I made this remark to ecochercheur who said the power calculation "smoky" because there was no consideration of the phase shift angle, the famous phi !!!
Keppe writes on his little sheet: P = U x I
We say that in alternative it should have written P = U x I x cosine (phi)
But that does not call into question the coefficient of performance higher than 1, because, in the calculation of the Coefficient of performance, the electric power is in the denominator and
P (electric) = U x I x cosine (phi)
So with cosine phi (which can only be between 0 and 1), P (electric) is even smaller, so the COP is bigger. Therefore even if the power calculation were "smoky" which I am not sure, that would only increase the Coefficient of performance and therefore make the engine even more on unit !!!
Keppe engine: smoky or awesome?
Good evening
already we mix all the cop has nothing to do in electrotech
I did not try to dissect the formula, but if I read you correctly, that means that the more P tends towards zero then the more cop tends towards infinity
explanation please
But that does not call into question the coefficient of performance higher than 1, because, in the calculation of the Coefficient of performance, the electric power is in the denominator and
P (electric) = U x I x cosine (phi)
So with cosine phi (which can only be between 0 and 1), P (electric) is even smaller, so the COP is bigger. Therefore even if the power calculation were "smoky" which I am not sure, that would only increase the Coefficient of performance and therefore make the engine even more on unit !!!
already we mix all the cop has nothing to do in electrotech
I did not try to dissect the formula, but if I read you correctly, that means that the more P tends towards zero then the more cop tends towards infinity
explanation please
0 x
Am I stupid or what? when i put the operation given on the first video i find not 1.48 like him but rather 1119
0.2 * 920 * 42 = 7728
203 * 0.034 = 6.902
7728 / 6.902 = 1119.68
So there is already a shit in their calculation, or an intermediate conversion which is not shown.
In addition, if the mechanical power is indeed a product of the couple by the speed, if I remember correctly to have watts it is necessary to take revolutions / second and not revolutions per minute ...
So it's 15.33 rpm you have to take
And then it seems to me that the couple is in Newton meters ... 42 grams is not 42N
Again, if I'm not mistaken, 42 grams is 0.42N (if we simplify because we normally have to take gravity into account)
By asking the calculation (0.2x15.33x0.42) / (203 * 0.034) I find 18.65% of return ... we are far from something that exceeds 100%
Anyway, my physics lessons are far away and I have never been a fool in math so I could be wrong, but that already seems more plausible to me
0.2 * 920 * 42 = 7728
203 * 0.034 = 6.902
7728 / 6.902 = 1119.68
So there is already a shit in their calculation, or an intermediate conversion which is not shown.
In addition, if the mechanical power is indeed a product of the couple by the speed, if I remember correctly to have watts it is necessary to take revolutions / second and not revolutions per minute ...
So it's 15.33 rpm you have to take
And then it seems to me that the couple is in Newton meters ... 42 grams is not 42N
Again, if I'm not mistaken, 42 grams is 0.42N (if we simplify because we normally have to take gravity into account)
By asking the calculation (0.2x15.33x0.42) / (203 * 0.034) I find 18.65% of return ... we are far from something that exceeds 100%
Anyway, my physics lessons are far away and I have never been a fool in math so I could be wrong, but that already seems more plausible to me
0 x
Well actually it's not even that. After researching the power of a torque it is the product of the torque by the rotation in radian / s
One lap being 2 Pi radian, I think we must multilip the 15.33 r / s by 2 Pi
Suddenly I now find a yield of 1.172 so it's not yet the 1.48 he finds ... In one case as in the other there is something going wrong (and the calculation is smoky anyway as presented in the video)
One lap being 2 Pi radian, I think we must multilip the 15.33 r / s by 2 Pi
Suddenly I now find a yield of 1.172 so it's not yet the 1.48 he finds ... In one case as in the other there is something going wrong (and the calculation is smoky anyway as presented in the video)
0 x
I quickly flew over the note and looked at the photos which explain the construction of their demonstration engine.
All I see is a kind of brushless motor.
Without getting into a big explanation on the principle according to which this engine must function, the ILS is just used to cut the current at the right time so that the magnet does not find itself blocked in equilbre opposite the poles of the stator. By inertia the rotor continues this race and the current is restored.
This operation results in half two things, the rotation is maintained by a resonance phenomenon (the swing of the swing that we send higher and higher without needing a lot of force, if we just push it at the right time)
Suddenly the starting torque is almost zero, nothing can block this engine and it can also not have a significant useful torque since nothing can come to dampen the reasoning phonomene. Then there is only the inertia which allows this motor to continue to run. If the resistance torque is further increased, the inertia is no longer sufficient to exceed the point of equilibrium of the stator poles and the motor stops.
Here is my analysis of a small electrician, as I said my physics lessons are far ...
Anyway, I do not see how this assembly makes it possible to recover I do not know what "mystical" energy or I do not really know what. For me it is neither more nor less than a phenomenon of reasoning.
All I see is a kind of brushless motor.
Without getting into a big explanation on the principle according to which this engine must function, the ILS is just used to cut the current at the right time so that the magnet does not find itself blocked in equilbre opposite the poles of the stator. By inertia the rotor continues this race and the current is restored.
This operation results in half two things, the rotation is maintained by a resonance phenomenon (the swing of the swing that we send higher and higher without needing a lot of force, if we just push it at the right time)
Suddenly the starting torque is almost zero, nothing can block this engine and it can also not have a significant useful torque since nothing can come to dampen the reasoning phonomene. Then there is only the inertia which allows this motor to continue to run. If the resistance torque is further increased, the inertia is no longer sufficient to exceed the point of equilibrium of the stator poles and the motor stops.
Here is my analysis of a small electrician, as I said my physics lessons are far ...
Anyway, I do not see how this assembly makes it possible to recover I do not know what "mystical" energy or I do not really know what. For me it is neither more nor less than a phenomenon of reasoning.
0 x
Sorry to squat the subject but I keep watching. I did a tour on the last proposed link (http://www.keppemotor.com/fr/index.php) and there is a scam
320 $ the DIY demonstration kit while there is 2 € of enamelled wire, a battery at 3 € a switch and an ILS at 3 € and three pieces of cardboard! It is to abuse.
We just call it a scam
320 $ the DIY demonstration kit while there is 2 € of enamelled wire, a battery at 3 € a switch and an ILS at 3 € and three pieces of cardboard! It is to abuse.
We just call it a scam
0 x
- Former Oceano
- Moderator
- posts: 1571
- Registration: 04/06/05, 23:10
- Location: Lorraine - France
- x 1
-
- Grand Econologue
- posts: 865
- Registration: 10/05/09, 16:39
- x 21
- Capt_Maloche
- Moderator
- posts: 4559
- Registration: 29/07/06, 11:14
- Location: Ile-de-France
- x 42
moreover, the intensity and current measurement instruments that it uses are not reliable for measurement in alternating current other than sinusoidal and can be limited to 50hz
In short, nothing convincing
That said, if someone wants to check by taking 1 hour of modeling, to close or open this subject ...
In short, nothing convincing
That said, if someone wants to check by taking 1 hour of modeling, to close or open this subject ...
0 x
"Consumption is similar to a search consolation, a way to fill a growing existential void. With, the key, a lot of frustration and a little guilt, increasing the environmental awareness." (Gérard Mermet)
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
In addition to the accuracy of the devices, there is something that bothers me: the fluctuation of the measurements.
Like at first they say they set the voltage to 200V ... not even 30s later we see that the voltage is again around 203V
Similarly, the speed of rotation is very fluctuating.
To make the calculations they take the values a bit at random, and probably those that arrange them.
It would take an instantaneous measurement of all values at the same time, it is not at all what they do.
Because we are talking about an assembly which barely absorbs 6W, as much as to say that the slightest volt or the slightest difference in difference greatly influences the result of the calculation.
Like at first they say they set the voltage to 200V ... not even 30s later we see that the voltage is again around 203V
Similarly, the speed of rotation is very fluctuating.
To make the calculations they take the values a bit at random, and probably those that arrange them.
It would take an instantaneous measurement of all values at the same time, it is not at all what they do.
Because we are talking about an assembly which barely absorbs 6W, as much as to say that the slightest volt or the slightest difference in difference greatly influences the result of the calculation.
0 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 25 Replies
- 2506 views
-
Last message by Macro
View the latest post
16/08/23, 21:35A subject posted in the forum : special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction
-
- 17 Replies
- 10675 views
-
Last message by izentrop
View the latest post
07/09/20, 09:05A subject posted in the forum : special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction
-
- 1 Replies
- 7402 views
-
Last message by Pascaltech
View the latest post
03/08/16, 10:11A subject posted in the forum : special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction
-
- 1 Replies
- 8280 views
-
Last message by chatelot16
View the latest post
11/03/16, 20:29A subject posted in the forum : special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction
-
- 9 Replies
- 8357 views
-
Last message by Pascaltech
View the latest post
03/08/16, 10:22A subject posted in the forum : special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction
Back to "Special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 203 guests