Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Tools:NASA scientists Nelson & House willing to verify overunity electromagnetic machines

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:01 am.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.
Image:Nasa logo.jpg

NASA Overunity Test Team

by Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan

Pure Energy Systems News

May 19, 2010

A couple of NASA scientists, Mike Nelson and Ken House, who work on the Space Shuttle project in Huntsville, Alabama have been following the free energy world for years and would like to believe that Tesla type of technology is possible that harnesses limitless energy from the environment via electromagnetic means.

However, this is not a free-for-all invitation for anyone who thinks they have an overunity device. Mike and Ken's pre-requisites are pretty stringent.

In their spare time, they are willing to put their reputation at stake in validating bona fide electromagnetic overunity (more energy out than what was put in). But "spare time" is the key word. They don't have much of it, so they don't want to spend time on things that haven't first been tested to show overunity by others and they want to review the data that has been collected.

They don't represent NASA, but at least their testing can add the clout of "NASA scientists" to it.

Ken has a motor test and design lab, and they will be shooting a video soon that shows the set-up.

One critique I would give here regarding Ken and Mike's proposed testing, is that oscilloscopes may not be the best equipment for accurately measuring output, inasmuch as some of these exotic technologies may be harvesting a so-called "radiant energy" component that might not show up on the meter. The input electricity can be characterized by an oscilloscope, but the output is best measured mechanically in terms of real work performed, with the supposed added help of the free energy coming into the system. Ken and Mike acknowledge the need to test the output in terms of mechanical work done, but also mention that oscilloscopes would be helpful. I'm doubtful of the latter.

So if you have such a device, read through the correspondence below to get a feel for the pre-requisites and once you have the information that satisfies those pre-requisites, feel free to contact Mike to relay your information and set up a test.


May 18, 2010

On May 18, 2010 2:31 PM Mountain Nelson, Michael A. (MSFC-ER22) wrote:

(slightly edited)

Hey Sterling,

I have to say right up front that we aren’t going to have a lot of time to test a flood of motors claiming OU at this time. We may be able to look at one a month if they pass a preliminary test data review. If properly screened, we should not be wasting our time on motors that have no hope of OU.

If I get some time I may be able to contribute a little video tour of my electric motor expert’s (Ken) motor test and design lab and talk about how a motor is properly tested. Don’t get your hopes up too much. We’ve really got to find the time to shoot a little video of this to show people the lab and how we test motors. I’ll send you a note when we have that ready.

I spoke to my electric motor guy, Ken House, and he is fine if you want to put some information about us testing motors on a webpage. People will need to understand that we are doing this outside of our official NASA duties and work load. And no one needs to send us a motor or bring us a motor until we’ve had a chance to look at test data on the motor and determine if the motor appears to be over unity. If a motor appears to be over unity and it looks as though the data has been properly collected then we may want to bring the motor physically into our lab and test it further.

Qualifying Attributes

Image:GAP-Power motor anim 95x95.gif

The workmanship of the designer will also play a role in our decision to look at a motor design further. I understand that people are working from their garage, but if anyone is serious about designing a highly efficient motor I expect them to go to the trouble of building a quality prototype along the lines of the effort that Art Porter put into his GAP motor.

We need a full schematic of how the motor is built and an explanation for how the motor designer believes it to work. A video of the motor operating and the designer describing how it operates is very helpful. The designer then needs to show us how they have tested their motor. We need to see their test schematic. We need to see where they are connecting their test leads.

Also, the designer needs to test their motor under a known mechanical load. If they don’t have a dynamometer available, then the simplest way to do this is to simply have their motor lift a known weight by winding a string or flexible cable of some sort around a spindle. This will serve as their homemade “dynamometer” if you will. We need to know the amount of weight lifted, the height the weight is lifted and the speed the weight is lift to get an output power measurement. Normally the speed is determined by the RPM’s of the output spindle. So, if the designer knows the height lifted with each RPM then all we need to know is the RPM’s of the spindle (not the motor if gear ratios are involved) to have the lifting speed.

The designer needs to measure the amount of current and voltage being delivered to their motor with a digital oscilloscope. We can recommend a brand and model. The oscilloscope needs to be adjusted such that a few cycles of the motor operation are captured within the oscilloscope screen. The voltage and current levels need to be adjusted to fill up the oscilloscope screen so that details of the input voltage and current can clearly be seen. Additionally and most important of all, the data values that are plotted on the oscilloscope screen need to be captured and saved to a CSV file so that they may be analyzed in a spreadsheet. We use Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to do this analysis.

Now the designer needs to perform several tests with their motor. We need to see this data captured when their motor is under no load to see how fast the motor will spin with no load. We need to see how much current and voltage their motor requires when they apply full power and prevent the motor from spinning and then we need to see their data when the motor is doing work by lifting a weight at a constant speed.

With all of this data, we can characterize the motor and get an understanding for the power curve for the motor and also determine the motor’s efficiency. We would like for the designer to video tape each of these test runs that we have described here.

That is all there is to it.

We are not out to embarrass anyone. If anyone wanted to have their motor tested privately with the results kept off of the web and away from the public we will honor that request.

By the same token, we are engineers and not theoretical physicists. We are not going to set about to rewrite any laws of physics simply because we are getting something that appears to be OU from some device that we test. We will simply report the facts of how we set up, how and what we measured, and our conclusion will be “unexplained anomaly”.

With all of this information, we should be able to get to the bottom of what is going on with any motor. If after all of this, the motor still appears to be over unity, we would need to bring it into our lab for further review and analysis. We would not be able to hold any schedule on how long our review and analysis would take. We would certainly be anxious to get to it as soon as we could but I can never be certain how much time I might have for these extra-curricular activities. So, we really couldn’t be held to much of a schedule to turn around our analysis on a motor that we physically had in house.

We don’t care how a motor is built. We ask for a motor schematic just to make sure the input current and voltage is measured at the appropriate location. But we really don’t care how the motor is designed. It could be a black box for all we care. All that really matters when you are attempting to determine whether a motor is over unity is a measurement of what is being input into the motor and a measurement of the work that is being output by the motor.

Proper measurement of the input and output is what we find to be the most common mistake made when people are attempting to determine if a motor is over unity. A lot of people fool themselves into thinking that they have an over unity engine when they improperly measure the current and voltage across an isolated coil in their motor schematic. When you are testing a motor, it is better to treat the motor as if it is a black box and only measure the input watts and output watts. And we like to measure the output watts as a mechanical load so there is no confusion about how much work an electrical motor can actually perform.

May 20, 2010

On May 20, 2010 1:16 PM Mountain Nelson, Michael A. (MSFC-ER22) wrote:

To: Paul

Our testing facility is setup to test the mechanical output of electric motors so that we can characterize them for the application they are being designed for. That is the primary purpose of our facility. We have very precise means of characterizing electrical to mechanical systems. I don't have a problem with measuring electrical to electrical types of systems but that is really not what we prefer to do. It is just that we are billing ourselves as an electric motor testing site meaning that we are expecting to look at electric motors which convert electrical energy into mechanical energy by definition. I really am not interested in opening this up to testing every kind of an OU apparatus out there that takes electric power in one side and spits it out the other side with or without moving parts in between. When we start getting away from measuring output mechanical energy, then we are starting to open the door wider than we are interested in going.

If your application is simply to turn around and generate electricity from an electric motor then we can at least tell you how efficient that your electric motor is at producing mechanical energy. I got to believe that is valuable information to you because if you have a system that produces more electricity output than you are putting into it then you don't know whether the over unity is coming from the mechanical energy within your system or the efficiency of your electric generation portion of your system. If I show you that your motor converts about 80% of the electricity that you input into mechanical energy, assuming that the mechanical and electrical power generation side of your motor are electrically decoupled, you will know that you have an over unity electric generator.

If your generator is somehow electrically dependent upon the power input, then about the only way that you can determine if you have an OU device is to strictly measure the electrical energy output by the system. It would not make sense to try and measure the mechanical energy internal to that kind of system because it is mechanical energy that is not intended to carry any load other than what is required to generate the electrical output produced by the end to end system.

So, like I said above, we prefer to look at electric motors instead of electricity converters. We just need to take this on a case by case basis and right out of the starting gate I'm saying that while I won't rule out looking at an electric input to electric output system, our priority is going to be the mechanical output systems. What I envision is someone out there will come forward with an EV Gray type of electric motor that will have a mechanical output that is far over unity and we would be able to test that and confirm those results. We wouldn't be able to explain it but we would be able to test it and report what we find. People just have to understand that we are in the testing business and not in the explaining business if we ever see results that don't seem to conform to accepted laws of physics. That’s a big if and it is something that Ken and I have yet to see.

May 14, 2010

On May 14, 2010 4:45 AM Mountain Nelson, Michael A. (MSFC-ER22) wrote:

(slightly edited)

Hey Sterling,

It's fine to post this thread with my full name and NASA email address. If someone tries to abuse it I’ll just put them on a block list.

I feel we have considerable expertise in the field of electric motors. and within limits we are volunteering to take a look at some of these motors claiming to be over unity.

No, this would not be done in our official capacities with NASA. My current official capacity is working the main propulsion systems for the space shuttle and new vehicle development.

Electric motors are out of my field of expertise so I rely on an electrical engineer friend of mine, Ken House, and his electric motor design and test facility to look at these over unity motors. Ken has been looking at possible over unity motors for years. He’s still waiting to find one.

Feel free to include me in your contact list and contact me any time. […] I’m also one of your many friends on Facebook.

I’ve been a fan of your website for years. It’s the best source of new ideas concerning energy on the web. There is a good mix of legitimate ideas with a lot of off the wall stuff. I’m especially hopeful of the Directory:Inertial-Electrodynamic Fusion Device corporation fusion reactor work being funded by the NAVY. We should know if this is going to pan out by this time next year. If it does, it can truly be world changing technology.

As I have time I occasionally try to go and checkout some of the more interesting free energy claims for myself. I’m friends with Bradley Lockerman of the John Searl story […]. So far I’ve come up dry in locating something that is actually working. But I remain optimistic that I will.

I’m writing this to you from the engineering support console room in Huntsville Alabama. We are launching today and we are the middle of loading propellant on board the Shuttle for a 1:20 PM CST launch today.

May 14, 2010

On May 13, 2010 5:16 PM Mountain Nelson, Michael A. (MSFC-ER22) wrote:

(slightly edited)

If I hire Southwest Research to independently verify some test results for me, then it is up to me as to what I do with those results and the fact that they were obtained from Southwest Research. As long as Southwest has said they'll stand behind their test results, why do I care whether they advertise the results or I do?

My statements about this being something done in our spare time has to do with schedule priorities. Unless someone wants to approach us with funding, we may get to it today or next month. We'll get to it as our priorities allow.

A doctor can save your life whether he is getting paid by your insurance company or he is doing it for free as a volunteer. His skill and knowledge are just as valuable with or without a formal agreement. The result is exactly the same. So, you decide whether our knowledge and skill with electric motors is worth anything to you whether it is on a contract with you or we are doing it in our "spare time".

I'm sorry, we are not going to commit to a love affair with a particular motor design simply because it appears to be over unity from our analysis and review. Also, we don't claim to be physicists looking for violations of the conservation of mass and energy. If after we review or analyze a motor, our data contradicts known laws of physics, the anomaly goes into the category of an "unexplained anomaly". Anything more from us would reach beyond the scope of simply measuring the efficiency of a particular motor design. But, with that said, in our minds, a credible "unexplained anomaly", is the first step in bringing attention to something and inviting different opinions to better understand what is going on.

But that is the extent of the advertisement something is going to get from us if it appears to be over unity.

We are volunteering our knowledge, skill, and expertise. If you want it, let us know.

May x, 2010

Some time prior to the above correspondence, Mike wrote the following to Pete Collins

(slightly edited)

We are not in the business of selling anything.

We will stand by whatever we can prove to ourselves is correct. And we will show how we have measured and what our results are. But anyone has to remember, we are putting our spare time into this. So, if someone doesn’t agree with our results or how broadly we are publishing them, we don’t have time to argue with them. They are free to publish our results themselves to the four corners of the earth as far as I’m concerned. There is no official government form for applying for any of this and we don’t sign any contracts to do this. This is an informal look where we offer our expertise and our facilities within limits meaning funded projects get first priority with our equipment. We will be happy to sign an NDA if requested. Because all of this is in our spare time, our results will be more like on the back of an envelope or verbally. We can email what we find out also.

What I did with Art Porter is take his data and either concur that he was measuring it properly or tell him what he needed to change. Art loaded his own electric motor and he provided his own measuring equipment. He sent us a schematic of his motor and showed us where he was hooking up his measuring equipment. He provided a full video of all of his test runs.

That is what I would prefer to do with anyone that wants to show me an over unity device. I would prefer that they first show us a video of their device working with an explanation of how they are loading it and how they are measuring the input voltage and current. If they can send us screen captures of their oscilloscope and data files from their oscilloscope, it saves us a good deal of time. We can then take that and do a paper review of what they have. If we find something we can’t explain with paper review, then we’ll ask for more information up to and including physically looking at the motor with our equipment if it gets that far. We didn’t have to go that far with Art Porter’s motor. We were able to show that it was not over unity pretty quickly.

Anyone to place a condition on our review of their technology seems to me to be looking for an excuse not to have us review it.

[…] I think about all the NASA brand provides is an assurance that a device has been properly measured. The results will speak for themselves and if measured properly they will be repeatable.

Let me know how you want to proceed.

In the News

Image:Nasa logo 95x95.jpg
Latest: Directory:Electromagnetic / There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1] > Tools:NASA scientists Nelson & House willing to verify overunity electromagnetic machines - A couple of NASA scientists have been following the free energy world for years and would like to believe that Tesla type of technology is possible that harnesses limitless energy from the environment via electromagnetic means. One of them has a lab set up to test such claims. (PESWiki May 19, 2010) (May 20, 2010)

BeforeItsNews (May 20, 2010)


Some Down-sides to the offer from the NASA guys - Paul Lowrance gives his reasons for hesitation on the offer.

Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan retorts as follows.

: While this NASA test offer isn’t the best option, it is still a good step on the road to credibility. “Two guys from NASA confirmed that more energy is coming out than what they put in.” Other places can help you with publicity. That’s what we’re all about over at (PES Network, Inc) and this site is another avenue for getting the word out. If the story is hot enough, you don’t need to worry about publicity. The viral effect will take over.

: If you have a working technology, one of the first things you should do is replicated it. That is both to show it can be repeated — a very important scientific measure — and for the sake of redundancy and safety. It would be a good idea to have several if possible.

: Publicity may not necessarily be the right way to go on a new technology. Generally, it’s good to keep a low profile until you are strong enough to handle the flood of interest, criticism, etc. that will come your way. Some limited publicity can be good for attracting additional help, whether it be engineering, business expertise, legal expertise, or financing. Having two NASA guys validate overunity will help all of those avenues.

: In short, none of the above objections argue strongly for not using this NASA guys testing offer. It’s not for everyone, but if you’re far enough along, it could be a good way to get added credibility.


Pete Collins, helping with screening on behalf of Mike and Ken, but not as knowledgeable in electronics.


Art Porter, has testing/device construction facilities


Michael A. Nelson (MSFC-ER22)

email (only if you meet the criteria established above):

Kenneth W. House (MSFC-ES32)