Kincheloe N-Machine Low-Drag Measurement (1986)
node
A famous 'free energy' machine got tested at Stanford — and even the tester concluded it was a net energy loser, not a miracle.
Who they are
The 1986 Kincheloe test at Stanford of DePalma's 'Sunburst' N-machine, a spinning magnetic device.
What they do
The engine treats it as a debunked over-unity ('free energy') claim, not proof of one.
How it works
Kincheloe measured about 802 watts of extra shaft drag against a calculated ~6,113 watts of output (only 13-20% of expected), and his own verdict was a net thermodynamic LOSS, too inefficient to run in a loop; a 1990 Skeptical Inquirer critique by Cumming argued even the 13% figure was bad data from subtracting large friction baselines, and a cleaner model found input equaled output within 20%.
Why it matters
The engine reads it as real-but-inflated: the drag-reduction effect is a genuine physical quirk, but it's firmly walled off from any 'free energy' claim.
The engine's record — word for word
[Reports #144-148] Kincheloe's 1986 Stanford test of DePalma's 'Sunburst' co-rotating homopolar N-machine: ~802W incremental shaft drag vs a CALCULATED ~6,113W output (~13-20% of expected). His OWN verdict: net thermodynamic LOSS, too inefficient for closed-loop, NOT over-unity. Cumming (Skeptical Inquirer 1990): the 13% is ill-conditioned data (subtracting ~5,000W friction baselines); his torsion-pendulum model found input=output within 20%. Real-as-reported but artifact-inflated; the shaft-drag reduction is real topology (unipolar_torque_displacement). Fire-walled from over-unity.
Follow the trail
Walk this on the live map →