Home
Since February 2, 2008 when researchers César Soós and Robert Frascari achieved the initial simple functional prototype of the Keppe Motor, “Free Energy” and alternative energy scholars have had questions about the similarities and the differences between the Keppe Motor and the Newman Motor invented by Joseph Newman and the Window Motor invented by John Bedini and Ron Cole.
To help clarify the motors differences and similarities (particularly with Joseph Newman’s motor) I believe it is fundamental to explain the main points of the theory behind each motor in order to understand the motor’s limitations and also why, after nearly 30 years, they have not achieved practical applications.
I hope that after this brief explanation the differences between the Keppe Motor and the other motors are abundantly clear.
About the Newman motor:
Newman’s motor is based on the inventor’s theory that suggests “his machine transfers energy in excess from electro-chemical energy taken from batteries” (Wikipedia). Here, we note that the Newman motor was conceived to work with batteries (regular power supply doesn’t have an electro-chemical source), not with any power source (rectified AC for instance, as in the case of the Keppe Motor).
In practice, two factors are fundamental to make the Newman motor function: 1) a multiple physical switch, which provokes multiple sparks during the cycle of the rotor – implying a feeding waveform completely different from Keppe Motor’s, and 2) a large number of stator coil turns to obtain the current delay effect regarding the applied voltage. As a result, the motor is massive and very heavy – opposite from the Keppe Motor, which benefits from the phenomenon of resonance and operate with any number of turns.
Both factors mentioned can be explained through the Newman’s theory and is summarized below:
A quick research on Newman’s machine allows us to conclude that Newman assumes that the field arising from electric potentials (voltage), when applied to some material (copper, for instance) makes this material produce a magnetic flow ... differently from scientists who believe that it is the electric current that produces the magnetic field, not voltage. As voltage conducts the electric current inside an inductor, electric current never increases in the same speed as voltage. This causes a lag between current and voltage, always resulting in a lower power factor, as in the case of an inductor (coil). Newman states that the growth rate of the magnetic field arises from two factors: voltage applied and mass of current lead subject to this voltage, and that the energy flow producing the magnetic field comes from the energy contained in the actual atoms of the current lead.
The crucial part occurs when the mechanic switch interrupts the circuit, removing the electric field applied. The collapse of the magnetic field in the coil brings an instantaneous variation of the magnetic field, causing reversion in the direction of electric charges, resulting in higher voltage and speed. Therefore, the magnetic field created through the increase in the return voltage would be the main cause of rotor propulsion. During return peaks, heat is also produced by the flow of electric charges that now walk in the direction opposite to the voltage coming from the battery. According to Newman, the conversion between these two forms of energy allows mechanical energy output to be higher than what would be expected when measuring it directly in the batteries, although the machine is not a perpetual motion one.
Dr. Roger Hastings, a solid state physicist and a Newman motor specialist, affirms that “the essential characteristic of the Newman motor is the extremely long length of the wire necessary to spool the coil, 89 km in one version, with many thousands of turns. The wire is so long that electric charges don’t have time to reach the end before the flow is reversed by the switch while the rotor spins.”
Newman claimed over 100% efficiency for his invention and requested a patent from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The request was denied by the patent office of the United States in 1986. According to the NIST, "In all tests conducted, input energy always exceeded output energy. In other words, the device doesn’t supply more energy than it consumes."
So, after almost 30 years, the Newman motor has never been introduced to the market and its practical and competitive application has been hindered due to its own theoretical conception. To achieve the Newman effect, the inventor designed his motor with tremendous amounts of copper wiring. The motor then becomes extremely massive (approximately 3 tons) to generate 15HP.
Conclusion:
In spite of the physical similarities between the basic demonstrative models of the Keppe Motor and the Newman motor, the theories behind their conception and development allow us to verify an undeniable difference regarding their operation and practical application in the market for higher power models.
It is clear that Newman follows inverted patterns (cf. N. Keppe) of classic physics since he believes that energy comes from the atoms of the current lead, and therefore from the mass of coil copper. It is inevitable that this idea has limited the development of his motor.
On the other hand, the Keppe Motor was developed according to the revolutionary principles of scientist Norberto Keppe presented in his book “A Nova Física da Metafísica Desinvertida – The New Physics Derived from a Disinverted Metaphysics”. These principles show that the resonance between the stator coils and the magnetic field of the rotor is essential for its high performance. As a result, the Keppe Motor is small, and needs few turns while working with rectified alternate current or batteries. The Keppe Motor doesn’t need sparking (it works with a solid state switch) and uses a self-resonance control circuit, something never mentioned by Newman.
Besides, the Keppe Motor uses a unique system invented by Cesar Soós, Roberto and Alexandre Frascari called Electromagnetic Turbo System - (EMTS), which takes the Keppe Motor easily beyond the 100% efficiency limit.
In light of the aforesaid, we affirm that the Keppe Motor is simpler and cheaper and it has immediate applications in the market, justifying its patent as a differentiated product.
About the Window motor of Bedini & Cole:
John Bedini is both an electrical engineer who studies “free energy based on the scalar theory of American physicist Thomas Bearden” and an inventor of audio devices and generator/motor apparatus for scientific demonstration.
Devices developed by Bedini are based on the pulse switching transistor circuit he named SSG. Of his inventions, the one most visually similar to the Keppe Motor is the Bedini-Cole Window Motor. The first prototype of the Window Motor dates from 1984.
A closer view into the Window motor reveals that this apparatus’ objective is to achieve self-sustainability using the SSG circuit. It does not have the objective to obtain useful working torque as the Keppe Motor does. The arrangement of coils at no load, near rotor axis and permanent magnets fixed over the cylindrical rotor - outside the magnetic field of coils, reveals that this device has not been conceived to develop working torque, as with the conventional continuous or alternate current motor and with the Keppe Motor.
Additionally, the SSG circuit of Bedini was conceived to work with permanent magnet rotors to obtain the battery charging effect caused by the capture of radiant energy (scalar theory of Bearden) and not to obtain working torque.
To further clarify the differences between the motors, the previous statements can be verified by referring to the inventor’s patents:
1. ^ US6,677,730 (PDF version) (2004-01-13) Bedini, John C., Device and method for pulse charging a battery and for driving other devices with a pulse.
2. ^ US6,545,444 (PDF version) (2003-04-08) Bedini, John C., Device and method for utilizing a monopole motor to create back EMF to charge batteries.
The initial objective of the Keppe Motor development team was to obtain working torque useful in the market, related to portability, competition, and above all, and low consumption. These objectives would fulfill the ecological targets of Associação STOP a Destruição do Mundo (Stop the Destruction of the World Association), which owns the patent request for the Keppe Motor. Therefore, the Keppe Motor’s configuration is in between free energy motors (which don’t have torque) and conventional motors.
Similar to free energy motors, the feeding of the Keppe Motor is pulsing, and it reuses the energy of coils. Similar to conventional motors, the Keppe Motor has versatile working torque (though to date, it has only been developed for low power), which allows it to work with permanent magnets, electromagnets, high, medium and low voltages, DC power supply of batteries and solar panels, or the AC supply of domestic power grid. The Keppe Motor is also versatile in its switching. For example, it can be commuted by using brushes, relays or solid state components, always delivering the same efficiencies (different from Newman and Bedini who believe the sparks are necessary for the free energy effect alleged in their devices), and using sensors (optical, magnetic (Hall), etc.) or not using sensors.
Additionally, the Keppe Motor’s exclusive feature intends to capture essential energy existing in vacuum (Disinverted New Physics of Keppe) through the principle of resonance. Keppe’s theory states that matter is a byproduct of the essential energy in the vacuum. Therefore, resonance is fundamental in the conception and development of the technology of the Keppe Motor.
For the Bedini & Cole “generator/motor” to operate, it must use, as an exclusive condition, Bedini’s SSG circuit.
The Keppe Motor does not need and was not designed to use this circuit. To use transistor switching, the Keppe Motor development team studied and adapted a special circuit to generate repeated pulses, widely known in electronic engineering to generate short duration pulses (of few milliseconds) and high amplitude (voltage peaks). Such circuits are commonly used to generate time control, synchronization or trigger pulses.
Conclusion:
Despite apparent similarities in construction, the operating principle of the Keppe Motor (resonance) is different from that of the Bedini-Cole Window Motor (SSG pulsing circuit); therefore producing different results. Also, the theories behind the development of the Keppe Motor (Disinverted New Physics of Keppe) and the Bedini-Cole Window Motor (Thomas Bearden) follow different paths. It is for this reason that after over two decades of the creation of the Window motor, no practical applications have been presented in the market, with the exception of battery chargers and apparatus still under scientific study, which uses the SSG pulsing circuit not used with the Keppe Motor.
To help clarify the motors differences and similarities (particularly with Joseph Newman’s motor) I believe it is fundamental to explain the main points of the theory behind each motor in order to understand the motor’s limitations and also why, after nearly 30 years, they have not achieved practical applications.
I hope that after this brief explanation the differences between the Keppe Motor and the other motors are abundantly clear.
About the Newman motor:
Newman’s motor is based on the inventor’s theory that suggests “his machine transfers energy in excess from electro-chemical energy taken from batteries” (Wikipedia). Here, we note that the Newman motor was conceived to work with batteries (regular power supply doesn’t have an electro-chemical source), not with any power source (rectified AC for instance, as in the case of the Keppe Motor).
In practice, two factors are fundamental to make the Newman motor function: 1) a multiple physical switch, which provokes multiple sparks during the cycle of the rotor – implying a feeding waveform completely different from Keppe Motor’s, and 2) a large number of stator coil turns to obtain the current delay effect regarding the applied voltage. As a result, the motor is massive and very heavy – opposite from the Keppe Motor, which benefits from the phenomenon of resonance and operate with any number of turns.
Both factors mentioned can be explained through the Newman’s theory and is summarized below:
A quick research on Newman’s machine allows us to conclude that Newman assumes that the field arising from electric potentials (voltage), when applied to some material (copper, for instance) makes this material produce a magnetic flow ... differently from scientists who believe that it is the electric current that produces the magnetic field, not voltage. As voltage conducts the electric current inside an inductor, electric current never increases in the same speed as voltage. This causes a lag between current and voltage, always resulting in a lower power factor, as in the case of an inductor (coil). Newman states that the growth rate of the magnetic field arises from two factors: voltage applied and mass of current lead subject to this voltage, and that the energy flow producing the magnetic field comes from the energy contained in the actual atoms of the current lead.
The crucial part occurs when the mechanic switch interrupts the circuit, removing the electric field applied. The collapse of the magnetic field in the coil brings an instantaneous variation of the magnetic field, causing reversion in the direction of electric charges, resulting in higher voltage and speed. Therefore, the magnetic field created through the increase in the return voltage would be the main cause of rotor propulsion. During return peaks, heat is also produced by the flow of electric charges that now walk in the direction opposite to the voltage coming from the battery. According to Newman, the conversion between these two forms of energy allows mechanical energy output to be higher than what would be expected when measuring it directly in the batteries, although the machine is not a perpetual motion one.
Dr. Roger Hastings, a solid state physicist and a Newman motor specialist, affirms that “the essential characteristic of the Newman motor is the extremely long length of the wire necessary to spool the coil, 89 km in one version, with many thousands of turns. The wire is so long that electric charges don’t have time to reach the end before the flow is reversed by the switch while the rotor spins.”
Newman claimed over 100% efficiency for his invention and requested a patent from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The request was denied by the patent office of the United States in 1986. According to the NIST, "In all tests conducted, input energy always exceeded output energy. In other words, the device doesn’t supply more energy than it consumes."
So, after almost 30 years, the Newman motor has never been introduced to the market and its practical and competitive application has been hindered due to its own theoretical conception. To achieve the Newman effect, the inventor designed his motor with tremendous amounts of copper wiring. The motor then becomes extremely massive (approximately 3 tons) to generate 15HP.
Conclusion:
In spite of the physical similarities between the basic demonstrative models of the Keppe Motor and the Newman motor, the theories behind their conception and development allow us to verify an undeniable difference regarding their operation and practical application in the market for higher power models.
It is clear that Newman follows inverted patterns (cf. N. Keppe) of classic physics since he believes that energy comes from the atoms of the current lead, and therefore from the mass of coil copper. It is inevitable that this idea has limited the development of his motor.
On the other hand, the Keppe Motor was developed according to the revolutionary principles of scientist Norberto Keppe presented in his book “A Nova Física da Metafísica Desinvertida – The New Physics Derived from a Disinverted Metaphysics”. These principles show that the resonance between the stator coils and the magnetic field of the rotor is essential for its high performance. As a result, the Keppe Motor is small, and needs few turns while working with rectified alternate current or batteries. The Keppe Motor doesn’t need sparking (it works with a solid state switch) and uses a self-resonance control circuit, something never mentioned by Newman.
Besides, the Keppe Motor uses a unique system invented by Cesar Soós, Roberto and Alexandre Frascari called Electromagnetic Turbo System - (EMTS), which takes the Keppe Motor easily beyond the 100% efficiency limit.
In light of the aforesaid, we affirm that the Keppe Motor is simpler and cheaper and it has immediate applications in the market, justifying its patent as a differentiated product.
About the Window motor of Bedini & Cole:
John Bedini is both an electrical engineer who studies “free energy based on the scalar theory of American physicist Thomas Bearden” and an inventor of audio devices and generator/motor apparatus for scientific demonstration.
Devices developed by Bedini are based on the pulse switching transistor circuit he named SSG. Of his inventions, the one most visually similar to the Keppe Motor is the Bedini-Cole Window Motor. The first prototype of the Window Motor dates from 1984.
A closer view into the Window motor reveals that this apparatus’ objective is to achieve self-sustainability using the SSG circuit. It does not have the objective to obtain useful working torque as the Keppe Motor does. The arrangement of coils at no load, near rotor axis and permanent magnets fixed over the cylindrical rotor - outside the magnetic field of coils, reveals that this device has not been conceived to develop working torque, as with the conventional continuous or alternate current motor and with the Keppe Motor.
Additionally, the SSG circuit of Bedini was conceived to work with permanent magnet rotors to obtain the battery charging effect caused by the capture of radiant energy (scalar theory of Bearden) and not to obtain working torque.
To further clarify the differences between the motors, the previous statements can be verified by referring to the inventor’s patents:
1. ^ US6,677,730 (PDF version) (2004-01-13) Bedini, John C., Device and method for pulse charging a battery and for driving other devices with a pulse.
2. ^ US6,545,444 (PDF version) (2003-04-08) Bedini, John C., Device and method for utilizing a monopole motor to create back EMF to charge batteries.
The initial objective of the Keppe Motor development team was to obtain working torque useful in the market, related to portability, competition, and above all, and low consumption. These objectives would fulfill the ecological targets of Associação STOP a Destruição do Mundo (Stop the Destruction of the World Association), which owns the patent request for the Keppe Motor. Therefore, the Keppe Motor’s configuration is in between free energy motors (which don’t have torque) and conventional motors.
Similar to free energy motors, the feeding of the Keppe Motor is pulsing, and it reuses the energy of coils. Similar to conventional motors, the Keppe Motor has versatile working torque (though to date, it has only been developed for low power), which allows it to work with permanent magnets, electromagnets, high, medium and low voltages, DC power supply of batteries and solar panels, or the AC supply of domestic power grid. The Keppe Motor is also versatile in its switching. For example, it can be commuted by using brushes, relays or solid state components, always delivering the same efficiencies (different from Newman and Bedini who believe the sparks are necessary for the free energy effect alleged in their devices), and using sensors (optical, magnetic (Hall), etc.) or not using sensors.
Additionally, the Keppe Motor’s exclusive feature intends to capture essential energy existing in vacuum (Disinverted New Physics of Keppe) through the principle of resonance. Keppe’s theory states that matter is a byproduct of the essential energy in the vacuum. Therefore, resonance is fundamental in the conception and development of the technology of the Keppe Motor.
For the Bedini & Cole “generator/motor” to operate, it must use, as an exclusive condition, Bedini’s SSG circuit.
The Keppe Motor does not need and was not designed to use this circuit. To use transistor switching, the Keppe Motor development team studied and adapted a special circuit to generate repeated pulses, widely known in electronic engineering to generate short duration pulses (of few milliseconds) and high amplitude (voltage peaks). Such circuits are commonly used to generate time control, synchronization or trigger pulses.
Conclusion:
Despite apparent similarities in construction, the operating principle of the Keppe Motor (resonance) is different from that of the Bedini-Cole Window Motor (SSG pulsing circuit); therefore producing different results. Also, the theories behind the development of the Keppe Motor (Disinverted New Physics of Keppe) and the Bedini-Cole Window Motor (Thomas Bearden) follow different paths. It is for this reason that after over two decades of the creation of the Window motor, no practical applications have been presented in the market, with the exception of battery chargers and apparatus still under scientific study, which uses the SSG pulsing circuit not used with the Keppe Motor.
