Features
•
Gerard Morin's Free and Natural Energy Technology
• TWIFE™ Featuring Sharσn Wyeth and Patrick Flanagan
• John Hutchison's Work with Radiation Remediation
• TWIFE™ Featuring Larry Sadler
• Syair's Replication of No Back EMF Generator
• SHT Choice: Open Source or Gag Order from US Military?
• TWIFE™ Featuring Syed Karim, CEO of Outernet.si



 "Free Energy" 

News XML
- PESN Specials
- About
- Pure Energy Blog
- Daily FE News
- Features
- Free Energy Now
- This Week in FE
- Newsletter
- How you can help
- Submit  
- Subscribe

 

Directory
Energy Topics

• Alt Fuels
• Anti-Gravity
• Batteries
• Betavoltaic
• Biofuels
 - BioDiesel
 - BioElectricity
 - Biomass
• Body Electric
• Brown's Gas
• Cold Fusion
• Conservation
• Electrolysis
• Electromagnetic OU
• Fuel Cells
• Fuel Efficiency
 - Electric Vehicles
 - Engines
 - Hydroxy
• Fusion
• Geothermal
• Gravity Motors
• Human Powered
• Hydro
• Hydrogen
• Joe Cells
• Lighting
• Magnet Motors
• Nanotechnology
• Nuclear
• Nucl. Remediation
• Oil
• Piezoelectric
• Plasma
• River
• Salt Water Mix
• Solar
• Solid State Gen.
• Tesla Turbines
• Thermal Electric
• Tidal
• Vortex
• Waste to Energy
• Water
 - Water as Fuel
• Wave
• Wind
• Wireless Electricity
• Zero Point Energy
• MORE . . .

Open Source
• Freddy's Cell
• Bedini SG
• Safe Haven Villages
• MORE . . .

Resources
• Awards
• Conservation
• Conspiracy
• Directories
• Investment
• Kudos
• Legal
• Organizations
• Plastic and Energy
• Recycling
• Suppression
• Tools
• Trends
• MORE . . .

Mingling
• OverUnity Forum
• Employment
• Events
• Humor
• Magazines
• Movies
• Newsletters
• Discuss. Groups

Shopping
• Store
• Buyer Beware
- - - - - - - - - -
- Donate
- Contact

 

 

 


http://pesn.com/2009/02/18/9501525_KeppeMotor_overunity_claimed/
You are here:
PureEnergySystems.com > News > February 18, 2009

Keppe Motor Overunity Claimed

The Brazilian group that has been reporting super efficiencies in their motor now posts evidence that they have surpassed 100% efficient, which they say proves their claim that they are harnessing space energy.

by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2009


Jim Murray and Paul Babcock's 4790% SERPS Presentation

Ignition Secrets DVD by Aaron Murakami 

A&P Electronic Media


Magnetic Energy Secrets, Paul Babcock, Parts 1 & 2

Battery Secrets by Peter Lindemann

 


A group of Brazilian scientists from the group STOP the Destruction of the World, have been developing a new motor dubbed the Keppe Motor that they think could be harnessing scalar energy from space.  Up until now, they have been been reporting increasing efficiency, providing the same output while drawing less and less input energy.

Yesterday they posted a video in which they claim that they have now surpassed the "overunity" benchmark of producing more energy out than was consumed on the input end.

The design is based on Dr. Norberto Keppe’s book, The New Physics Derived from A Disinverted Metaphysics.  According to the theory set forth in The New Physics, Keppe states that electricity comes from a primordial form of energy called Essential (or Scalar) Energy. This Energy contains two components, action and complementation. The conventional electric motor works with only one - fed by a DC or AC power supply - causing undesirable losses, consequently reducing the motor’s performance. The Keppe Motor works with both components of Essential Energy, thus increasing its efficiency.  It is said to utilize bi-directional, resonant energy.

They have produced a manual and a kit available for purchase via an online affiliate program to enable people to replicate this design.

In the video posted at YouTube yesterday, the set-up entails an amp meter, a volt meter, a scale to measure torque output at one foot (to measure foot-lbs) and a tachometer to measure revolutions per minute.  The video shows each measurement then shows the math and calculations resulting in a reported 115% more output than input.

In the video, Cesar Soos concludes that this proves Keppe's thesis that "matter comes from energy and works as an antenna that captures energy from space to keep its form and generate movement". (YouTube / SitaMillen; )

I see a couple of problems with their report, one of which argues the actual output as being lower, while the other argues for the output being greater than reported.

When they report the rpms, Cesar's voice says "920 rpm" but the video at that point is actually more like 912 rmp, and jumping +/- 10 of that, not stable.  The measurement accuracy of the various probes is not that great; and combined, the standard deviation is probably greater than 15%, thus not giving a definite conclusion of overunity.

Maybe I'm missing something, but their math doesn't seem to take into account the 60-Watt equivalent resistance generated by the fan, which would result in more output than what is reported.  

Still, they are to be commended for their effort and progress and their willingness to provide the information.

# # #

Response from STOP to above questions

On February 18, 2009 4:00 PM Mountain, Eduardo Castelγ Nascimento wrote:

Below are the answers to the points you mentioned:

1) When they report the rpms, Cesar's voice says "920 rpm" but the video at that point is actually more like 912 rmp, and jumping +/- 10 of that, not stable.  The measurement accuracy of the various probes is not that great; and combined, the standard deviation is probably greater than 15%, thus not giving a definite conclusion of overunity. / 60W fan load not factored?

Response: If you consider the average per second it is not 912 RPM, it is 916.13 RPM (see attached file). So, from 920 to 916.13 the difference is 0.42%, almost irrelevant. In the video, you will see that Roberto is holding the switching element with his hands, this causes a RPM variation. With a well machined and engineered motor this variation would be eliminated. Again, a difference of 4 or 8 RPM does not represent a relevant factor in this size of blade. If we consider the lowest RPM in the video, 900, overunity still occurs, decreasing from 1.15 to 1.12. The standard deviation in this video is 5.86 RPM, much less than 1%, but again, we do not think that this variable is so relevant, not even close to the 15% you mentioned.

2) Maybe I'm missing something, but their math doesn't seem to take into account the 60-Watt equivalent resistance generated by the fan, which would result in more output than what is reported.  

Response: There is a misunderstanding in relation to the method utilized to measure the torque of the Keppe Motor on the video. We did not use the Pony Break method, because this method is not accurate enough to test motors. We used a method similar to the Electric Dynamometric Brake, which is one of the most precise and utilized methods in the mechanical industry to measure torque. The electric dynamometric brake is conceived to carry out engine load tests in where fast regulation and high precision is necessary. The only difference in our measurement is that used a fan blade to generate load instead of electrical resistors, generally used in this method. In other words, we used a mechanical load instead of an electric load. The result is the same. In this method, when the fan blade is spinning in one direction, it exerts on the body of the motor an opposite force with the same intensity (Newton's third law of action-reaction) and the body of the motor will tend to rotate as well, thereby causing the 20cm-arm attached to it to press the plate of the weighing scale in the same proportion of the fan blade spinning at a specific speed (in the case, 920rpm). This method is one of the best because the internal frictions cancel out (even if they are significant) and do not influence the measurements and consequently the calculation.

* * * *

Measurements, Discrepancy, Maybe Overunity

February 18, 2009 8:22 PM "David Jenkins" <djenkins {at} garlic.com> wrote:

I've massaged the numbers that the Keppe people provided in
their video [above].

Their numbers:
   Voltage = 200
   Current = "34" mA
   Scale = 42 grams
   Lever arm = 20 cm

   Converting the lever arm to feet:
    0.656 foot = 0.2m x 39.37 in/m /12 (foot/in)
   Converting scale-reading to pounds
    0.0925 = 42 /454 lbs / grams
   Horsepower = 2 x pi x lever arm x force x RPM / 33,000
    .0106 hp = 2 x 3.14 x 0.656 x 0.0925 x 920
   Converting to watts
    Power = 746 x .0106
    Power = 7.91 watts

    Measured power = "34" mA x 200 volts
                   = 6.8 watts
    Apparent COP = 7.91/6.8
                 = 1.16

I placed quote marks around "34" because the Simpson VOM is a damped analog meter whose accuracy rapidly deteriorates when the current is not d.c. The Keppe motor is a pulse motor whose duty cycle is very low (probably less than 10%). This means that the meter reading is lower than the true average. This could easily be 10% or more. To test this, I used a Triplett model 625 VOM, with mirrored scale, very similar to the meter in the video. I placed a 10-volt peak pulse, 1 mSec in duration, at period of 10 mSec, across a 49.6-ohm resistor in series with the meter. This simulates the coil pulsing of the motor. Because the peak current is 200 mA and it is a 10% duty cycle, the meter should read 20 mA. However, the meter reads 18.5 mA. Thus there is a 7.5% error using my meter.

Thus just based on the measured power levels, the motor can not be claimed over unity. However, the rotation of the fan blade does require power which the video does not measure. 920 RPM is roughly the normal speed for a room fan and could easily be several watts. It would be easy to measure the power required to turn the fan at that speed. It's a measurement that needs to be made for this video to have substantial credibility.

My conclusion is that the motor could be over unity but the video does not provide adequate information for that determination.

I find it interesting, and probably not an accident, that the motor is running from a 200 volt supply (The kit motor runs from a 9-volt battery).

* * * *

Problems with Set-up

On February 19, 2009 9:26 AM Mountain, Dave Squires <djsquires {at} ultraplix.com> wrote (in blue):

...Because the peak current is 200 mA and it is a 10% duty cycle, the meter should read 20 mA.  However, the meter reads 18.5 mA.  Thus there is a 7.5% error using my meter.
An old Simpson analog meter will not give the right answer averaging pulses. 
There's too much error built in already at 3% for DC to start with.  Then you have to
watch out for parallax when reading the scale.  Something to measure the area under
the pulse is required to be accurate.  THEN you can divide by the period to get
a true duty cycle average.  Of course the sampling rate has to be high enough if
an A/D type system is used so the peak is not missed.

  Thus just based on the measured power levels, the motor can not be claimed over unity.  However, the rotation of the fan blade does require power which the video does not measure.  920 RPM is roughly the normal speed for a room fan and could easily be several watts.  It would be easy to measure the power required to turn the fan at that speed. It's a measurement that needs to be made for this video to have substantial credibility.

  My conclusion is that the motor could be over unity but the video does not provide adequate information for that determination.
The only possible reason for OU is that the pulse gets enough current into the
coil that the discharge of the current is stretched by the time constant to
give a bit of extra torque from the flux collapse.  I could believe that it could
be a tad OU, but they are doing things rather sloppily in my opinion. I know this
can be done using pulse techniques, but direct pulsing with a HV supply
is not the way to go about it.

  I find it interesting, and probably not an accident, that the motor is running from a 200 volt supply (The kit motor runs from a 9-volt battery).
Well, of course.  With the recommended number of turns (500 if I remember right)
the CEMF voltage will be pretty high.  It was clear to me just from a first reading
that they really didn't know what they were doing.  I was not impressed.

* * * *

Keppe-Related Coverage by PESN

See also

Page composed by Sterling D. Allan Feb. 17, 2009
Last updated January 27, 2013
 
 

Ads

 

 

NOTE: We are presently moderating all comments, to keep out the crass negativity, flaming, and other inappropriate forms of criticism. We welcome constructive criticism tactfully stated. Frequent offenders will be blacklisted.

"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." // "I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right."
-- Albert Einstein

ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.
Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    "When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."

-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)

Submit • Privacy • About • Contact

PESWiki Departments:
Latest • News •XMLFeed • Directory • Congress • Top 5 • Open Sourcing • PowerPedia

PESN.com
Copyright © 2002-2014, PES Network Inc.