Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:16 am.
Kedron Data Proves Magnets as Energy Source
Kedron, headed by Kenneth C. Kozeka, Ph.D., presents what they believe will be an abundant source of extremely inexpensive, pollution-free mechanical energy, harnessed from strong electromagnetic forces generated by the spin of electrons in powerful permanent magnets such as those made of neodymium.
Extensive scientific data is presented to show that two permanent magnets of a particular shape can be pulled apart along a prescribed path using less work than the amount produced when the magnets come together along a different path. "I was the greatest pessimist" Kozeka said. That is why he repeated each experiment 14 times.
The company is in process of creating a machine that incorporates this phenomenon.
The research findings can be tested easily and inexpensively (~$200).
The EDEN PROJECT is now the property of NESCOR POWER.
http://www.nescorpower.com - under construction as of July 25, 2007
Kedron Corporation Discovers a New Energy Source that is Extremely Inexpensive, Abundant and Pollution-free (Press Relase June 13, 2007)
"I am please to say that you can look forward to seeing fairly soon an engine that will run based on my findings alone and without any supplemental source of energy. As you can imagine, it has been a bit challenging to create a mechanical design that incorporates the unusual linear and perpendicular motions." -- Ken Kozeka
The first two press releases are issued announcing the discovery.
Download (13 Mb mp3) On June 30, 2007, as part of the Free Energy Now radio series, Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan conducted a 1-hour, live interview with Kenneth C. Kozeka, Ph.D., president of Kedron Corp.
Quoting from http://www.kedroncorp.com/abstract.html
A magnet generates mechanical energy or does work when for example it pulls toward another
magnet or a piece of metal. The powerful magnetic forces of two neodymium magnets can do
much more work than simply pull themselves together over a distance. For example, welders put
neodymium magnets to work to hold metal parts together for welding. However, the welder must
also do work when pulling the magnet away from the metal. Many of us have contemplated the
notion of putting permanent magnets to work to turn the wheels on a vehicle or to drive an electric
generator without the addition of external energy. For example, if the welder could remove the
magnet with little or no effort (work) then the magnet would have delivered a "net"? amount of work.
Imagine two powerful magnets pulling themselves together with great force. The work that is done
as they pull themselves together could be used to turn an electric generator. However, not much
work would be obtained from only one such event. To obtain more work in this manner the
magnets must be pulled apart repeatedly so that they can continuously do work by repeatedly
pulling themselves together. The amount of energy spent pulling them apart has to be
significantly less than the amount derived when they come together thus leaving a useful net-yield
of energy that is applied to turning the generator. Pulling two magnets apart along the same path
they took to pull themselves together will of course require as much (or more) energy as the
amount generated by the magnets when they come together. However, it has been discovered
recently that two permanent magnets of a particular shape can be pulled apart along a prescribed
path that requires less work compared to the amount of work produced when the magnets come
together along a different path. This is possible because permanent magnets have at least one
North and one South Pole which gives polarity to their magnetic fields making the fields and the
force in the field unevenly distributed. In an uneven field of magnetic force, it is not difficult to
imagine different paths having different forces and thereby generating different amounts of work.
The paths that must be followed came as a surprise and were not intuitive. For example, it has
been discovered that two cube-shaped neodymium magnets (measuring .75"?, 43 pound pull-force,
Grade N38, 1.8 ounces) are capable of generating 7.46 inch-pounds (work) when they pull
themselves together "sideways"? in the horizontal plane. It takes only 6.56 inch-pounds to pull the
magnets apart along a vertical path that is perpendicular to the path they followed when they
came together. This leaves a .90 inch-pound net-yield of mechanical energy (work) which can be
used for example to turn an electric generator. While this may seem like a small amount of
energy, remember the magnets that generated this yield are extremely small and are not the most
powerful grade magnets available. A total volume of neodymium magnets less than the size of a
car battery can generate 6.75 horsepower or 5.03 KWH or an amount of energy equivalent to the
energy yield of 4,598 gallons of gasoline burned in a combustion engine every year.
The discovery presented here concerns the harvesting of mechanical energy from magnetic force
generated by electrons. The (rotational) spin of the electron is believed to be the (primary)
source of the magnetic force and electron spin is considered to be "intrinsic"?. I fully understand the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and I make no claim of perpetual motion. The only "unbelievable"? element of this discovery is the incredible force generated by very small neodymium magnets: a credit to Hitachi Metals and its scientists.
The company is in discussion with two large corporations, including Hitachi, regarding the development and implementation of this technology. At the same time, they are approaching third world nations to give the technology away.
See: http://www.kedroncorp.com/pressrelease2.html (June 13, 2007)
Dr. Kozeka earned his Ph.D. from the School of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and has since been working as a professor or college administrator of health, science and mathematics.
Two years ago he was in a coma, out of which he was motivated to do something more with this life.
About a year ago, Dr. Kozeka left his career in education where he served as Dean for fifteen years, to devote his full time toward completing and launching at least two of his many discoveries.
Kozeka has also come up with a 3-D image generator, which, for just a few bucks ($4.00 to make one), can create a 3-D image. It involves a beam splitter and a curved mirror.
He has also invented a transdermal patch that delivers 500 times more than conventional delivery mechanisms. His patch delivers gram (instead of micro- or milligram) doses. With his new patch technology, Dr. Kozeka says it will be possible to provide essential nutrients to cancer, AIDS, geriatric, anorexic and bariatric patients. Four to 8 grams of amino-acids (protein) and fatty-acids (lipid) will be delivered to the patients through the skin.
Channel 4 of Nashville, TN is preparing a feature.
Kedron Discovers Inexpensive New Energy Source - Kedron Corporation has discovered a new extremely inexpensive, pollution-free source of electricity. Two permanent magnets of a particular shape can be pulled apart along a prescribed path using less work than the amount produced when the magnets come together along a different path. (EarthTimes Jun. 14, 2007) (Thanks KeelyNet)
On June 20, 2007, the following comment was received:
Any one who has played with magnets has observed that when the like poles of two magnets are placed close to each other that it takes much more force to move the magnets a small distance together along the axis through the poles than it does to move the magnets a small distance perpendicular to the axis through the poles. This is hardly a new scientific discovery. He then confuses things by saying the amount of work is different as if this was not to be expected (of course it is different, if the forces are different and the distances are the same then the work will be different).
An analogy to his experiment is to measure the force required to move a weight horizontally along a table top and then compare that to the force required to move the weight from the floor to the table top. Then to claim that he has made an amazing discovery that it takes more force to lift the weight from the floor than to move it horizontally on the table. The potential energy released as work from a weight falling from the table can not be regained by moving the weight horizontally on the floor. It can only be regained by lifting the weight from the floor back to the table top (which will required the same amount of energy as was released when it fell).
On June 20, 3007, NEC member, Congress:Advisor:Kenneth M. Rauen wrote the following in response to the above:
The Eden Project has a PowerPoint presentation [you need to select "view > presentation" in order for the animations to work] that
addresses the physics with detailed experimental data.
The general description outside of the PPT
presentation is accurate, though not complete any
simplification is bound to become an inadequate
description. The physics of Kedron is fine. If
anything is wrong with it, it is some hidden flaw in
the accuracy of the instruments used to measure the
incremental force times distance which is integrated
over a significant distance between the magnets in the
two different planes of motion. By the complex data,
there is a difference in work, thus creating the
possibility of net work in a cycle.
Sliding magnets sideways does have lower forces, but
substantial force exists for a longer distance, which
creates a nearly equivalent amount of work involved in
the total separation by either direction of
separation. All of this is presented in clear detail
in the PPt presentation. Kedron has done it right it
is merely a question of instrument accuracy.
On June 23, 2007, Von Ives wrote:
Ken Rauen if of course correct that the physics is correct in comparing the two translational
movements of the magnets. However, this is NOT a newly discovered phenomena by the good doctor.
I did the same research back in April 1994 with even better results than he reported. His energy delta
between the two magnet movement methods is reported at about nearly a 13% /\. Mine were
almost a 20% /\. But when I attempted to integrate those differences into a working machine
design, the output was calculated to come out at less than the input from the /\ due to the
inevitable various mechanical losses. So I never attempted to build such a machine, considering the phenomena performance to be of impractical application. A consensus (I hate the concept of
'consensus-science' - orthodox academia does that to their detriment) of some researchers is
that a 3 : 1 output/input minimum is necessary for a successful o/u/o device. If that is so, then
this method cannot be practical.
I think that perhaps he may be a little overly optimistic about a practical application of the idea,
but I wish him great success in trying. After all the IC engines are only about 15 - 20% efficient
of mechanical output to chemical input energy. Just because I didn't find a way to make the idea
useful doesn't mean someone else can't either!
I am empirically researching two different inertial propulsion concepts. IF I have any success
with them, you will be among the first to know.
On June 26, 2007, Kenneth C. Kozeka, Ph.D. wrote:
I am very pleased to receive this reply since it confirms a difference (net yield) between work done by two magnets along different paths. I am sorry to hear that Von Ives abandoned this approach. The yield that I mention in my report is not the best yield that can be obtained since I used a lower grade magnet with a relatively smaller pull force. I mentioned that in my report several times however, the Von Ives probably did not see the full report. Von Ives has missed a very important point or solution to his output/input consideration. Let me try to explain in a sentence or two. Imagine that my motor has only one pair of magnets, each magnet mounted on the top of a head (piston). Then it is likely that the net yield would suffer too much of a loss from the mass and friction of the head, pin, connecting rod, crank shaft and bearings. However, as illustrated in my report, many magnets would be placed on the same head which would increase the net yield much more (relatively speaking) compared to the increase in load and friction.
More importantly, his calculations use the wrong numbers. There is no significance or importance in comparing the amount of work (total or "power" stroke output) to the final net yield. The net amount of energy or work that is available is the starting point and what is subtracted after that is the amount of load due to friction and inertial mass. The net amount of work available is a practical matter only with respect to the volume and cost of the magnets needed. I have little doubt that the simple mechanics required to harvest my described net yield of mechanical energy will not generate much friction or other losses particularly since each "cylinder" head will contain many magnets therby producing a large yield for a single head and its connecting rod.
Von Ives is correct to mention that internal combustion engines perform well below his mentioned "output/input" minimum, and this is a terrible shame considering the nature of the fuel and the price we pay to burn it.
Here is the bottom line so to speak (or another way to look at this). Calculations using grade N50 neodymium magnets and the net yields that I have observed indicate that only a total volume of magnets equal to a 8 to 10 inch cube can generate a yield of 5-6 horsepower. That is a lot of power from a small amount of magnet especially considering that the magnets will last for many years. So far, that is very practical. All that remains to be achieved is to build a machine or engine that will use these magnets as I prescribe and not sacrifice too much of the mechanical energy to heat, friction and the like. If as much as 30% is lost to friction and the like, the output remains very practical.
On June 26, 2007, Von Ives responded:
Greetings, Dr. Kozeka:
Thanks for your reply to Sterling Allan in reference to my comments on your magnet works.
I am glad to confirm your relative performance measurements per my measurements, even
though Ken Rauen seemed to think the two different scenarios should be about the same result.
IF you were in error, then so was I!
My measurement methods were nothing sophisticated nor fancy. Strictly spring scale force
measurements in each of many very small incremental displacements. This were graph-plotted
about in the same way as you published yours to obtain the area under the curves.
The direct along-magnetic-axis pulls were as yours. The 'side-ways' measurements were a
little different. In these I did not use strictly a linear method as you seemed to have done.
Instead, I used a torque measuring set up and measured incremental torque moments every few
degrees of rotation. But the results are equivalent I think. It was a very tedious and time
consuming process but worked for me to my satisfaction.
You are correct in stating that I did not fully appreciate the added gains to be had with multiple
magnets versus lessor non-proportional increase in losses. The magnets I used were NdBFe
of 9/16" x 3/4" x 1 - 1/8" with about a 35 lb. pull on a 1/2" thick iron plate.
So I 'dropped-the-ball' with this concept and you have picked it up to 'run with it'! Probably nearly
all technical advances are achieved by adding to what others have already done to make them
I envy you your success but do not covet it. I am working on other interesting research. At my
age of 70 years, my idea file cabinet is more full of concepts than I will likely live long enough
to execute. What ever I die of, it certainly will not be mental boredom! Naturally I have a very
way above average keen interest in what you are doing with this project and will be eager to
learn of your progress with it - pro or con. Please keep me informed as is proper.
As you are probably aware ideas, concepts and principles are not patentable. Only reduced-to-
practise devices are. So if you are successful with harnessing this concept in a practical way,
then I have no recourse as I didn't, and you certainly will be fully entitled to any credit or patents
obtainable. I can only confirm the basis from my research, revel in, and applaud the results of
As you know, magnetism is a deep and dark mostly unfully understood subject. Much has been
discovered, still more is not yet. I personally have learned many interesting phenomena from
experimental empircal research that I have not found in scientific or engineering literature nor patents.
I will pass on in case you are not aware in your device design that more performance yeild is
possible with pairs of magnets in parallel magnetic circuits than in stacked series. For example
I found that four magnets in two pairs in series yield only about 1 - 1/2 times the force of one pair
of magnets versus double the same force with each pair in parallel circuits for the total resulting
I have not found a lot of practical magnetic design literature available. I will pass along this source
that I found of great help if you are not already aware. It is: "Permanent Magnet Design and
Application Handbook" by a P.E., Lester R. Moskowitz, President of L. R. Moskowitz & Associates,
Consulting Engineers of Coopersburg, Pa. It is (or was?) published by Robert E. Krieger Publishing
Co. of Krieger Drive Malabar, Fla. 32950.
L.O.C. Data: QC757.9.M67 1985 538'.22 85-5629 ISBN 0-89874.863.1
Of possible passing interest to you is that Tom Bearden and an audio electrical engineer in the
N.E., Lee Carroll, have published virtually identical general abstract magnetic field advanced theories
separately and at different times.
I am reasonably sure that I have independently, before I ever heard of either one of them, discovered
the exact practical embodiment of those theories and am in the process of reducing them to practise.
I am lacking only one more piece of empirical proving evidence that I feel sure will be forthcoming
to prove it - a work in progress. Namely, it is a method to separate the Lenz induction reaction from
the mechanical power input to electric generators. As Bearden has preached for years, the
electrical energy output of all generators does not emanate from the mechanical energy input at all!
I fully concur. I have most of the proving empirical evidence. As said - one more piece is coming.
I am confident because my theory predicted the already occurred events.
I will close with this admonition: Watch your back-side and keep your head down. There are
powerful forces on this planet that do NOT want you, me, nor any others to succeed at challenging
the energy status-quo! Assuming you have already filed a patent application, I can only hope
you have provided to keep your technology from falling under secrecy for national security reasons.
Several thousand such patent applications have already fallen victim to that.
Good luck! But we both know, as per Edison, it is only 1% inspiration and 99% prespiration!
On June 26, 2007, Ken Kozeka replied:
Hello Von Ives:
I am very glad to receive your reply which I find to be filled with support, kind words and much valuable knowledge and information. I decided to release a full report of my findings worldwide so that whatever may happen to my patent, the findings will not get burried.
My measurements of the forces between the magnets when they pull themselves together horizontally required a careful subtraction of friction (from the rails that held the moving magnet) which otherwise would appear as work done by the magnetic forces. I may have subtracted too much for friction.
When I submitted my press release, I foolishly thought I was one of only two that ever conceived of, or at least worked on exploiting the mechanical energy (magnetic force) generated by magnets. I am rather embarassed by my press release and hope that most did not realize my ignorance.
I have submitted patents on the method of harvesting mechanical energy from the magnets and on the design of the "engine" that would put them to work.
It appears, for several reasons that include dialog with several major corporations, that I may be the only one that has discovered a practical yield. I am not sure yet. However, I have carefully studied the work of others with the exception of General Motors.
Thank you for the references and for your good wishes. I wish you the very best with your projects as well.
In addition to material on the company website . . .
June 18, 2007 phone interview with Kozeka by Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan.
Directory:Shinyeon Energy Research Center - Shinyeon Energy Research Center of Korea has two highly exotic prototypes. One is a piston-based permanent magnet motor called the Magforce engine, that doesn't require fuel or electricity. The other as a tower-based induction wind generator. (PESWiki June 18, 2008)
Kenneth Kozeka, Ph.D., President
7640 Sleepy Summit Lane
Fairview, TN 37062
email: [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=Kedron_featured_at_PESWiki.com email@example.com]
MAGNET MOTORS FOOTER
PowerPedia:Magnetic motor - encyclopedic entry
LEADING (including legendary status)
Directory:Disturbed Self-Compensating Symmetry (Terawatt Research)
There was an error working with the wiki: Code
There was an error working with the wiki: Code
There was an error working with the wiki: Code