Administrator,

Thanks for your candid explanation and reply to this topic. I guess I should feel good about my Version 1 Keppe Motor test results that put it at around 40% electromechanical efficiency. Your lab test accounts are very uplifting when I compare my efforts to your data. I encourage everyone to embrace this technology. Here in the U.S. small blowers, pumps, fans and other utility motors present the same "blood sucking", leeching drain on our energy grid. What you would normally need to plug into the wall, you can run with a battery or solar panel using a Keppe motor.

Peace,

Greg

Dear Jack Adams,

I hope the following information can clarify some aspects of your inquiries.

The Keppe Motor 1.0 was never intended for practical applications. It is the simplest version possible of the Keppe Motor (1 pulse, low voltage, easy-to-find ferrite block magnets, etc.) and it was intended for introduction of the principle behind this new technology based on Keppe’s Disinverted Physics, and its efficiency is actually low as you have said.
Nevertheless, much progress has been done since the first model was constructed (February-2008) and part of it is in the version 3.0. This manual gives you conditions to build (and improve by yourself) a Keppe Motor with enough output power to substitute a 50-60W conventional induction motor (squirrel cage) saving from 70 to 90% of the electric energy consumed by it.

However, perhaps some clarifications about low power induction motors are necessary here.
The 50-60W induction motors found especially in domestic fans are very inefficient, ranging from 3 to 20% efficiency at most. Actually you can regard them more as “tea-heaters” than motors themselves. This means that, from 60W they consume from the grid, they produce no more than 10W in average of output power. There are practical reasons for this low efficiency and if you want to have a more efficient fan for example you need a better motor, which costs much more and is more complicate to build. These low power induction motors are used for cost reasons and because they are easy to build, which make them attractive to the market.
Nevertheless, when we speak about energy savings, they may be consider “blood suckers” of the grid and we need other alternatives.
Here is exactly where the Keppe Motor enters the scene. The Keppe Motor is able to do the same mechanical work with 70 to 90% less consumption of energy, even though its efficiency is not high.

A practical example:
A renowned manufacturer here in Brazil manufactures 60W domestic fans with 3 speeds. The first speed is 560 rpm and consumes 49W, the second speed is 850 rpm and consumes 62W and the third speed is 1085 rpm and consumes 70W.
These figures (speeds and consumptions) were measured in our lab with accurate equipment.

The torque tests revealed that the mechanical output power in these three speeds were 1.3W for 560 rpm, 5.6W for 850 rpm and 12.1W for 1085 rpm. With these results we obtain the following efficiencies for this conventional motor (squirrel cage induction motor):

First speed (560 rpm) → efficiency (η) = 1.3/49 = 0.0265 or η1 = 2.7%
Second speed (850 rpm) → η = 5.6/62 = 0.0903 or η2 = 9.0%
Third speed (1085 rpm) → η = 12.1/70 = 0.1729 or η3 = 17.3%

As we can see, the efficiency of this motor is very low.
When we substituted it for an equivalent Keppe Motor, the consumptions dropped dramatically as follows:

First speed (560 rpm): from 49W to 3.9W, therefore η1’ = 1.3/3.9 = 0,333 or η1’ = 33.3%
Second speed (850 rpm): from 62W to 15.2W, therefore η2’ = 5.6/15.2 = 0,368 or η2’ = 36.8%
Third speed (1,085 rpm): from 70W to 33.9W, therefore η3’ = 12.1/33.9 = 0.357 or η3’ = 35.7%

Some comments about these results:
1) It turns out clear that efficiency is very different from energy savings in relation to the conventional motor, that is:

The efficiency of the Keppe Motor (in the simplest version) is less than 40% in the three speeds, nevertheless it saves (49-3.9)W=45.1W in the first speed, (62-15.2)W=46.8W in the second speed and (70-33.9)W=36.1W in the third speed.
This gives 45.1/49 = 92% energy savings for the first speed, 46.8/62 = 75% energy savings for the second speed and 36.1/70 = 52% energy savings for the third speed.

This data leads to the conclusion that the Keppe Motor saves between 75 and 92% energy within the work range between 49 and 62W of the conventional motor and this is pretty much in accordance with what has been claimed so far.
The energy savings begins to drop below 70% around 950 rpm and the data confirms that when we get 52% energy savings for the fastest speed of 1,085 rpm.
2) The efficiency of the Keppe Motor in its simplest version is fantastic, even if it is below 40%, because of the constructive impossibilities to build an equivalent low power conventional motor with low cost and such simplicity.
3) The Keppe Motor can achieve much better efficiencies (about 50%) if it works with a second coil and better yet (about 70%) if works with the second coil and domestic voltages (127 or 220Volts).
4) However, it must be said that the principle applied to the first motor (the 1.0 version motor) has already led the Keppe Motor team to achieve overunity results. Nevertheless it requires the use of the “Electromagnetic Turbo System”, which is a system designed by the inventors to use the capacity the Keppe Motor has to work as an electric generator to retro-feed the coils.
With this EM Turbo System the Keppe Motor can reach efficiencies as high as 150% (we mean Efficiency, Output/Input superior to 150%, not energy savings in relation to other motor!) at 150Volts, with 60W mechanical output. This means the Keppe Motor overunity consumes 40W and produces 60W at the present stage of development.

The Keppe Motor Manual version 3.0 does not bring the EM Turbo System, nevertheless it gives the schematics of the optical switching circuit and the circuit with relays we still use in laboratory (easy to build) attached to the coil to make tests for many pulses. With this motor 3.0 you will have 10W output power to run fans or any other practical application (remember: 10W is output power, not rated power). The Keppe Motor version 1.0 has just some milliwatts of output, but 3 or 4W output are enough to run a fan!!! In other words, 10W can easily do some useful work for you with very low electric consumption!
A hint: if you get this manual version 3.0, try to wind a second coil around the first and add two more pulses to see the result. You’ll start to see that the principle behind the Keppe Motor can easily lead to an overunity motor.

In regard to the Keppe Motor overunity, the Association STOP the Destruction of the World (holder of the patent rights) is taking care of the certification and will make it available in proper time.

Hope to have been of help.
Administrator

Ether wrote:I would not be so critical as Jack against the keppemotor team, but it is true that if an experiment is not understandable, duplicable and reproducible it may create a lot of frustrations.
If the aim of the Keppe invention is to improve our world a maximum of us should be able to reproduce this overunity motor.
So my suggestion is that the keppemotor team provides us enough data so that we can make an overunity motor without wasting lot of time.

Hi all,

Somewhere in the 'contract' it does say ...don't expect great results... And also that the kit motor is meant to demonstrate the Keppe Motor "pinciple". Then it was posted that the neon lamp placed across the reed switch demonstrates the Keppe principle. Now, I think that the only claims relate to the Ver 3 motor, not the demo motor. I know, what should be the difference? Also, in the video where they use a gram scale and a torque measuring arrangement they say that '...we noticed a certain configuration of the motor...' produced the COP>1 characteristics. Well I'm going to spring for the Keppe Ver 3 Manual and see. I hope it contains that 'certain' configuration.

Greg

I would not be so critical as Jack against the keppemotor team, but it is true that if an experiment is not understandable, duplicable and reproducible it may create a lot of frustrations.
If the aim of the Keppe invention is to improve our world a maximum of us should be able to reproduce this overunity motor.
So my suggestion is that the keppemotor team provides us enough data so that we can make an overunity motor without wasting lot of time.

The following is a letter I just sent to keppemotor.com. It reflects my frustration with their new "launch". I'm glad I didn't pay $300 for the "kit". If I have made errors in my assumptions or assertions, please correct me.



I fail to see the significance of your world wide manual launch. It apparently can't be downloaded, there is no information about buying it or whether or not it will be a free upgrade to those that purchased the first one. The efficiency claim is the same as it was. The YouTube video seems to be the same as 8 weeks ago. What's new?????


I am a member, one of the first, of the Keppe Motor Club (forum). As of 2 days ago I don't recall anyone in the forum claiming an efficiency of > about 15%. Most results have been pretty dismal even with what looks like faithful replications of the motor. As of today there are only 50 members of the forum and I haven't seen "lots of exciting development occurring around the world".
I see more frustration.

You claim the motor uses 70-90% less energy than current small motors. Assuming an 80% efficiency for a current small motor, a 50W motor would be able to deliver 40W of power. Lets assume your motor does use 70% less power. That means it consumes only 15W to deliver 40W of power. You should be able to connect the motor to a 90% efficient generator and have a self powered generator delivering 11W of free energy. If your motor uses 90% less power, you should be able to deliver 31W of "free" power. Have you done this?

I have made only 2 assumptions here. 1- A small motor can be 80% efficient and 2- a small generator can be 90% efficient. Everything else is based on your assertions. If my assumptions are out of line, I will gladly accept corrections.

Please reply to the forum so all members can see your responses.

Jack Adams