Day Four

A couple of interesting hits today.

I attended the Plenary Session for the Solidarity Economy, which was headed by the Global Economic Alternatives Network. Some interesting speeches but I’m more interested in looking up what’s happening in the various local networks of cooperatives and complementary currencies.

In the 12pm slot, I caught a mad-science ‘free energy’ device called the Keppe Motor. Mad science is a side hobby of mine – there’s a whole underground zoo of alternative physical theories, alleged contra-physical effects, and free energy / overunity / antigravity / perpetual motion devices. Some of these things, despite being impossible, may actually exist. (For an introduction to this strange borderland of science, I recommend PESWiki and Jean-Louis Naudin’s JLN Labs.)

Anyway. The usual caveats apply: yes, I saw a device operating (a motor running a table fan) which is claimed to have anomalously high efficiency (12 watts rather than 50 watts to run the same fan with a conventional electric motor). If this is reproducible, that seems like a pretty straightforward win.

Of course, it’s a big ‘if’, because we’ve entered the borderworld, which means that most people will a scientific background will immediately reject such claims as self-evidently false. And that may or may not be a sensible common-sense thing to do.

Unfortunately, like many such free-energy promotors, the Keppe people are being very coy about their secrets, and not open-sourcing the thing for replication. That usually rings alarm bells, and also for very good reason – at the very least, I think it’s an intensely stupid thing to do if one really wants to unleash not just a new technology but a new physics on the world. So, very frustrated there.

However, on the above site, the Keppe people are now selling a replication kit that does NOT reproduce the real motor but a ‘toy’ device that is claimed to demonstrate a related effect. At US$320 (or US$75 for just an assembly manual and you provide the parts) PLUS a click-through ‘licence agreement‘ of questionable legality that says “Any modification, translation, reproduction, lending, rental, resale, cession, assignment or any other form of making this Keppe Motor KIT or Keppe Motor Manual available to third parties, as well as any other materials which might come to be made available to the End User by Keppe & Pacheco in the future is forbidden.“, that’s a pretty steep ask in my book.

You put something interesting in my hand, I’m going to show it to everyone I know, take photos, and blog about it, and that’s normal, and that’s my right as a human being. If you want me to go against my basic instincts and shut up, you need to PAY me and pay me extremely well, not the other way around.

I’m an open source fan and that applies doubly to basic science and triply to extremely controversial basic science. I see no reason why any interesting physical principles of devices which allegedly defy conventional physical theory should ever be concealed if the promoter wants to retain any credibility whatever.

However, the kit is out there, and if anyone in the mad-science experimenter community wants to burn US$320 to investigate, it might be worth a try. For the moment, I’m following the discussion on overunity.com.

I see there’s also a blog and a discussion forum, which may or may not be enlightening. The PESWiki entry could be more helpful.

But as for me today, I certainly saw a device of some kind which when plugged into electrical power rotated. That much is real and confirmable, and I’ll post my handheld pictures later for what they’re worth. What the thing is, and what its specs really are, is still an open question.

I also left the Forum with an English-language copy of Keppe’s book, “The New Physics derived from a Disinverted Metaphysics”. I did not pay anything for it, so maybe that reflects honest intentions on the part of the presenter, whose name I sadly don’t recall [edit: Alex Frascari] but seemed a nice enough person. The book itself is NOT a physics manual but a philosophical work that talks about physics and makes some interesting suggestions (matter derives from energy not the other way around). It makes no specific models or predictions that could be used to build a motor. The trend of thought could be considered ‘New Age’ but it’s a stream of philosophy I happen to personally agree with, so as far as that goes I think he’s onto something. But it’s not a blueprint or anything resembling a *theory*, and it’s that level of specific, detailed, replication information that I sorely wish these ‘free energy’ people would just stop trying to patent, and reveal.

Edit: My photos are up here. These were just snaps I took with my standard digital camera. I make no claims except that this is the device I saw. I signed no non-disclosure agreement to take these and there seemed to be no problem with me doing so, so I hope I haven’t offended by posting them.

Edit 2: After rewatching the video showed at the presentation, which is on Youtube, I can identify the presenter as Alex Frascari, one of the three inventors of the motor that Cesar Soos introduces in the video. Thanks for the book, Alex!

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Day Four”

  1. Shibashis Says:

    I agree with you when you say that for a new physics to breath proper life in this world it requires to reach out to the world, more importantly the world needs to feel comfortable with the principles of this new physics. Which in itself is a hard hard ask, most of us will not even listen to any theory which defies what we have been taught previously, and that is down to arrogance if you ask me.
    You are right, it is important to give the world access to the new technology so they can explore, but at the same time if you make the technology “open” how do you stop it from being exploited? I am an opensource fan as well, and I vouch for it always.
    It is a very fine line, very very fine that people involved with the Keppe motor are walking as they try to provide the technology to people who are interested and at the same time prevent it from being exploited. I happen to have reasons to believe that the motor is authentic, I applaud the people involved for their great work, lets hope they can spread the word and people start taking notice.

  2. natecull Says:

    Hi, and thanks for commenting.

    I’m not sure I understand what you mean by ‘exploited’ in the context of a (claimed) breakthrough-physics technology like the Keppe motor.

    Do you mean ‘widely built and deployed, and sold for money’? If so, I fail to see how that would be a bad thing at all. As long as the specifications are open, anyone would be free to build their own version, so no one company selling it would be able to charge any more than the people building it for free. Nobody would get rich, but everyone would benefit from the actual device. To my mind, this would be the best of all possible worlds.

    This is how the Internet was built: the IETF standards were made freely available for anyone to implement, without any charge or royalty. The result was a huge explosion of human activity and shared knowledge, and a platform on which other products and services could be built.

    It’s also how science works (or is supposed to). Newton and Einstein, for instance, published their findings, with no requirement for others to pay any money in order to verify the truth of their claims. Without such openness, it is difficult to see how science can progress at all.

    If by ‘exploit’ you are suggesting that the Keppe Motor team somehow deserve some kind of personal royalty or payback for their claimed new physics, rather than making their claims available for peer review – then I respectfully disagree that this is either ethical, normal or useful for the development of science.

    To me, it all comes down to what is one’s motive for conducting research. If all you want is personal reward and advancement, then by all means charge money for your work, and put restrictive licences on it which forbid others to implement or correct your work without paying you money. But if you take this route, don’t expect to actually achieve anything in terms of getting the technology/science out there. If on the other hand you think that the existence of the technology itself is its own reward and will make the world a better place for you by merely being built – then it seems like the most efficient way to do this is to release it for free and get other people to check your work.

    There’s a third meaning of ‘exploit’ which is also possible: if you are afraid that the technology or even science itself is dangerous, and that wide deployment of it could be a bad thing in itself (as might be the case with, for example, nuclear fission or fusion). In that case then, yes, I might agree that it should perhaps not be revealed freely. But then I would say that it probably shouldn’t be revealed at all, and certainly not to the people with the most money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: