Since the announcement by Fleischmann and Pons of anomalous nuclear-scale excess energy in heavy water/palladium and platinum electrochemical cells in 1989, a number of other excess-energy phenomena have emerged. Among them are confirmed reports of excess energy in ordinary-water electrochemical cells, often with a variety of high surface area cathode materials. Excess energy-from-water claims have also included reports of activation of reactions by both ultrasonic transducers and rotary cavitation generators. Linked with all the above have been reports of nuclear reaction products formed at low energy. This indicates that the origin of the excess energy may lie within a previously unidentified category of nuclear reactions.¹

The Kinetic Furnace is an energy-from-water machine invented and patented by Eugene Perkins and Ralph E. Pope of Kinetic Systems, Inc. of Cumming, Georgia (USA). It has been under development since the early 1980s, predating the Fleischmann-Pons announcement by many years. It produces robust, kilowatt level excess heat. It has been confirmed in independent testing by at least two industrial corporations and at least three independent engineering firms that specialize in measuring the performance of heating and air-conditioning systems. We recently confirmed the excess heat in a preliminary on-site test. We plan to do additional tests with much more sophisticated instrumentation in the near future.

The first U.S. Patent, #4,424,797 for "Heating Device" was awarded to Eugene Perkins, January 10, 1984 (filed October 13, 1981). The patent abstract states:

"A heater for heating a liquid including a housing defining a closed elongated heating chamber therein with a cylindrical chamber surface, a rotor body rotatably journalled in the heating chamber with a cylindrical peripheral surface thereon concentrically of the chamber surface so as to define an annular space between the chamber surface and the peripheral surface on the rotor body, drive means for effecting relative rotation between rotor body and the housing, and pump means for circulating the liquid through the annular space so that the rotation of the rotor body heats the liquid passing through the annular space."

A second generation patent by Perkins, US Patent #4,483,277 "Superheated Liquid Heating System" was granted November 20, 1984 (filed June 2, 1983). A third iteration of the invention appeared in U.S. Patent #4,501,231 by Perkins (filed June 2, 1983), "Heating System with Liquid Pre-Heating." The present embodiment of the device appears in U.S. Patent #5,341,768 (filed Sept. 21, 1993) by Ralph E. Pope of Cumming, Georgia, "Apparatus for Frictionally Heating Liquid." This version of the invention has a rotary pumping element spun by an electric motor within a water-filled chamber (see Figures 1 through 6 of the patent, reproduced here).

Throughout the history of this development, excess energy has been confirmed by independent consulting engineers. This inspired the inventors during difficult times. Obviously, the application of conventionally understood physics prohibits the creation of excess energy in such a simple device. The electric input power would normally exceed the heat output of the device due to the inefficiency of the electric drive motor and, in the limit, the device would approach C.O.P. (Coefficient of Performance; output divided by input) = 1.0. With a normal electric water heater, power input is always slightly greater than the heat added to the water, because of unavoidable heat losses. The C.O.P. approaches 1.0, never reaching or exceeding it. With this device, however, a C.O.P greater than 1.0 is routinely obtained. Extensive testing with water and air flow calorimetry has shown a profoundly significant excess-energy anomaly.

Prior Testing
Compared to most most (not all) electrochemical cold fusion cells, the Perkins-Pope system is robust: it works consistently on demand. And it produces a much higher absolute excess power; kilowatts versus watts or tens of watts ó in a C.O.P. range from 1.2 to 7.0. Some cold fusion cells have a better input to output ratio, however. Indeed, some have operated for extended periods with no input, in "heat-after-death" reactions.

The latest embodiment of the Perkins-Pope device usually operates at a C.O.P. of around 1.5. Excursions to 1.8 are not uncommon. Four kilowatts of electric input power drive a 6 HP-rated AC motor (3450 RPM). Based on previous performance tests, it is expected that the machine can be improved to produce a much larger C.O.P. reliably. The inventors understand which parameters must be improved to achieve this. For example, by testing for wear on the steel inserts, they determined that in rotors with 12 holes, often only one or two holes generate ultrasound. If all 12 holes could be "turned on" the rotor would probably produce much more excess energy. Research in fluid dynamics will be needed to address this problem.

The dimensions of the Perkins-Pope unit in its present configuration sheet metal housing are:67.3 cm W x 44.8 cm H x 113 cm L; its weight is about 90 kg.

The s tested one Kinetic Furnace on-site in Georgia and have purchased this unit for permanent testing and demonstration to all serious interested parties at its lab facility at the Bow Technologies Center, Bow, New Hampshire.

We intend to post test results openly on the World Wide Web at frequent intervals and work with others to get to the bottom of the energy anomaly. Much work needs to be done. The inventors have agreed to collaborate with the present s to make sure that C.O.P. > 1.0 is achieved routinely in this initially-purchased unit. Perkins-Pope have already empirically discovered parameters that make the system work and ones that lead to failure.

Reliance Electric of Indiana has tested an earlier prototype of the machine at its facility and determined it was over-unity.³ Operating units of the General Electric Corporation have found the device to be over-unity. Both of these companies have supplied Kinetic Systems, Inc. with free electric motors to continue their ground-breaking work.⁴ These companies did not file formal reports, but other groups have and we will reproduce them in detail in Issue #19 of Infinite Energy (May, 1998).⁵

One of the best reports was by Air Techniques, Inc. of Marietta Georgia, which in the fall of 1983 determined after several days of testing that C.O.P.ís of 1.21, 1.54, 1.98, and 1.64 had been conservatively measured. This is a testing company that routinely deals with the evaluation of heating and ventilation systems, which is the type of analysis required on a device of this sort. Calorimetry is straightforward. The rotor drive motor consumes electricity and heats water in a closed recirculation loop. Part of this water-loop passes through a heat exchanger, which resembles an automobile radiator. An electric air blower motor pushes air across this radiator as well as across the entire rotor and electric motor heating assembly. The air enters a rectangular exit port duct with a 1.0 ft2 cross section (12 inches x 12 inches). Essentially all the heat produced is transferred to the air. The output of thermal power is determined by measuring the mass flow of air exiting the device and the air temperature increase from the inlet (ambient ) value. The specific heat of air was taken from the Dwyer tables. We did not measure barometric pressure in these tests. We used the average value recommended in the Dwyer tables.⁶

Dunn Laboratories, Inc. of Atlanta Georgia measured a C.O.P. of 1.54 in testing carried out on December 6, 1982.

Diversified Engineering Services of Dallas, Texas analyzed test results of August 26, 1983 obtained by Dunn laboratories, Inc: 3.38 KW input, 9.96 KW output, for a C.O.P. of 2.95. It commented also on the tests of Cerny and Ivey Engineers, Inc. of July 11, 1983, finding a C.O.P = 1.64.

The Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (Atlanta office) in August 1986 tested the system and found an average C.O.P. of about 3.1 with an input power of 4.6 kW.

The above list of results is presented here merely to substantiate that a variety of independent testers have found the same general over-unity results. Raw data from these tests will be published and critiqued in a future issue of Infinite Energy.

Testing in April 1998
The s visited the Kinetic Systems, Inc. testing facility in Georgia on April 9, 1998. The day before our arrival, Pope reported that two of their units were operating, one at C.O.P. = 1.32 and the other at 1.38. We tested only one unit, for two and a half hours. We attached an Amprobe DM-II electric power data logger to the single-phase, 230 volt AC motor leads. Samples were recorded at 1 second intervals throughout the entire duration of the test. The approximate average real electric input power, automatically corrected for the power factor was 4.27 kW.

After an initial heat-up time of 8 minutes, operation of the cooling fan was initiated. (The input power collection system was active during this 8 minute start-up transient. The total input electrical energy recorded during the entire 2.72 hours of data collection was 11.6 kWH.) The temperature between ambient input air and output air dropped as expected from a DT of 22 °F to 14.2 °F within about six minutes. Thereafter the DT varied from a low of 13.4 °F to a high of 15.4 °F. In this preliminary test the DT was recorded manually in a lab notebook every three to five minutes. In the future it will be recorded automatically on a computer. The average of 31 readings taken at irregular intervals over this period was 14.4 °F with a standard deviation of 0.46 °F.

The air velocity in the exit duct was approximately 1125 feet/minute as measured by a new factory-calibrated electronic anemometer from Davis Instruments:Anemometer/Thermometer Data Logger (Model DTA4000). This confirmed the conventional nine-point average air velocity in the duct as measured by a Dwyer Durablock Manometer and probe.

The average C.O.P. based on the temperature DT and average input power was 1.19. The peak was 1.27. However, the system was clearly not displaying its full heat generation capability. The side panel had been removed to expose the very hot rotor chamber and radiator (water egress temperature was 170 °F as measured by a dial thermometer in the fluid)--thus there were considerable convective and radiative losses. In future tests we will insulate the machine and its exhaust duct to prevent this and other loses. After the tests, Pope and Perkins determined that there was a small gap between the unit and the cardboard duct, caused by loose duct tape, so it is possible that a significant heat loss was occurring there also.

Go to page [2]