or verbally. We can email what we find out also.
What I did with Art Porter is take his data and either concur that he was measuring it properly or tell him what he needed to change. Art loaded his own electric motor and he provided his own measuring equipment. He sent us a schematic of his motor and showed us where he was hooking up his measuring equipment. He provided a full video of all of his test runs.
That is what I would prefer to do with anyone that wants to show me an over unity device. I would prefer that they first show us a video of their device working with an explanation of how they are loading it and how they are measuring the input voltage and current. If they can send us screen captures of their oscilloscope and data files from their oscilloscope, it saves us a good deal of time. We can then take that and do a paper review of what they have. If we find something we can’t explain with paper review, then we’ll ask for more information up to and including physically looking at the motor with our equipment if it gets that far. We didn’t have to go that far with Art Porter’s motor. We were able to show that it was not over unity pretty quickly.

Anyone to place a condition on our review of their technology seems to me to be looking for an excuse not to have us review it.
I think about all the NASA brand provides is an assurance that a device has been properly measured. The results will speak for themselves and if measured properly they will be repeatable.
Let me know how you want to proceed.