PESWiki.com -- Pure Energy Systems Wiki:   Finding and facilitating the best renewable energy technologies.

HOPE for uncertain times . . . There is a brighter energy future.





PowerPedia:Perpetual motion

From PESWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which a mechanism provides usable work or energy without the expenditure of any limited internal or external source of energy (known as free energy). Perpetual motion machines (the Latin term perpetuum mobile is not uncommon) are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy in a way which would violate the established laws of physics. It is generally accepted that perpetual motion machines cannot work. Specifically, perpetual motion machines would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics.

If a working machine is called a perpetual motion machine, what is more likely is that the unseen input energy source is not recognized or understood -- not that the device is actually a perpetual motion machine.

Perpetual motion machines are a class of hypothetical machines which produce useful energy "from nowhere" - that is, without requiring additional energy input. The history of perpetual motion encompasses not only energy-creating machines but also methods of exploiting nonobvious power sources, methods, and techniques and devices with no energy loss (or output). This timeline covers those and the discoveries of energy from sources that are "free" (i.e. does not cost anything) for consumption from the forces of nature which are well documented in scientific literature and other more fantastical forces. Perpetual motion machines, when hypothesised, are sometimes called free energy machines, though the term energy in that circumstance is being used in a sense outside of the scientific definition. Some are developed with elaborate machines in the style of Rube Goldberg or Heath Robinson. Some designs may appear to work on paper at first glance, but have various flaws or obfuscated external power sources that render them useless in practice; others remain untested.

Contents

Basic principles

Perpetual motion machines violate one or both of the following two laws of physics: the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics is essentially a statement of conservation of energy. The second law has several statements, the most intuitive of which is that heat flows spontaneously from hotter to colder places; the most well known is that entropy always increases, or at the least stays the same; another statement is that no heat engine (an engine which produces work while moving heat between two places) can be more efficient than a Carnot heat engine. As a special case of this, any machine operating in a closed cycle cannot only transform thermal energy to work in a region of constant temperature. See the respective articles, and thermodynamics, for more information.

Machines which claim not to violate either of the two laws of thermodynamics but rather claim to generate energy from unconventional sources are sometimes referred to as perpetual motion machines, although they do not meet the standard criteria for the name. By way of example, it is quite possible to design a clock or other low-power machine to run on the differences in barometric pressure or temperature between night and day. Such a machine has a source of energy, albeit one from which it is quite impractical to produce power in quantity.

There are two types of perpetuum mobile:

  • A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces strictly more energy than it uses, thus violating the law of conservation of energy. Perpetuum mobile of the first kind are those devices that violate the first law of thermodynamics, the principle of conservation of energy, creating energy out of nothing. Most attempts fall into this category.
  • Perpetuum mobile of the second kind are devices that violate the second law of thermodynamics. Even though they obey the principle of conservation of energy, they attempt extraction of work from a single heat reservoir, violating the principle of no entropy decrease in an isolated macroscopic thermodynamic system. Basically the device would harvest the kinetic energy and Brownian motion of molecules in a heat reservoir, thereby cooling the reservoir, all the way to possibly absolute zero. Such an attempt of entropy decreasing is the theoretical Maxwell's demon thought experiment that attacks the macroscopic system at the microscopic level, which is not yet technologically feasible, and its theoretical possibility is still undecided. Such devices would also surpass the theoretical efficiency limits of the Carnot Cycle. A machine that produces (in still-usable form) exactly as much energy as it uses is a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, which continues running forever (not necessarily doing any usable work) by converting its waste heat back into mechanical work. This need not violate the law of conservation of energy, but does violate the less fundamental second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). More generally, any device that converts heat into work without loss can be considered a perpetual motion of the second kind, since it could be used to make something that moves perpetually.

By minimizing friction and other causes of dissipation, it is possible to produce a good approximation to a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. Planetary systems (such as the earth and moon) could be considered an example. Planets, moons, and stars spin without any fuel, batteries, muscle, cost, or other limited power. Planets don't rotate forever however; energy in such system is dissipated via tidal forces, by friction with the dust and gas in space, and presumably also very slowly via gravitational waves. In an otherwise completely empty Newtonian universe, a single particle could travel forever at constant velocity with no violation of the laws of physics—though of course no energy could be extracted from it without slowing it down. For example, an electron can spin around a nucleus in an atom of matter indefinitely unless it or the atom is disrupted in some way.

Just how impossible is impossible?

Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be impossible, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physics. Any proposed perpetual motion design offers a potentially instructive challenge to physicists: we know it can't work (because of the laws of thermodynamics), so explain how it fails to work. The difficulty (and the value) of such an exercise depends on the subtlety of the proposal; the best ones tend to arise from physicists' own thought experiments. Because the principles of thermodynamics are so well established, serious proposals for perpetual motion machines are met with disbelief on the part of physicists, which makes a discussion of the merits (if any) of the proposal difficult if not impossible.

Though perpetual motion may be impossible, near-perpetual motion—motion lasting thousands to billions of years—may be possible in a machine. Near-perpetual motion is a reality in nature: in the rotation of planets, stars, and electrons, for example. If such a thing could be duplicated in a lab, man-made near-perpetual motion could become a reality. Planets and electrons have no significant drag/friction because the momentum of the object is thousands of times stronger than the slowing effect caused by the friction in the system.

Thought experiments

Serious work in theoretical physics often involves thought experiments that test the boundaries of understanding of physical laws. Some such thought experiments involve apparent perpetual motion machines, and insight may be had from understanding why they either don't work or don't violate the laws of physics. For example:

  • Maxwell's demon: a thought experiment which led to physicists considering the interaction between entropy and information
  • Feynman's "Brownian ratchet": a "perpetual motion" machine which extracts work from thermal fluctuations and appears to run forever but only runs as long as the environment is warmer than the ratchet
  • "Cosmic background space drive": where redshift/blueshift of the background radiation is used to drive a rocket's engine

Techniques

Some ideas recur repeatedly in perpetual motion machine designs, such as gravity, magnets, radiant energy, atmospheric electricity, telluric currents, zero-point energy, vacuum energy, quantum fluxuations of "space-time", and atmospheric pressure. In the real world, friction is always larger than zero, so an object in perpetual motion implies work being continuously done to overcome this natural retarding process. Furthermore, the always present element of friction wears and degrades a device's moving components (shortening it's lifespan). Several designs have attempted to minimize such a factor, with varying levels of success.

The seemingly mysterious ability of magnets to influence motion at a distance without any apparent energy source has long appealed to inventors and been incorporated into thier devices. Unfortunately, a constant magnetic field does no work because the force it exerts on any particle is always at right angles to its motion; a changing field can do work, but requires energy to sustain. A "fixed" magnet can do work, but energy is dissipated in the process, typically weakening the magnet's strength over time. Thus, when a magnet does work by lifting an iron weight, some of the work that was put into magnetizing the magnet is being used to lift the weight, and the strength of the magnet is reduced correspondingly. When the weight is removed from the magnet, the work required to do this restores the strength of the magnet, minus losses due to friction.

Gravity also acts at a distance, without an apparent energy source. But to get energy out of a gravitational field (for instance, by dropping a heavy object, producing kinetic energy as it falls) you have to put energy in (for instance, by lifting the object up), and some energy is always dissipated in the process. A typical application of gravity in a perpetual motion machine is Bhaskara's wheel, whose key idea is itself a recurring theme, often called the overbalanced wheel: Moving weights are attached to a wheel in such a way that they fall to a position further from the wheel's center for one half of the wheel's rotation, and closer to the center for the other half. Since weights further from the center apply a greater torque, the result is (or would be, if such a device worked) that the wheel rotates forever. The moving weights may be hammers on pivoted arms, or rolling balls, or mercury in tubes; the principle is the same.

Gravity and magnetism are an attractive combination indeed, and a frequently rediscovered design has a ball pulled up by a magnetic field and then rolling down under the influence of gravity, in a cycle. (At the highest point, the ball is supposed to have acquired enough speed to escape the magnet's influence.)

To extract work from heat, thus producing a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, the most common approach (dating back at least to Maxwell's demon) is unidirectionality. Only molecules moving fast enough and in the right direction are allowed through the demon's trap door. In a Brownian ratchet, forces tending to turn the ratchet one way are able to do so while forces in the other direction aren't. A diode in a heat bath allows through currents in one direction and not the other. These schemes typically fail in two ways: either maintaining the unidirectionality costs energy (Maxwell's demon needs light to look at all those particles and see what they're doing), or the unidirectionality is an illusion and occasional big violations make up for the frequent small non-violations (the Brownian ratchet will be subject to internal Brownian forces and therefore will sometimes turn the wrong way).

Atmospheric pressure varies widely on the Earth and shows a diurnal (daily) rhythm. Barometers have been used to wind gearings during these changes. Various natural forms of radiant energy have been contemplated. Telluric currents are extremely low frequency electrical current that occurs naturally over large underground areas at or near the surface of the Earth. Atmospheric electricity is the regular diurnal variations of the Earth's atmospheric electromagnetic network (or, more broadly, any planet's electrical system in its layer of gases). Some have investigated the production of energy and power via earth's electricity and have used electromagnetic coils to charge a circuit's elements. These would not be a source of true perpetual motion, since they rely on an external and "limited" (though long-lived and vast) energy source. These would be more near-perpetual motion machines, theoretically possessing a very long lifespan. In addition, proposed devices that would utilize zero-point energy, vacuum energy, or the quantum fluxuation of "space-time" to run could not be true perpetual motion, since they rely on an external energy source.

History

The history of perpetual motion machines (also known as the history of free energy and history of over unity machines) dates as far back as the 8th century, and probably further. For millennia it was not clear whether such devices were possible, but the development of modern thermodynamics has led virtually all engineers and scientists to agree that they are impossible. Many have attempted to construct the holy grail of energy production in spite of this. Proponents of perpetual motion machines often use other terms to describe their inventions including free energy devices, mechanisms, or formulas and over unity machines.

The recorded history of perpetual motion machines dates at least as far back as the 8th century. An early description of a perpetual motion machine was by Bhaskara in 1150. He described a wheel that he claimed would run forever. Villard de Honnecourt in 1235 described, in a thirty-three page manuscript, a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. In the 1760s, James Cox (with the help of John Joseph Merlin) developed a working perpetual motion machine of sorts: a clock (known as Cox's timepiece) powered by changes in atmospheric pressure. Cox was quite open about the workings of his machine, unlike many perpetual motion inventors. The clock still exists today (but was deactivated by the clock's relocation). [1] Johann Bessler (also known as Orffyreus) created a series of claimed perpetual motion machines in the 18th Century. In the 19th century, the invention of perpetual motion machines became an obsession for many scientists. Many machines were designed based on electricity, but none of them lived up to their promises. Other early prospectors in this field included John Gamgee and Cromwell Varley.

  • Gamgee developed the Zerometer, a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. Varley, though, did discover in 1867 that an electric generator did not need to be started with a conventional prime mover. He used the Earth's magnetic field to induce enough field strength in the stator windings to get a generator running. [2]
  • Other 19th century inventors such as Thomas Henry Moray, an admirer of Nikola Tesla, claimed to be able to tap into radiant energy sources utilizing high frequency high voltage currents interacting with the aether. The energy would be derived from the "running river" of the aether. Several demonstrations by Moray were done where 50 kW of power were generated for several days from an antenna connected to a series of transformers, capacitors, and other components. However, all plans and knowledge were kept secret by Moray, demonstration was not verified, and patents were never granted.

Devising these machines is a favourite pastime of many eccentrics, who often come up with elaborate machines in the style of Rube Goldberg or Heath Robinson. These designs may appear to work on paper at first glance, but have various flaws or obfuscated external power sources that render them useless in practice. This sort of "invention" has become common enough that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. One reason for this concern is that a few "inventors" have used official patents to convince gullible potential investors that their machine is "approved" by the Patent Office. The USPTO has granted a few patents for motors that are claimed to run without net energy input. These patents were issued because it was not obvious from the patent that a perpetual motion machine was being claimed. Some of these are:

  • Johnson, Howard R., US4151431 "Permanent Magnet Motor", April 24, 1979
  • Baker, Daniel, US4074153 "Magnetic propulsion device", February 14, 1978
  • Hartman; Emil T., US4215330 "Permanent magnet propulsion system", December 20, 1977 (this device is related to the Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy (SMOT)),
  • Flynn; Charles J., US6246561 "Methods for controlling the path of magnetic flux from a permanent magnet and devices incorporating the same", July 31, 1998
  • Patrick, et al., US6362718 "Motionless electromagnetic generator" , March 26, 2002

Proponents of perpetual motion machines use a number of other terms to describe their inventions, including "free energy" and "over unity" machines.

Timeline of "Free energy" devices

Below is a comprehensive listing ot "free energy" devices and attempts to develop such devices. An impressive devices was developed in the 1760s, James Cox (with the help of John Joseph Merlin) developed a working perpetual motion machine of sorts: a clock (known as Cox's timepiece) powered by changes in atmospheric pressure. Cox was quite open about the workings of his machine, unlike many perpetual motion inventors. The clock still exists today (but was deactivated by the clock's relocation). [3] Another early prospector in this field included Cromwell Varley. Varley did discover in 1867 that an electric generator did not need to be started with a conventional prime mover. He used the Earth's magnetic field to induce enough field strength in the stator windings to get a generator running. [4]

Some 19th century inventors, such as Thomas Henry Moray (an admirer of Nikola Tesla), claimed to be able to tap into radiant energy sources utilizing high frequency high voltage currents interacting with the aether. The energy would be derived from the "running river" of the aether. Several demonstrations by Moray were done where 50 kW of power were generated for several days from an antenna connected to a series of transformers, capacitors, and other components. However, all plans and knowledge were kept secret by Moray, demonstration was not verified, and patents were never granted. Hermann Plauson, an Estonian engineer and inventor, also investigated the production of energy and power via atmospheric electricity.

Some free energy devices are devices that absorb ambient electromagnetic fields (known as radiant energy) and converts the incoming energy into a useful form of power or function. Here the term is categorised more as renewable energy. Other "free energy devices" are solar cells and thermocouples which do the same for light and heat. Of course "free energy" here is something of a misnomer, it is simply that the energy used is generated elsewhere. These devices are not perpetual motion machines in the strict sense of breaking thermodynamic laws and being unworkable.

An early "free energy" device that was widely used was the crystal radio, which consisted of a coil made of insulated wire and a galena crystal. It used no batteries. Over the course of history, powerful versions of these "wireless" machines were built by Mahlon Loomis, David Edward Hughes and Nikola Tesla. Lastly, the Testatika is an electromagnetic generator based on the 1898 Pidgeon electrostatic machine which includes an inductance circuit, a capacitance circuit, and a thermionic rectification valve. Allegedly a perpetual motion machine, the Testatika resembles in some respects a Wimshurst machine. It was built by Swiss engineer Paul Baumann, and promoted by a Swiss community, the Methernithans.

Pre-1800s

  • About the 700s Bavaria, the magic wheel or magnet wheel, was basically a wagon wheel that spun by itself. Magnets with lead plates on their backs were affixed to the wheel, like the seats on a Ferris Wheel. Each magnet was attracted to a magnet affixed to the base on the ground. The lead allegedly blocked attraction as each magnet passes by it, so the wheel would keep moving for a time before friction stopped it.
  • In the 13th century, Villard de Honnecourt had a drawing of one in his sketchbook. Honnecourt was a French master mason and architect. The sketchbook is made up of mechanics and architecture. [5]
  • Leonardo da Vinci made a number of drawings of things he hoped would make energy for free. He designed a centrifugal pump and the "chimney jack". The chimney jack was used to turn a roasting skewer (a reaction-type turbine).[6]
  • Johannes Taisnerius, a Jesuit priest, described a magnetic-based perpetual motion machine. Taisnerius's magnetic machine consisting of a ramp, a magnet stone and an iron ball. Pierre de Maricourt had earlier noted such a system which made use of the strength of the magnet stone. This runs into trouble because the path integral of force on a closed loop in a magnetic field is zero. Taisnerius passed Maricourt's work off as his own, which explains the similarity.
  • In 1518, Mark Anthony Zimara designed a "self-blowing windmill". Zimara designed a self-blowing windmill that generated power from a set of bellows. The bellows blow the windmill sails round.
  • In the 16th century, John Dee reported seeing a perpetual motion machine during his travels (with a pension from Elizabeth I), but wasn't allowed a closer look.
  • In 1610, Cornelis Drebbel, an alchemist and magician, designed a slow perpetual motion machine that told the time, date, and season. The gold machine was mounted in a globe on pillars and was powered by changes in air pressure (a sealed glass tub with liquid varied in volume through atmospheric pressure changes, rewinding constantly).
  • In 1630, Robert Fludd, English physicist and mystic, proposed many machines. People were trying to patent variations of Fludd's machine in the 1870s. Fludd's machine worked by recirculation by means of a water wheel and Archimedean screw. The device pumps the water back into its own supply tank. [7] [8]
  • After 1635, many English perpetual motion machine patents were granted. Several are variations of a machine developed in 12th century India. An original design is a cable projecting 150 miles into the sky to induct electricity (technology at the time would limit its usefulness, as it weighed 80 tons). [9] By 1903, 600 such patents had been granted.
  • In 1638, Edward Somerset, 2nd Marquess of Worcester developed a perpetual motion machine. He gained a royal appointment as an inventor and builder. Parliament on June 3, 1663, gave a 99-year patent for his "Watercommanding Engine" (a steam engine). Somerset demonstrated many water wheels to Charles I of England, that had something to do with perpetual motion. [10]
  • In 1664, Ulrich von Cranach, a war engineer, of Hamburg, Germany designed a perpetual ball moving machine that did not work in practice. The ball machine had a rotary cannon ball which descended by an Archimedean screw along the periphery of a wheel (like a water wheel), rolled through a track, and then were carried back to the top using an archimedean screw (powered by the ball-wheel). [11] Arthur Ord-Hume illustrated this machine.[12]
  • Johann Bernoulli (also known as Jean Bernoulli) proposed a fluid energy machine. Bernoulli developed the brachistochrone problem in June 1696 and is regarded as a founder of the calculus of variation.
  • In 1686, Georg Andreas Böckler, a German architect, engineer, and author, designed 'self operating' self-powered water mills and several perpetual motion machines using balls using variants of Archimdes screws. One of Böckler's machine used an overbalanced wheel and archimedean screw.
  • In 1712, Johann Bessler, a.k.a. Orffyreus, investigated 300 different perpetual motion models and claimed he had the secret of perpetual motion. Though allegation of fraud surfaced later (from a maid in his employment), investigators at the time, such as the lawyer Willem Jacob 'sGravesande, reported no such fraud.
  • In the 1760s, James Cox (with the help of Joseph Merlin) develops a working perpetual motion machine (known as the Cox's timepiece). The clock device is powered from changes in atmospheric pressure via a barometer. The clock still exists today [but was deactivated due to the clock's relocation].
  • In 1775, the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, made the statement that the Academy "will no longer accept or deal with proposals concerning perpetual motion". The reasoning was, that perpetual motion is impossible to achieve and that the search for it is time consuming and very expensive. According to the members of the academy, those bright minds dedicating their time and resources to this search, could be utilized much better in other, more reasonable endeavors. Nevertheless, many individuals continued to propose and build various "perpetual" machines in a quest of attaining thier end goal of free energy.
  • In 1790, Doctor Conradus Schiviers made a belt driven wheel. He also offered a machine in which several balls powered a water wheel and a bucket-chain (again raising the balls). [13] Others tried to adapt his designs unsuccessful a century later.

1800s

  • In 1812, Charles Redheffer, in Philadelphia, claimed to have developed a "generator" that could power other machines. Upon investigation, it was deduced that the power was being routed from the other connected machine. Robert Fulton exposed Redheffer's schemes during an exposition of the device in New York City (1813). Removing some concealing wooden strips, Fulton found a cat-gut belt drive went through a wall to an attic. In the attic, a man was turning a crank to power the device.[14] [15] [16]
  • In 1827, Sir William Congreve, an English inventor and rocket pioneer, tried a machine running on capillary action that would disobey the law of never rising above their own level, so to produce a continual ascent and overflow. The device had an inclined plane over pulleys. At the top and bottom, there travels an endless band of sponge, a bed and, over this, again an endless band of heavy weights jointed together. The whole stands over the surface of still water. Congreve believed his system would go on continually. [17] [18] [19]
  • In 1866, Henry Prince of Britain described the first partially submerged perpetual motion machine.
  • In 1868, an Austrian, Alois Drasch, received a US patent for a machine that possessed a "thrust key-type gearing" of a rotary engine. The vehicle driver could tilt a trough depending upon need. A heavy ball rolled in a cylindrical trough downward, and, with continuous adjustment of the device's levers and power output, Drasch believed that it would be possible to power a vehicle. [20]
  • In 1870, E. P. Willis of New Haven, Connecticut made money off a "proprietary" perpetual motion machine. A story of the overly complicated device with a hidden source of energy appears in Scientific America article "The Greatest Discovery Ever Yet Made". Investigation into the device eventually found a source of power that drove it. [21]
  • John Ernst Worrell Keely invented, reportedly, an induction resonance motion motor. He is supposedly to have used etheric 'technology'. In 1872, Keely announced that he discovered a principle for power production based on the vibrations of tuning forks. Scientists investigated his machine which appeared to run on water, though Keely endeavored to avoid this. Shortly after 1872, venture capitalists accused Keely of fraud (they lost nearly five million dollars). Keely's machine, it was discovered after his death, was based on hidden air pressure tubes.
  • In 1881, John Gamgee developed a liquid ammonia machine which could operate at the freezing point from vaporation by radiant heat. The resultant expansion would drive a piston. The vapor does not condense to liquid to start the cycle over again, however, thus making the system inoperable. The Navy approved of the device and showed it to President James Garfield.
  • In 1899, J. M. Aldrich was arrested for getting investors for his free energy machine. Aldrich was never convicted. Reportedly, he continued to run his scheme. Ultimately, an interested investor, upon inspection of the device, found a hidden spring.
  • Mark Anthony Zimara of Italy had a huge air-powered machine (basically another attempt at a self blowing windmill). [22] His device is described in Tallmadge G. Kasten's "The Perpetual Motion Machine of Mark Antony Zimara".
  • The American, Horace Wickmam, received a patent regarding a machine with many rotating balls.
  • A Scottish shoemaker, known as Spence, designed a magnetic based machine which later was discredited.

1900 to 1950

1951 to 1980

Electrical circuit as explained in Potter's "Methernitha Back-Engineered" article.
Electrical circuit as explained in Potter's "Methernitha Back-Engineered" article.

1981 to 1999

  • In 1984, Joseph Newman claims development of a free energy device based, reportedly, on alternative physics. Newman sued the U.S. patent office to recognize his device. Previous analysis of the device incorrectly measured the true power output of the machine. Calculation for power did not account for the non-sinusoidal current consumption. Newman, initially open to testing, now (reportedly) refuses to ship a unit for testing. In the 1970s, Newman presented a week-long demonstration in the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans (attended by 9,000 people from across the country). Newman is suing some former investors, who, he claims, are trying to steal the design.
  • The date 1984 appears on this page describing the Kromery converter, which purports to exploit resonance effects to cause a lead-acid battery to recharge itself. Glowing claims are made for its performance. However, the "explanation" given for the operation of the converter is scientifically illiterate, incoherent rubbish, and the tests described on the page are meaningless.
  • In 1985, Greg Watson of Australia claims the development of the Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy (SMOT). In the SMOT, a steel ball is pulled up a ramp by magnetism and then falls, so the magnetic energy is converted into kinetic energy. Watson claims that an effect called "regauging" then happens, allowing the process to be repeated without the application of outside energy. In 1997, he sells kits for the device. Skeptics state that attempts at replication have failed. Reportedly, investors were not able to regain their investments.
  • John Bedini claimed development of several free energy devices. Bedini has, reportedly, refused to allow independent investigation. [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90]
  • In 1986, Bruce De Palma claimed development of an overunity machine (referred to as the "N-Machine" or "N Machine") that was described as a closed path Homopolar generator with output four times more power than consumed. It used a one-piece rotor rather than today's conventional two piece rotor and stator electric generators. It was basically a magnetized gyroscope. De Palma has been unwilling to help independent investigators, like PSITRON, analyze his device. One Electrical Engineering professor analysed this device, but skeptics claim the investigation contained a measurement error. De Palma was an associate of Richard C. Hoagland. De Palma died in 1997. [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]