Keppe engine: smoky or awesome?
- Capt_Maloche
- Moderator
- posts: 4559
- Registration: 29/07/06, 11:14
- Location: Ile-de-France
- x 42
The good question is: is there already an improvement?
because an engine efficiency is around 90% in general, see 95% for large models
Afterwards, the efficiency of a propeller is rather bad, of the order of 30 to 50% for small plastic sizes and 70% for the best in aeronautics.
I'm skeptical, like the pit
because an engine efficiency is around 90% in general, see 95% for large models
Afterwards, the efficiency of a propeller is rather bad, of the order of 30 to 50% for small plastic sizes and 70% for the best in aeronautics.
I'm skeptical, like the pit
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! ^ _ ^
Hello,
You seem to be having trouble recalculating engine performance as shown in this video. It's still very easy.
Electric power = current x voltage = 0.034 A x 203 V
Mechanical power = torque x velocity
with:
Torque = force x arm = mass x 9.81 x arm = 0.042 kg x 9.81 x 0.2 m
velocity (angular: rad / sec) = 2 x PI x rpm / 60
In short the equal yield (0.042 x 9.81 x 0.2 x 2 x PI * 920) / (60 x 0.034 x 203) = +/- 1.15
Conclusion: if their basic data is correct, the yield obtained is effectively> 100% (ie: there are no errors in the calculation).
You seem to be having trouble recalculating engine performance as shown in this video. It's still very easy.
Electric power = current x voltage = 0.034 A x 203 V
Mechanical power = torque x velocity
with:
Torque = force x arm = mass x 9.81 x arm = 0.042 kg x 9.81 x 0.2 m
velocity (angular: rad / sec) = 2 x PI x rpm / 60
In short the equal yield (0.042 x 9.81 x 0.2 x 2 x PI * 920) / (60 x 0.034 x 203) = +/- 1.15
Conclusion: if their basic data is correct, the yield obtained is effectively> 100% (ie: there are no errors in the calculation).
0 x
J Greef wrote:Hello,
You seem to be having trouble recalculating engine performance as shown in this video. It's still very easy.
Electric power = current x voltage = 0.034 A x 203 V
Mechanical power = torque x velocity
with:
Torque = force x arm = mass x 9.81 x arm = 0.042 kg x 9.81 x 0.2 m
velocity (angular: rad / sec) = 2 x PI x rpm / 60
In short the equal yield (0.042 x 9.81 x 0.2 x 2 x PI * 920) / (60 x 0.034 x 203) = +/- 1.15
Conclusion: if their basic data is correct, the yield obtained is effectively> 100% (ie: there are no errors in the calculation).
The only difference between your calculation and mine is that I rounded gravity to 10 when you took its real value of 9.81, hence the difference in result (me 117%)
And we show in passing that a variation of 0.19 in one of the variables already leads to a variation of 2% on the result. Like what the sum of all measurement errors (taken a little hard) can very well lead to this extraordinary performance.
Finally me what I criticized at the beginning is especially the way in which their calculation is posed, because even if the result is exact, the equation is completely false for the calculation of a return.
0 x
J Greef wrote:in Forhorse,
You write that "the equation is completely wrong for calculating a yield". So in your opinion, which equation should we use in such a case?
Since they calculated the output as = mechanical power / absorbed electrical power, I don't see any errors. Am I wrong ?
Well yours is very good.
But surely not the one they pose in the video this one is nonsense. I still haven't understood how he finds 1.148 with this equation, and especially why he poses this one instead of asking the correct one.
0 x
Keppe engine efficiency.
The efficiency of this Keppe motor in basic configuration is not too bad but much lower than the yields of conventional industrial electric motors (which are above 90% as mentioned by Capt_Maloche).
If they claim that with this engine we could achieve very significant savings they compare with small electric motors which have a deplorable performance. They explained it well on their forum and there is also a copy of this explanation under the following link (at the bottom of this page, post of 30 April):
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?PHPS ... 0#lastPost
Le forum Keppe:
http://keppemotorclub.bestforumpro.com/forum.htm
If they claim that with this engine we could achieve very significant savings they compare with small electric motors which have a deplorable performance. They explained it well on their forum and there is also a copy of this explanation under the following link (at the bottom of this page, post of 30 April):
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?PHPS ... 0#lastPost
Le forum Keppe:
http://keppemotorclub.bestforumpro.com/forum.htm
0 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 25 Replies
- 2653 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
- 10862 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
- 7529 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
- 8418 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
- 8467 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 255 guests