No, because my meg was started as a project with some high school kids last
year... we got it built and just started testing and the school year ended.

By then I had acquired Bearden's book and had read it.... what I read (and
an email from Bearden to the students) caused me to realize just how finicky
the tuning procedure was... his patent team could come up with the effect
and Naudin did, but everyone else, because they aren't taking Bearden
literaly, was having problems... letting their educations get in the way of
the empirical observations necessary to get the results... as I said the meg
is more like an antenna, antenna making is a black art, no one really knows
how or why they work, the proper shapes just do.... or so much power is
applied the antenna shape doesn't matter... the meg is much more subtle at
this stage of the game... it's a receiver, not a transmitter...

So I instead decided to spend time reading and talking to others to find out
what in the physical setup was causing the difficulties... my "research" ,
coupled with more clarification on Bearden's website have convinced me we
are dealing with a new facet of understanding of certain concepts relating
to matter, "electricity" and many things we take for granted we know about,
when we really just have a system that met our needs, not a true
understanding of how or what we are manipulating... i.e. articles in the
popular science press about new ways (string theory, etc.) to explain the
cracks in our arrogance that we know everything there is to know about
gravity, electricity and a good many other things....

I intend on getting back to it, but after I have a better idea what the real
issues are with the construct... and I know for a fact, because Bearden told
us in his email, that it's not the stength of the permanet magnet, but the
core's ability to completely contain the magnet's field that was the
important realationship... by having the magnet field not project beyond the
core the chances of interference by the core's field in the secondaries was
reduced... and assisted the construct to a COP greater that one... the key
is to get the event horizon. to borrow a term, in the two sides of the core
as open as possible to the flow of "energy"... any interference from errant
magnetic fields distorts the opening trying to be created in the event
horizon created by the pulses through the core that the secondries are
supposed to tap...

Sorry if this is meaningless to you, but I've read so many emails from
engineers arguing useless warmed over basic electronic shit, when it's so
obvious they can't see the big picture.... I just sigh...

Brent Selleck


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Jordan" <enki@...>
To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [MEG_builders] help needed for MEG tuning


> On 20 Apr 2006 at 2:15, ccool_j wrote:
>
>> Also, my inputs are 2 50% square waves generated by a D-latch. These
>> 2 signals then go through 2 sets of push-pull fet combination (n and p
>> fets). And like JL Naudin's design, I used nFet to "drain" the
>> current. My fets are IRF520
>
> Have you tried lower pulse width with a deadtime in betwwen?
> Say something like 2 x 40% with 10% OFF.
>
> Mark Jordan
>
>
>
>
> Main page:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEG_builders
>
>
> To post a message to this group, send email to
> MEG_Builders@yahoogroups.com
>
> To contact the moderator of this group, send email to
> MEG_Builders-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> MEG_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>