--- In MEG_builders@y..., "davidj95650" <djenkins@r...> wrote:
>   Shawn Bishop's analysis of Naudin's MEG is flawed.

Sorry, but for the reasons I'll describe here, Shawn's analysis is
right on target. MEG is just a transformer with <100% efficiency.

> He fails to explain the use by JLN of a "conditioned" resistor.

Shawn analyzed JLN's scope tracings of both voltage and current at the
output. With his calibration (more below), JLN's sinusoidal tracings
are consistent with a fixed resistance of about 11K ohms. They are not
consistent with a "conditioned" nonlinear resistor.

However, the scale on JLN's current tracings is clearly wrong. As
shown in his schematic, he used an external current measuring shunt
resistance of 10 ohms, but he erroneously programmed his scope to
believe the shunt was only 1 ohm. He stated that the scope was
calibrated to read 1000mA per volt. That's 1 ohm; 10 ohms would give
only 100mA per volt. That led to indicated currents 10 times higher
than their true values. (I conjecture that Shawn got a ratio of 9:1
due to a combination of tolerances in the 10 ohm shunt resistor plus
the difficulty of reading the small scope tracings, but this is a
minor detail.)

When you divide the indicated voltage by the corrected current, you
get an indicated load resistance of 100K as shown in the schematic. It
would seem that in this case, JLN used an "unconditioned" load
resistor.


> In my experience, what JLN has done is to make a voltage-variable
> resistive element.

As soon as I read that, I immediately suspected that his claims for
overunity were based on measurement errors associated with nonlinear
loads and nonsinusoidal AC waveforms, a perennial cause of bogus
overunity claims. But when I looked at the waveforms, the schematic,
and Shawn's analysis, it became clear that Naudin's real mistake was
much simpler: because he misprogrammed his scope, his output current
readings and his output power readings were both 9-10x too high. The
correct readings show that the true efficiency is less than 100%.

> In reviewing other work by JLN, I find that he is meticulous in
> his measurements and would not be likely to make such a
> fundamental error.

I haven't read anything else by Naudin, but he clearly did make a
fundamental measurement error in this case. So your statement is
irrelevant.

>   As is usually the case, Mr. Bishop models the MEG as a
> transformer, and expects to observe transformer responses.

And that's exactly what we see. Normal transformer responses.

> Dr. Bearden has repeatedly stated that the MEG is not a
> transformer, that it is a transducer of vacuum energy.

What Dr. Bearden states is also irrelevant. What matters is how the
MEG behaves on the lab bench, and it clearly behaves as an ordinary
transformer operating at less than 100% efficiency.

  Does
> Mr. Bishop also believe that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is
> immutable, except for those pesky cases where microscopic
> particles are involved, and for times less than two seconds
> (see Denis Evans, Australian National University) ?

I can't speak for Bishop, but I can speak for myself. Yes, the 2nd law
of thermodynamics *is* immutable when properly understood and applied.
You'll find that those "pesky cases" you speak of hardly disprove the
2nd law. The 2nd law is a *statistical* principle, and for statistical
laws to apply you need a statistically significant population of
molecules. Yes, a statistically insignificant collection of a few
molecules can occasionally appear to violate the 2nd law. It's also
true that the occasonal individual occasionally wins big in Vegas even
though the odds are still strongly in favor of the house, and that
most people who go to Vegas end up losing.

--Phil

I've analyzed Shawn Bishops paper and found a couple of errors. Phil
Karn also posted these results on another newsgroup 'smartmeg' until
the moderator started blocking his posts because his arguements were
getting so irrational and unlogical. below is a response I made to
the smartmeg news group. I wonder the motivation behind this paper
since it looks good at quick glance but on careful examination it
really has no substance. It seems it's intended for people who have
not studied the MEG intensively, because it could easily sway them to
a misunderstanding of the device.



--- In smartmeg@y..., "Phil Karn" <anonanon7@y...> wrote:
> Shawn Bishop and I found the smoking gun in Naudin's analysis that
> confirms my suspicion that his output current readings were 10x too
> high.
>
> Quoting from Naudin's analysis at
>
> http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/megv21.htm
>
> Note from Jean-Louis Naudin : The current has been measured with a
10
> ohms ceramic and non inductive resistor ( with a Tektronix THS720P
> oscilloscope, the probe used is a 1/10 and scope setup for the CH2
is
> 1000mA/V [end of quote]

Actually that is not the end of the quote, if you keep reading on,
Naudin clearly states "THE SAME RESISTOR AND THE SAME METHOD OF
MEASUREMENT HAS BEEN USED FOR INPUT AND ALSO THE OUTPUT".
So if he really did make a 10x mistake, it won't effect anything,
He's still getting more power out.

Also, in Shawns paper, Shawn states "By his own quote, we must assume
that these resistors must each be 100KOhm" and that's were Shawn
makes the mistake. There's no reference on Naudin's site what
resistor values he's using for the MEG v3.0 picture. The 100K
conditioned resistors that Naudin mentions are used on MEG 3.1 as
specified on the schematic. A conditioned 100K resistor doesn't
actally have the value of 100K, it's around 1MEG if you measure it on
an ohm meter. So you can't calculate the current using 100K, you have
to do it using a linear resistor and a scope.

>Actually that is not the end of the quote, if you keep reading on,
>Naudin clearly states "THE SAME RESISTOR AND THE SAME METHOD OF
>MEASUREMENT HAS BEEN USED FOR INPUT AND ALSO THE OUTPUT".
>So if he really did make a 10x mistake, it won't effect anything,
>He's still getting more power out.

You made this same statement on smartmeg and I replied to it there.
However, the moderator deleted all my postings a day or so later, so
it's possible you didn't see it. So I'll repeat it here.

I am aware of that quote, but it is irrelevant. First, while Naudin's
schematic clearly shows a 10 ohm current shunt on the output side, no
such current-measuring shunt is shown on the input side. Second, his
page includes photos of the meters on his power supply; their readings
are fully consistent with his stated power input of 3.2W. So while his
output power measurement is 9-10x too high, his input power
measurement is correct.

Now let's discuss the output load impedance. You say:

>Also, in Shawns paper, Shawn states "By his own quote, we must assume
>that these resistors must each be 100KOhm" and that's were Shawn
>makes the mistake. There's no reference on Naudin's site what
>resistor values he's using for the MEG v3.0 picture. The 100K
>conditioned resistors that Naudin mentions are used on MEG 3.1 as
>specified on the schematic. A conditioned 100K resistor doesn't
>actally have the value of 100K, it's around 1MEG if you measure it on
>an ohm meter. So you can't calculate the current using 100K, you have
>to do it using a linear resistor and a scope.

When Naudin's output current readings are corrected (i.e., divided by
9 or 10, to correct for the 10 ohm shunt), we get output voltage and
current readings that are fully consistent with a load resistance of
100K.

So it appears that no "conditioned" resistor was used in this
case. Furthermore, if a load resistance significantly larger than 100K
*had* been used, that would only *decrease* the true output power even
further, reducing MEG's efficiency even more!

I've seen claims that the use of a 10:1 probe to measure the voltage
drop across the output current shunt compensated for the 10 ohm
shunt. However, every scope I've seen since at least the mid 1970s
automatically detects a 10:1 probe and automatically switches its
vertical calibration.

But the *real* clincher comes in this statement by Naudin:

>in most of cases the "apparent" power measured seems greater than the
>heat dissipated by Joule's effect in the RLoad, most of the power is
>radiated in EM form [...]

The MEG operating frequency is given as 20 KHz. That's a RF wavelength
of 15 kilometers. Does he seriously intend for us to believe that a
~2cm resistor is an efficient radiator of electromagnetic energy
(i.e., an antenna) at a wavelength 750,000 times its own length?

The simple fact is that you can't fool a resistor with a funny
waveform or a weird power factor. And until modern digital power
meters appeared on the scene, that's exactly how many true AC
wattmeters worked -- they dissipated the input power in a resistive
load and measured the resulting temperature increase.

Any competent electronics technician would know all this. And faced
with the kind of measurement discrepancy described here, he or she
certainly wouldn't handwave the problem away in such a ludicrous
fashion. But then Naudin wouldn't have anything very exciting to
report, would he?

Phil

Hi, MEG members;

I have been monitoring this forum for some time.   While the notion of a
real above unity device I'm sure is a heart felt desire among us
(especially me), we have to nonetheless remain objective in where the
evidence points.

Recently, there has been some commentary negative to the performance of the
MEG.  Certainly there are some who will not belive that above unity is
possible, and the first report contrary, or seemingly disproving such a
device is enough to dissuade them.    To such folk I can only say that
seeing is believing, and perhaps next year we shall see such a device.

I am very much want to see the MEG in millions of homes around the
world.   Frankly, I am a "proof is in the pudding" kind of guy, and no
doubt that is what it will ultimately take to overcome the skepticism of
the critiques.

Unfortunately, it is clear that the inventors are hiding something:  they
have not provided information that makes duplication of the MEG
possible.    I have examined the so called prototype, and it is so simple
that it should not be that difficult to duplicate a successful device.

In fact it is too simple.   Given the public exposure duplication should
have been obtained by now.  I may be mistaken, but I am under the
impression that no one independent of the original inventors has a working
above unity MEG, right?

So, time will tell.   And, I can wait a year or so.

I've seen this yahoo group trying to reproduce the over-unity
MEG device for about 2 years now. No one has reported doing it
here. Obviously a very important step is held secret by the
inventor and he does not want to lose the intellectual property
rights to it..... Or its a fraud.

An over-unity device such as this released fully to the public
for all to build would end all energy needs from the Middle East
and allow US intrests to ignore the madhouse there.

A war could possible be averted and countless innocent lives could
be saved.

What will it be? Continue to hold out for the big bucks funding
or release this thing to the public?

MHO

Tony White, MD
Alabama

----- Original Message -----

From: TonyW205

To: MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:09 AM

Subject: [MEG_builders] Its time for Bearden to put up or shut up

I've seen this yahoo group trying to reproduce the over-unity
MEG device for about 2 years now. No one has reported doing it
here. Obviously a very important step is held secret by the
inventor and he does not want to lose the intellectual property
rights to it..... Or its a fraud.

An over-unity device such as this released fully to the public
for all to build would end all energy needs from the Middle East
and allow US intrests to ignore the madhouse there.

A war could possible be averted and countless innocent lives could
be saved.

What will it be? Continue to hold out for the big bucks funding
or release this thing to the public?

MHO

Tony White, MD
Alabama



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





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Passant

Why You dont´ ask Naudin????????????

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Karn" <anonanon7@...>
To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:37 AM
Subject: [MEG_builders] Re: Outstanding analysis of MEG


>Actually that is not the end of the quote, if you keep reading
on,
>Naudin clearly states "THE SAME RESISTOR AND THE SAME METHOD OF
>MEASUREMENT HAS BEEN USED FOR INPUT AND ALSO THE OUTPUT".
>So if he really did make a 10x mistake, it won't effect anything,
>He's still getting more power out.

You made this same statement on smartmeg and I replied to it
there.
However, the moderator deleted all my postings a day or so later,
so
it's possible you didn't see it. So I'll repeat it here.

I am aware of that quote, but it is irrelevant. First, while
Naudin's
schematic clearly shows a 10 ohm current shunt on the output side,
no
such current-measuring shunt is shown on the input side. Second,
his
page includes photos of the meters on his power supply; their
readings
are fully consistent with his stated power input of 3.2W. So while
his
output power measurement is 9-10x too high, his input power
measurement is correct.

Now let's discuss the output load impedance. You say:

>Also, in Shawns paper, Shawn states "By his own quote, we must
assume
>that these resistors must each be 100KOhm" and that's were Shawn
>makes the mistake. There's no reference on Naudin's site what
>resistor values he's using for the MEG v3.0 picture. The 100K
>conditioned resistors that Naudin mentions are used on MEG 3.1 as
>specified on the schematic. A conditioned 100K resistor doesn't
>actally have the value of 100K, it's around 1MEG if you measure
it on
>an ohm meter. So you can't calculate the current using 100K, you
have
>to do it using a linear resistor and a scope.

When Naudin's output current readings are corrected (i.e., divided
by
9 or 10, to correct for the 10 ohm shunt), we get output voltage
and
current readings that are fully consistent with a load resistance
of
100K.

So it appears that no "conditioned" resistor was used in this
case. Furthermore, if a load resistance significantly larger than
100K
*had* been used, that would only *decrease* the true output power
even
further, reducing MEG's efficiency even more!

I've seen claims that the use of a 10:1 probe to measure the
voltage
drop across the output current shunt compensated for the 10 ohm
shunt. However, every scope I've seen since at least the mid 1970s
automatically detects a 10:1 probe and automatically switches its
vertical calibration.

But the *real* clincher comes in this statement by Naudin:

>in most of cases the "apparent" power measured seems greater than
the
>heat dissipated by Joule's effect in the RLoad, most of the power
is
>radiated in EM form [...]

The MEG operating frequency is given as 20 KHz. That's a RF
wavelength
of 15 kilometers. Does he seriously intend for us to believe that
a
~2cm resistor is an efficient radiator of electromagnetic energy
(i.e., an antenna) at a wavelength 750,000 times its own length?

The simple fact is that you can't fool a resistor with a funny
waveform or a weird power factor. And until modern digital power
meters appeared on the scene, that's exactly how many true AC
wattmeters worked -- they dissipated the input power in a
resistive
load and measured the resulting temperature increase.

Any competent electronics technician would know all this. And
faced
with the kind of measurement discrepancy described here, he or she
certainly wouldn't handwave the problem away in such a ludicrous
fashion. But then Naudin wouldn't have anything very exciting to
report, would he?

Phil



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





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


---
Odchozí zpráva pravdepodobne neobsahuje viry.
Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz).
Verze: 6.0.408 / Virová báze: 230 - datum vydání: 24.10.2002

Hi Tim and all,.

I appreciate your call for objectivity in pursuit of a working OU device.

I am very busy with other projects and so rarely have time to write to the
public groups, although I follow the discussions with interest. At this
point I'd like to add a different perspective to the MEG replication
attempts.

Although it is unimportant to my argument, I will say first that I agree
with those who feel that the original MEG results as well as Jean-Louis
Naudin's are in error. I don't think there is any OU in this device as
constructed, nor will there ever be. I am by no means an overunity skeptic,
but this device simply does not work. That does not mean that the
replication attempts have been in vain, because negative information is
still information. Closing off one avenue improves the chances that other
experimenters will find the right road.

I don't enjoy making this statement, because I was researching solid state
flux switchers and discussing them on lists long before the MEG was
invented. It has always seemed like a fruitful area, and there are still
some possibilities there, although I don't think they can be realized in a
flux switcher with control coils that are inductive to the output coils. A
noninductive arrangement like those used in magnetic amplifiers or
parametric transformers will be more fruitful, I think.

Leaving that aside, the main reason for my MEG skepticism is essentially
historical. I am mostly a patent researcher, and in that capacity I have
looked at hundreds of purported OU patents as well as other material. My
project over the past few years has been to analyze these numerous patents
by the claims presented and by the working principles described in order to
separate out any OU signal from the considerable noise present in
historical sources of information.

In brief, my analysis has shown that one and only one basic type of device
consistently shows OU in the literature. These are devices using the forces
between permanent magnets in motion; that is, magnetic torque converters,
permanent magnet motors, magnet shunt devices, and similar constructions.
The percentage of patents within these classes that make claims of
anomalous energy is high, and the percentage of patents with OU claims in
other classes is quite low.

Basically, these patents use the following mechanisms:
1) Direct orthogonal forces (right angled) between permanent magnets.
2) Interposition of a "shield" or "shunt" element orthogonal to the
permanent magnet(s).
3) Rolling contact of a shunt with a permanent magnet, orthogonal to the
pole axis.
4) Changing the reluctance of a shunt orthogonal to permanent magnet poles.

The classes that contain few or no OU claims include:
1) Flux switchers, both solid-state and rotary (ie. switched reluctance
generators).
2) Loadless generators (using alternate flux paths, BEMF phasing, etc).
3) Pulse motors (where permanent magnets are driven by coil pulses, or
where coil pulses oppose or attract).
4) Magnetic bubble devices (such as the Sweet VTA).
5) Solid-state or rotary devices that use BEMF capture (like the Smartpak).
5) Numerous classes of nonmagnetic devices (for instance, electrostatic
generators).

The classes of patents containing flux switch devices are huge, with
thousands of patents in four or five languages. I have reviewed them all,
at least back to 1920, and back to 1800 in the case of US patents. There
are a handful that make OU claims, and in most cases when these claims are
pursued, they evaporate without solid test results to back them up.  Hence,
I must be skeptical when someone proposes any solid-state flux switcher,
especially when the design greatly resembles numerous other devices used
commercially in the past that did not show OU.

Now, some of you will undoubtedly think of counterexamples to my list of
'no-go's. For instance, the EV Gray and Doug Konzen pulse motors do appear
to work. The existence of a few counterexamples does not negate my
argument, which is based on statistical analysis of numerous devices. I am
only saying that MOST claims of OU are in the "magnet motor" classes, and
FEW are in the other classes.

I'm NOT saying that these other avenues of research are worthless and
uninteresting. However, if you, as I am, are interested in bringing a
working OU device to the world as quickly as possible, then objectively you
will abandon these other avenues of research and concentrate on the devices
that are most likely to work within a limited time frame.

Within the group of working patents described above, the historical
evidence indicates that the 'pure' permanent magnet motors, like the Howard
Johnson motor or SMOT, are the hardest to build because of the need for
extremely critical tolerances and angles. Because of this, I would not
suggest pursuing this direction in the time available. On the other hand,
the magnetic torque converters and shunt devices use a relatively low level
of technology that is more a matter of good mechanics than anything else.
They are easily within the grasp of the home experimenter, and promise a
good chance of success.

To conclude, I've listed some of the representative patents below for those
who are interested. This list contains a small fraction of the patents
which use these principles. I've appended any OU claims made in the patent.

Best Regards,
Fred


http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US1724446&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Magnetic Motor
Worthington

"I have discovered that the power necessary to move the shunting armature
into and out of operative position is reduced to the minimum by selecting a
cylindrical armature and rolling it into and out of the polar field of the
magnet and lifting it out of contact only at the point where polarity
diminishes within the magnet, which is at a point removed from the polar
extremities of the magnet."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US3879622&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Permanent Magnet Motion Conversion Device
Ecklin

"This energy is used in prime movers capable of producing work without the
addition of energy from an outside source."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US3895245&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Electric motor utilizing permanent magnets
Bode

"However, when the term "efficiency" is applied discretely, under properly
defined conditions, it is possible to arrive at apparent efficiencies
exceeding 100 percent."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US3992132&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Energy Conversion System
Putt

"An exemplary system constructed according to FIG. 2 using permanent
magnets, will now be described. The primary magnets are selected to exert
an attracting and repelling force of 4,000 pounds on the secondary magnets.
Each of the pistons has a cross sectional area of 4 square inches, thus
producing an output hydraulic pressure of 1,000 pounds. Each piston moves
through a stroke of 1/2 inch. The construction shown in FIG. 2 will produce
20 working piston strokes for each revolution of the rotor assembly. The
rotor is rotated at 60 r.p.m. with minimal input energy due to the
rotational force balancing of the magnets. This will provide substantial
output energy by delivering hydraulic fluid at a rate of 2,400 cubic inches
per minute. In the event that a greater volume of fluid is required,
additional assemblies may be placed on the shaft, two such assemblies being
shown in the system of FIG. 1."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4207773&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Magnetic Piston Machine
Stahovic

"The force required to turn crank 16, when driving a load no greater than
the maximum load which can be driven by the selected permanent magnets 21,
22, 30, 32, 34 and 36, is generally independent of the load being driven by
member 14 and is dependent on the strength of permanent magnets 21, 22, 30,
32, 34 and 36. That is, for selected permanent magnets 21, 22, 30, 32, 34
and 36, the force required to turn crank 16 is not directly related to the
load actually being driven."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4371798&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Magnetic Cylinder
Kuroda

"It has further been made possible to rotationally rock the shaft by
moderate input, making use of the physical principle that a pair of flat
magnets in close attraction to each other may lightly slide along the
mutual adhering contact surface upon slight external force, to thereby
obtain large output."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US6184605&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Three pole forced permanent magnet rotor with DC twister
Kim

"It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a device
which is operative with a low electrical power to provide a relatively
large output torque."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US3740597&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Prime Mover Having Rotating And Reciprocating Multi-Amplification
Mulasmajic

"The mechanical energy delivered by the reciprocation of the carriage,
which in practice may be many times the power output of the motor, may be
used to perform work and/or aid in rotating the shaft to perform work."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4752706&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Rolling Magnetic Friction Electric Generator
Meszaros

"The advantages of the rolling motion electricity generator result from the
fact that both magnetic poles attract ferromagnetic materials and therefore
transferring one pole to the other on a ferromagnetic surface is similar to
a transfer of weight from point A to point B at the same height. The
efficiency ratio in percentages to convert mechanical energy to electricity
with a rolling motion
electricity generator is not defined and could be different with each type
of rolling motion electricity generator since the diminution of magnetic
force opposing the mechanical motions is not limited at a ratio of 14 to 1,
in a way as diminution of kinetic or static friction by rolling friction is
dependent on many factors."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US3811058&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD

Rotary-To-Reciprocating Device
Kiniski

"It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a
reciprocating system which requires a low external energy input to provide
a large energy output."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4598221&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD

Permanent Magnet Motor Having Rockable Rotor Magnets
Lawson

"With the proper number of stator magnets in the zigzag arrangement shown
in FIGS. 2 and 3 and the proper number of rotor magnets arranged so that a
minimum number of the latter are crossing the intersections at any given
time, it is possible to induce rotation of the rotor with an absolute
minimum of external power applied to the rotor to start it." [self-running
motor]

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US3703653&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD

Reciprocating Motor With Motion Conversion Means
Tracy

"It will be appreciated that in the use of permanent magnets, a very
powerful attract or repulse force can be obtained between the magnets,
while only a very slight force is necessary to slide or withdraw the
magnetic plate means from or in between the magnets of each pair. Thus a
quiet, pollution free and efficient dynamoelectric permanent magnetic motor
has been provided."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4179633&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD

Magnetic Wheel Drive
Kelly

"Simply stated, considerably less energy is expended to oscillate the
oscillating couples than is produced from the near pole face to pole face
magnetic interaction between the functioning magnetic components."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4038572&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD

Magnetic Clutch Device
Hanagan

"It is another object of the present invention to provide such a prime
mover for a motor vehicle which does not derive its power from fossil fuel.
A further object of the present invention is to provide such a prime mover
for motor vehicles which comprises a magnetic motor. A still further object
of the present invention is to provide such a prime mover for motor
vehicles wherein magnetic forces produce the power which is employed to
drive the motor vehicle."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4292553&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Apparatus For Generating Mechanical Energy Responsive To Interaction Of
Magnetic Fields
Deputato

"In view of the problems with presently known devices set forth above, one
of the objects of this invention is to provide an apparatus for generating
increased mechanical energy from a given quantity of electrical energy as
compared with presently known devices so as to increase efficiency and
enable conservation of electrical energy."

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US5925958&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

DC Motor Using Permanent Magnets
Pirc

"Accordingly, it is possible to control substantial amounts of output power
with relatively small amounts of input energy".

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US6084322&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Amplifying Mechanical Energy With Magnetomotive Force
Rounds

"It is a major object of the invention to take advantage of this law by
providing a permanent magnet rotor which turns
in a unidirectional motion by interaction with a driver magnet or magnets,
which can be made to rotate with a
negligible amount of force from any form of engine, but in doing so, it can
cause a significant amount of force in the
rotor."










>
> I have been monitoring this forum for some time.   While the notion of a
> real above unity device I'm sure is a heart felt desire among us
> (especially me), we have to nonetheless remain objective in where the
> evidence points.
>

I already came to the conclusion that the MEG is probably a hoax,  

 

--Well, I think it is likely self-delusion on the part of the original inventors, rather than a deliberate fraud.   

 

 because:

1) the MEG patent is not original 

 

--True.

 

2) the theoretical outlines of Bearden do not explain anything and contain many inconsistancies. 

 

--True.

 

 

  (I studied all his theoretical outlines very intensely, and I have to conclude that only a few theoretical aspects

  are presented correctly,  and the rest is a false and twisted theory. 

 

--Well, false is a strong word to use when applied to theory. In that sense, I'm inclined to think that all theories are false, including yours and mine. Theories are useful or useless, rather than true or false. In the sense that Bearden's theory is an amorphous blob that can be molded to fit any experimental result, it is a useless theory.

 

3) the non-disclosure of would-be missing details is not in Bearden favour, if he really has an OU device. 

 

--However, this is not unusual for inventors who want to commercialize a device. 

 

 

Bearden got the patent, and yet he does not reveal the essential details such that 

a working device can be replicated. This can only be a hoax,

and after so many failed attempts by so many capable engineers,

one should finally conclude the MEG is a hoax. 

 

--There have been enough replications by now to indicate this. The device should be abandoned for more fruitful areas of research.

 

 

If Bearden really wants a better world then he would have revealed the "secret"

details immediately after the patent was granted. 

 

--Well, someone can want a better world AND want to make some money, they are not mutually exlusive goals.

 

 It is obvious that Bearden does not want this new energy revolution to happen,

and we can only guess on who´s payroll Bearden is on. 

So we have to doubt everything Bearden ever published about the subject

of free energy.  

 

--I've never believed most of it, so I have no need to doubt it now.

 

  His days of new-energy goeroe might be over,

and it is time to re-evaluate the history of free energy. 

 

--As you can see from my other letter, this has been precisely my aim. An objective evaluation leads to very specific conclusions.

 

 He already was critisized by very serious (not the "you are a crackpot" debunkers)

scientists and also by less scientific readers.

 

Which devices are a hoax, and which devices are genuine? 

 

--Now this is where things get interesting. Beating up or worshiping Bearden is all old news, but when someone states plainly what they think will work, my ears prick up.  

 

My classification of electromagnetical  OU device that won´t works and that can work

is the following   (please disagree, make up your own mind):

 

HOAX: 

 

--Why don't we agree to use a less perjorative word, like 'unsuccessful', to avoid stirring up useless emotions?

 

 

    MEG (BTW any flux switching device), 

 

--Correct.

 

 

    Permanent magnet motor (brushless DC motor), 

       (are easy to build, yet only Bedini reported overunity, and he does not show

        in details how he did this.  The Muller motor is actually essentially different,

       since it uses Black Sand cores) 

 

--There is no evidence that the Muller motor works either. Muller has been discussing his motor since the early 80s, and there has been no objective tests or proof. The black sand has been tried and is not a useful material. The only motors involving interaction between coil flux and permanent magnets that have any chance of working are the EV Gray and Doug Konzen motors. 

 

    "Stevens" coil     (I saw a videa about this coil, and I think it is a hoax,

       the man who presented this coil spoke about DC output with 5KHz,

       talked about making water out of air, gallons per minute,

       and of course his coil is also an anti-gravity device. Yeah right!) 

 

--Yes, I would class this as an actual fraud.  

 

GENUINE:

    Farnsworth fusor  (Farnsworth described his fusor as self-sustained = self-running) 

 

--Correct. 

 

    Powertubes (Moray/Tesla/Gray/Chernetski/Correa/Perreault) 

 

--Yes, and most importantly, Shoulders. But work in this area is confined to the few who can do it.

 

    N-machine (DePalma, Tewari) 

 

--Absolutely not. N-machines do not work. De Palma was delusional, and Tewari is mistaken. N-machines are conventional devices that do not show anomalies. This research direction is a major waste of time.

 

    VTA (Sweet´s conditioned magnets) 

 

--Probably worked, may have been a fraud, but so what? It cannot be replicated.

 

    Hutchinson device (induced gravity) 

 

--Probably an effect based on Hutchison's own telekinetic abilities, and in any case not replicable. Hutchison himself cannot replicate it.

 

 

    Podkletnov´s gravity impulse generator 

 

--It works.  

 

    Magnegas (Santilli´s magnegas is generated with COP>1) 

 

--It works, as well as many other cold fusion devices, but these are not useful for us to consider. 

 

WOULDN´T KNOW

    SEG  (Searl Energy Generator) 

 

--I agree, this is up in the air. There is good evidence that Searl was a fraud, and good evidence that he was on to something.

Interesting that you don't include the type of device which has consistently been shown to be OU over and over, the permanent magnet motors, torque converters, and shunt devices described in my last letter. 

 

 

My rule of thumb is to see if radial electric fields and divergent currents

exist in the device. 

 

--That is an interesting criterion. Can you give an example?

 

Of course there are exceptions to this rule, such as Santilli´s magnegas generator.

 

The same hoax/genuine  classifications can be made with respect to OU theories.

What is true for instance about the Hooper motional electric field, 

 

--Very little, in my opinion.

 

 

or about d'Acquinos anti-gravity theory of gravity (=waves with very low frequencies)? 

 

--Nothing, in my opinion.

 

Bearden´s theories show many many inconsistancies.

My guess is that Bearden is a disinformation man, who mixes truth with lies.

The goal of disinformation is:

-  waste everybody's time

- discourage (no successful replication)

- encourage critisism from the "official" science community (the crackpot sites)

  such that any OU claim is not taken seriously anymore.

- obscure realistic developments 

 

--There is a kinder view, that he is an intellectual who is in love with his own theories, who doesn't have the practical electronics knowledge to discern real results from false ones, and and who has the time and energy to travel and attach himself to those who really do the inventing. In any case, at this historical juncture, discussing his theories, either pro or con, is a waste of time.   

 

 

Did Bearden ever evaluated the N-machine, the Gray powertube, Santilli´s magnegas,

Farnsworth fusor?  No, he focussed on ideas that do not work, practically and theoretically. 

 

--He called attention to the Johnson motor, which does in fact work, at least in its linear form.

 

 

He obsured for instance Tesla´s idea of longitudinal electric waves by writing about

longitudinal scalar waves (such a wave cannot exist because scalar fields cannot be polarized)

or about longitudinal magnetic waves (Evans´ longitudinal B3  theory, which has been heavily critisized).

No, Bearden does not mention longitudinal electric waves, since this is closest to real observations

made by Tesla and others. 

Another example: the Phase Conjugated mirror signals are NOT time-backwards,

yet Bearden claims without any experimental proof  that PC signals are truly time-backwards

and that it cancels its original signal such that only a scalar field remains.  This is not true. 

 

--Correct. There are many examples of where he has chosen to alter the meaning of well-known scientific examples to make them support an overunity interpretation. Negative resistance and parametric amplification are two other well-documented cases.

 

Phase Conjugated signals are visible optical TEM waves that are TIME FORWARD.

Another deliberate distraction attempt? Yes, certainly.

No wonder "the new energy revolution" does not happen, and "that it takes so much time".

Bearden has wasted our time, unless one day he shows in full details how his MEG functions.

That day will never come. 

 

--It's an interesting analysis, and I do agree that he appears to miss the boat more than would be expected. But it appears that his main aim has been to find a working OU device, and to project his own ego onto that device so that it appears to exemplify his theories. This does have a distorting effect on the field. But I think if you look at any field of endeavor, say North American archaeology or HIV research or Cosmology, you will see that there are always a few people who use their egos to push research directions in questionable ways. This is not conspiracy, it is human nature, with a firm sociobiological basis. The problem is not that such egos exist, but that the majority of people are not more skeptical of their preeminence over actual research results that contradict them..but then, this adulation also has a sociobiological basis, and this tendency of human nature is hard to see when you are caught up in it.

 

Best Regards,

Fred

 

--- Phil Karn <anonanon7@...> wrote:
> Shawn Bishop has analyzed Naudin's report on his MEG
> prototype and
> found that Naudin had made some serious errors in
> measuring the output
> power of the device.
>
> It seems that the MEG is nothing more than an
> ordinary transformer
> operating at an efficiency of less than 100%. It
> operates in full
> accordance with existing, accepted physical theory;
> it is most
> decidedly not the "overunity" device it is claimed
> to be.
>
> Here is Shawn's excellent commentary:
>
>
http://www.sfu.ca/~sbishopa/soapbox/soapbox_june_02.htm


While Shawn is busy debunking 'perpetual motion' on
one hand, part of his argument states the obvious fact
that 'the magnetic field produced by a permanent
magnet is constant and unchanging in time'. Well,
HELLO... This sounds like a 'perpetual' energy flow to
me -- And it is, if you ignore the Quantum virtual
vaccuum and the 'Source charge' problem that Mr.
Bearden is trying to pound into our heads in every
article he writes. Shawn doesn't even mention Quantum
mechanics in his argument, so of course, in his model,
the MEG is just a transformer.

-Rick


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/

My recent experiments:
Verification of the Conditioned resistor,
The experiments that I've been doing prove that conditioned resistors
are a reality and perform exactly as Naudin describes. I conditioned
2W carbon resistors, 120K and 100K, using the hot wire of a computer
monitor, average spark gap was about 5mm. It takes a while to do this
as you want to monitor how the resistance changes. I conditioned 2
100k resistors so that the final resistance measured with an ohmeter
was 630K and 890K. These things really stink as you're conditioning
them. I used the 630K resistor and used it to compare it's behavior
with a regular 630K resistor(I used a couple of regular resistors to
get a perfect value of 630K). I put the 890K conditioned resistor on
the right output of the meg and the UNconditioned 630K resistor on
the left side. Using a 68 Ohm carbon resistor I measured a current of
1.455mA rms. The voltage was 2090Vpp (738.8Vrms). And if you
calculate V/I you get 507KOhms which seems in the ballpark given the
ambiguities of high voltage measurements. Then I replaced the left
side with the Conditioned 630K resistor and got 1.975mA rms and
1890Vpp (668Vrms). and this calculated out to be 338KOhms. Current
and voltage are in phase the conditioned resistor dissapated 1.3
watts and the regular resistor dissapated 1.074 watts. SO the
conditioned resistor is sucking more current just like Naudin says.
BUT WAIT. It gets better. After the 630K experiment I proceded to
used the 120K carbon resistors. The 2 I used were conditioned up to a
value of 1.147M and 1.2M. First I used a regular resistor
(unconditioned) value of 1.143M on the left output coil and using the
same method of measurement got a current of .9877mA rms and a voltage
of 2060Vpp (728Vrms). the resistance was calculated to be 737K with
these values of V and I. When I used the 1.147M Conditioned resistor
the current doubled to 1.82 mA rms and the voltage stayed about the
same, 2300Vpp (813V rms). The calculated resistance of the
conditioned resistor turned out to be 447K. SO, again, the
conditioned resistor sucked out more energy (1.48 watts) than the
regular resistor (.719 watts). At high voltages the conditioned
resistor has low resistance, At low voltages the conditioned resistor
has high resistance.

So what else do these experiments tell us? It tells us that you can't
just look at current and voltage and calculate resistance and if the
resistance turns out to be 100K, you can't assume that you have a
regular 100K resistor like Phil Karn states below:
> we get output voltage and
> current readings that are fully consistent with a load resistance of
> 100K.
>
> So it appears that no "conditioned" resistor was used in this
> case.

And we know that this statement is untrue by the experimental results
I just posted. And you are still fixated on the falshood that Naudin
  is using a 100K resistor as a load and no where on his web sight for
meg versions 2.1 and above does he state that he is using a 100k
resistor. HE IS USING A CONDITIONED 100K RESISTOR as he states on
his web site.
REPEAT AFTER ME.
CONDITIONED ONE HUNDRED K RESISTOR. AGAIN. CONDITIONED ONE HUNDRED K
RESISTOR. That means that it was 100k at one point in time but now
it's a conditioned resistor because he conditioned it.


> I am aware of that quote, but it is irrelevant. First, while
Naudin's
> schematic clearly shows a 10 ohm current shunt on the output side,
no
> such current-measuring shunt is shown on the input side.

The schematic diagram that you are refering to is for Meg version 3.1
and no where on his web sight does he show scope traces for this
version.

> But the *real* clincher comes in this statement by Naudin:
>
> >in most of cases the "apparent" power measured seems greater than
the
> >heat dissipated by Joule's effect in the RLoad, most of the power
is
> >radiated in EM form [...]
>
> The MEG operating frequency is given as 20 KHz. That's a RF
wavelength
> of 15 kilometers. Does he seriously intend for us to believe that a
> ~2cm resistor is an efficient radiator of electromagnetic energy
> (i.e., an antenna) at a wavelength 750,000 times its own length?

This doesn't seem like a big clincher to me. The output coils are
doing the radiating, since that is where the largest EM field is
coming from .Just put a dummy load on a scope probe and witness the
induced voltage.

The more time I spend on trying to replicate Naudin's meg, the more
truths become self evident noting that all the details that he's
describing I am producing in the Lab. But to produce his meg and the
OU will take time and knowledge. And if it turns out to be a hoax (
which is absolutely hilarious), who cares, it's the learning
experience that matters.

--- In MEG_builders@y..., "gewo" <gewo@g...> wrote:
> Passant
>
> Why You dont´ ask Naudin????????????

I tried. He hasn't replied.

Phil

Hello all,

 

I'm Stan, one of the moderators for this site.  Just thought I'd take a moment ... as I do occasionally ... to tweak things, you know like remind you all about what this site is about and maybe refocus things a bit.  As stated on the home page, this site is "for the successful replication of the MEG."   Recently discussion about member's attempts at replications have dropped off quite a bit and I am receiving more and more posting submissions that are, how shall I say it, barely on topic.  I don't like rejecting off-topic posting submissions believe me because they frequently create hard feelings and eat up a lot of my time.  Anyway, I encourage you all to remember (and re-review) the site charter before submitting postings.  

 

As I recall Bob Winchester and Carbonprobe are a couple of members that have recently began experiments with MEG's and I know that there are others other there that are working on experiments.  How about letting us in on your recent findings?  :-)

 

Very best regards,

 

Stan Mayer

 

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





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

> The MEG operating frequency is given as 20 KHz. That's a RF wavelength
> of 15 kilometers. Does he seriously intend for us to believe that a
> ~2cm resistor is an efficient radiator of electromagnetic energy
> (i.e., an antenna) at a wavelength 750,000 times its own length?

It does seem a bit off, but not as off as you might think:
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/cfa/index.html

Wavelength/antenna length ~ 40 . Yet the CFA performs _better_ than your normal
quarter-wavelength antenna. Go figure...

/R

Hello Fred,

Which really working OU device would according to you be the
eassiest/cheapest to construct for a layman?

webdrifter

----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Fred Epps" <fepps@...>
Aan: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Verzonden: maandag 4 november 2002 20:53
Onderwerp: RE: [MEG_builders] recent critique of MEG concept.


> Hi Tim and all,.
>
> I appreciate your call for objectivity in pursuit of a working OU device.
>
> I am very busy with other projects and so rarely have time to write to the
> public groups, although I follow the discussions with interest. At this
> point I'd like to add a different perspective to the MEG replication
> attempts.
>
> Although it is unimportant to my argument, I will say first that I agree
> with those who feel that the original MEG results as well as Jean-Louis
> Naudin's are in error. I don't think there is any OU in this device as
> constructed, nor will there ever be. I am by no means an overunity
skeptic,
> but this device simply does not work. That does not mean that the
> replication attempts have been in vain, because negative information is
> still information. Closing off one avenue improves the chances that other
> experimenters will find the right road.
>
> I don't enjoy making this statement, because I was researching solid state
> flux switchers and discussing them on lists long before the MEG was
> invented. It has always seemed like a fruitful area, and there are still
> some possibilities there, although I don't think they can be realized in a
> flux switcher with control coils that are inductive to the output coils. A
> noninductive arrangement like those used in magnetic amplifiers or
> parametric transformers will be more fruitful, I think.
>
> Leaving that aside, the main reason for my MEG skepticism is essentially
> historical. I am mostly a patent researcher, and in that capacity I have
> looked at hundreds of purported OU patents as well as other material. My
> project over the past few years has been to analyze these numerous patents
> by the claims presented and by the working principles described in order
to
> separate out any OU signal from the considerable noise present in
> historical sources of information.
>
> In brief, my analysis has shown that one and only one basic type of device
> consistently shows OU in the literature. These are devices using the
forces
> between permanent magnets in motion; that is, magnetic torque converters,
> permanent magnet motors, magnet shunt devices, and similar constructions.
> The percentage of patents within these classes that make claims of
> anomalous energy is high, and the percentage of patents with OU claims in
> other classes is quite low.
>
> Basically, these patents use the following mechanisms:
> 1) Direct orthogonal forces (right angled) between permanent magnets.
> 2) Interposition of a "shield" or "shunt" element orthogonal to the
> permanent magnet(s).
> 3) Rolling contact of a shunt with a permanent magnet, orthogonal to the
> pole axis.
> 4) Changing the reluctance of a shunt orthogonal to permanent magnet
poles.
>
> The classes that contain few or no OU claims include:
> 1) Flux switchers, both solid-state and rotary (ie. switched reluctance
> generators).
> 2) Loadless generators (using alternate flux paths, BEMF phasing, etc).
> 3) Pulse motors (where permanent magnets are driven by coil pulses, or
> where coil pulses oppose or attract).
> 4) Magnetic bubble devices (such as the Sweet VTA).
> 5) Solid-state or rotary devices that use BEMF capture (like the
Smartpak).
> 5) Numerous classes of nonmagnetic devices (for instance, electrostatic
> generators).
>
> The classes of patents containing flux switch devices are huge, with
> thousands of patents in four or five languages. I have reviewed them all,
> at least back to 1920, and back to 1800 in the case of US patents. There
> are a handful that make OU claims, and in most cases when these claims are
> pursued, they evaporate without solid test results to back them up.
Hence,
> I must be skeptical when someone proposes any solid-state flux switcher,
> especially when the design greatly resembles numerous other devices used
> commercially in the past that did not show OU.
>
> Now, some of you will undoubtedly think of counterexamples to my list of
> 'no-go's. For instance, the EV Gray and Doug Konzen pulse motors do appear
> to work. The existence of a few counterexamples does not negate my
> argument, which is based on statistical analysis of numerous devices. I am
> only saying that MOST claims of OU are in the "magnet motor" classes, and
> FEW are in the other classes.
>
> I'm NOT saying that these other avenues of research are worthless and
> uninteresting. However, if you, as I am, are interested in bringing a
> working OU device to the world as quickly as possible, then objectively
you
> will abandon these other avenues of research and concentrate on the
devices
> that are most likely to work within a limited time frame.
>
> Within the group of working patents described above, the historical
> evidence indicates that the 'pure' permanent magnet motors, like the
Howard
> Johnson motor or SMOT, are the hardest to build because of the need for
> extremely critical tolerances and angles. Because of this, I would not
> suggest pursuing this direction in the time available. On the other hand,
> the magnetic torque converters and shunt devices use a relatively low
level
> of technology that is more a matter of good mechanics than anything else.
> They are easily within the grasp of the home experimenter, and promise a
> good chance of success.
>
> To conclude, I've listed some of the representative patents below for
those
> who are interested. This list contains a small fraction of the patents
> which use these principles. I've appended any OU claims made in the
patent.
>
> Best Regards,
> Fred
>
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US1724446&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Magnetic Motor
> Worthington
>
> "I have discovered that the power necessary to move the shunting armature
> into and out of operative position is reduced to the minimum by selecting
a
> cylindrical armature and rolling it into and out of the polar field of the
> magnet and lifting it out of contact only at the point where polarity
> diminishes within the magnet, which is at a point removed from the polar
> extremities of the magnet."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US3879622&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Permanent Magnet Motion Conversion Device
> Ecklin
>
> "This energy is used in prime movers capable of producing work without the
> addition of energy from an outside source."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US3895245&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Electric motor utilizing permanent magnets
> Bode
>
> "However, when the term "efficiency" is applied discretely, under properly
> defined conditions, it is possible to arrive at apparent efficiencies
> exceeding 100 percent."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US3992132&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Energy Conversion System
> Putt
>
> "An exemplary system constructed according to FIG. 2 using permanent
> magnets, will now be described. The primary magnets are selected to exert
> an attracting and repelling force of 4,000 pounds on the secondary
magnets.
> Each of the pistons has a cross sectional area of 4 square inches, thus
> producing an output hydraulic pressure of 1,000 pounds. Each piston moves
> through a stroke of 1/2 inch. The construction shown in FIG. 2 will
produce
> 20 working piston strokes for each revolution of the rotor assembly. The
> rotor is rotated at 60 r.p.m. with minimal input energy due to the
> rotational force balancing of the magnets. This will provide substantial
> output energy by delivering hydraulic fluid at a rate of 2,400 cubic
inches
> per minute. In the event that a greater volume of fluid is required,
> additional assemblies may be placed on the shaft, two such assemblies
being
> shown in the system of FIG. 1."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4207773&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Magnetic Piston Machine
> Stahovic
>
> "The force required to turn crank 16, when driving a load no greater than
> the maximum load which can be driven by the selected permanent magnets 21,
> 22, 30, 32, 34 and 36, is generally independent of the load being driven
by
> member 14 and is dependent on the strength of permanent magnets 21, 22,
30,
> 32, 34 and 36. That is, for selected permanent magnets 21, 22, 30, 32, 34
> and 36, the force required to turn crank 16 is not directly related to the
> load actually being driven."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4371798&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Magnetic Cylinder
> Kuroda
>
> "It has further been made possible to rotationally rock the shaft by
> moderate input, making use of the physical principle that a pair of flat
> magnets in close attraction to each other may lightly slide along the
> mutual adhering contact surface upon slight external force, to thereby
> obtain large output."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US6184605&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Three pole forced permanent magnet rotor with DC twister
> Kim
>
> "It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a device
> which is operative with a low electrical power to provide a relatively
> large output torque."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US3740597&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Prime Mover Having Rotating And Reciprocating Multi-Amplification
> Mulasmajic
>
> "The mechanical energy delivered by the reciprocation of the carriage,
> which in practice may be many times the power output of the motor, may be
> used to perform work and/or aid in rotating the shaft to perform work."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4752706&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Rolling Magnetic Friction Electric Generator
> Meszaros
>
> "The advantages of the rolling motion electricity generator result from
the
> fact that both magnetic poles attract ferromagnetic materials and
therefore
> transferring one pole to the other on a ferromagnetic surface is similar
to
> a transfer of weight from point A to point B at the same height. The
> efficiency ratio in percentages to convert mechanical energy to
electricity
> with a rolling motion
> electricity generator is not defined and could be different with each type
> of rolling motion electricity generator since the diminution of magnetic
> force opposing the mechanical motions is not limited at a ratio of 14 to
1,
> in a way as diminution of kinetic or static friction by rolling friction
is
> dependent on many factors."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US3811058&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Rotary-To-Reciprocating Device
> Kiniski
>
> "It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a
> reciprocating system which requires a low external energy input to provide
> a large energy output."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4598221&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Permanent Magnet Motor Having Rockable Rotor Magnets
> Lawson
>
> "With the proper number of stator magnets in the zigzag arrangement shown
> in FIGS. 2 and 3 and the proper number of rotor magnets arranged so that a
> minimum number of the latter are crossing the intersections at any given
> time, it is possible to induce rotation of the rotor with an absolute
> minimum of external power applied to the rotor to start it." [self-running
> motor]
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US3703653&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Reciprocating Motor With Motion Conversion Means
> Tracy
>
> "It will be appreciated that in the use of permanent magnets, a very
> powerful attract or repulse force can be obtained between the magnets,
> while only a very slight force is necessary to slide or withdraw the
> magnetic plate means from or in between the magnets of each pair. Thus a
> quiet, pollution free and efficient dynamoelectric permanent magnetic
motor
> has been provided."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4179633&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Magnetic Wheel Drive
> Kelly
>
> "Simply stated, considerably less energy is expended to oscillate the
> oscillating couples than is produced from the near pole face to pole face
> magnetic interaction between the functioning magnetic components."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4038572&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Magnetic Clutch Device
> Hanagan
>
> "It is another object of the present invention to provide such a prime
> mover for a motor vehicle which does not derive its power from fossil
fuel.
> A further object of the present invention is to provide such a prime mover
> for motor vehicles which comprises a magnetic motor. A still further
object
> of the present invention is to provide such a prime mover for motor
> vehicles wherein magnetic forces produce the power which is employed to
> drive the motor vehicle."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US4292553&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Apparatus For Generating Mechanical Energy Responsive To Interaction Of
> Magnetic Fields
> Deputato
>
> "In view of the problems with presently known devices set forth above, one
> of the objects of this invention is to provide an apparatus for generating
> increased mechanical energy from a given quantity of electrical energy as
> compared with presently known devices so as to increase efficiency and
> enable conservation of electrical energy."
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US5925958&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> DC Motor Using Permanent Magnets
> Pirc
>
> "Accordingly, it is possible to control substantial amounts of output
power
> with relatively small amounts of input energy".
>
> http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US6084322&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD
>
> Amplifying Mechanical Energy With Magnetomotive Force
> Rounds
>
> "It is a major object of the invention to take advantage of this law by
> providing a permanent magnet rotor which turns
> in a unidirectional motion by interaction with a driver magnet or magnets,
> which can be made to rotate with a
> negligible amount of force from any form of engine, but in doing so, it
can
> cause a significant amount of force in the
> rotor."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I have been monitoring this forum for some time.   While the notion of a
> > real above unity device I'm sure is a heart felt desire among us
> > (especially me), we have to nonetheless remain objective in where the
> > evidence points.
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

I did some more measurements and the analysis proves that you can't
use the equation V*V/R for a power calculation in the MEG like Shawn
Bishop states. You can't use it because in the MEG the resistance of
the conditioned resistors changes with voltage. V*V/R is only good if
your resistance is static. Shawn and Phil believe that Naudin is
using a 100k resistor for MEG 3.0 but nowhere on the site does Naudin
state this, therefor the main point of their arguement is null and
void. In Shawn's paper he has a copy of meg schematic v3.1 from
Naudin's web site, but Shawn deleted the word 'cond' that appears
next to the 100k resistor originally on Naudin's site. So Shawn
deliberatly took this out to make the reader believe it is just a
100k resistor. How bad can you get.

Naudin clearly states that CONDITIONED RESISTORS are being used as a
load. I havn't seen any experimental data that proves Naudin's MEG
doesn't work. No one has done this yet. I've actually seen more
evidence that proves is does work. And in my book, experiment is much
more convincing than poorly researched opinions.

Below is the latest data comparing a regular resistor of 1.145MOhms
as measured on an ohmeter and a conditioned resistor of 1.149MOhms as
measured on an ohmeter. The data and 2 graphs below show the
conditioned resistor's resistance changing as voltage changes. And it
also shows how the conditioned resistor has more power flowing
through it than the regular resistor.

get graphs here, you may have to right click and save target as...
www.geocities.com/carbonprobe/1.pdf
www.geocities.com/carbonprobe/2.pdf





1.145M Ohm regular resistor measurements

Vpp   V rms  I rms      Power    Resistance(V/I)
190   67     .088mA     .005W    761K
400   141    .18mA      .025W    783K
700   247    .31mA      .076W    798K
1080  382    .49mA      .187W    779K
2000  707    .88mA      .622W    803K
2800  990    1.25mA     1.24W    792K

I and V wave forms are perfectly in phase
frequency = 22.4KHz



1.149M Ohm Conditioned resistor measurements

Vpp   V rms  I rms     Power X .899    Resistance(V/I)
195   69     .132mA    .008W           522K
400   141    .287mA    .036W           493K
700   247    .51mA     .113W           484K
1000  354    .75mA     .238W           472K
2000  707    1.6mA     1.016W          442K
2700  954    2.3mA     1.97W           415K

I and V were out of phase by 25.9 degrees which gives a power factor
of .899
frequency = 22.4Khz

Hi Jurgen,

If you review the patents in the list I gave in my previous letter, you'll
see that the principle is very simple, but always requires some thought to
mechanical linkages. Good design is important to prevent mechanical losses
from eating up all the gains. In order to answer your question, I would
need to know your level of mechanical skill and the tools you have
available.

Regards,
Fred
>
> Which really working OU device would according to you be the
> eassiest/cheapest to construct for a layman?

--- In MEG_builders@y..., "carbonprobe" <carbonprobe@y...> wrote:

> And we know that this statement is untrue by the experimental
results
> I just posted. And you are still fixated on the falshood that Naudin
>  is using a 100K resistor as a load

Naudin's "conditioned resistor" is, as you say, quite nonlinear. On
this we fully agree.

But if it's so nonlinear, how come his current waveforms are nice
clean sinusoids? I certainly wouldn't expect to see current that is so
nicely proportional to applied voltage, would you?

The fact that the current waveform is sinusoidal and in phase with the
voltage waveform proves that the load used in that test was an
ordinary resistor, not a "conditioned" resistor.

As for the supposed EM radiation, go read up on antenna theory and
you'll understand just how absurd that theory is. Face it, Naudin
pulled this "explanation" out of the air in pure desperation, trying
to explain away the obvious fact that his most reliable cross-check on
output power told him in no uncertain terms that his measurements were
wrong.

Phil

--- In MEG_builders@y..., Rick Hukkanen <ricker_h@y...> wrote:

> While Shawn is busy debunking 'perpetual motion' on
> one hand, part of his argument states the obvious fact
> that 'the magnetic field produced by a permanent
> magnet is constant and unchanging in time'. Well,
> HELLO... This sounds like a 'perpetual' energy flow to
> me

Sorry, but it's not. This is an extremely common misconception among
free energy fans.

A magnet is no more a source of 'perpetual' energy than a chair or a
coathook. All three can hold up an object by applying a continuous
force to it. So what? Force and energy are two entirely different
things. Energy is force acting through a distance; unless the magnet
(or chair or coathook) moves, no energy is delivered to anything.

A magnet *does* store a relatively small amount of energy in its
magnetic field; that's how an inductor works. But you can't extract
that energy without depleting the magnetic field. It is certainly no
"infinite" source of energy.

Phil

you can always bank on self interest.....wyzed

Hello Fred and all
     Thank you for the list of patents of rotational OU (possibly)
devices. I am going to have a good time in the analysis of them. You
did mention Johnson's motor--very difficult to build, indeed! However,
he has a linear device for propelling trains, I guess, using magnets
at right angles which I have constructed and which works surprisingly
well.
     In deference to the purpose of this site, I must report that all
my experiments with the MEG so far have been the same as if I
constructed a high frequency transformer, with an efficiency of
approximately 65-75%. Power in and out is measured with a simple
ammeter in line with source. Output has been measured rectified using
high freq rectifiers with the filtered DC measured inline also. A
non-creative way of in/out measurement, but easily repeated!
    There is one unusual feature in the output which is confusing to
me, though. The output coils on my experiment have only 25 windings
with 40 windings on the input coils. With 90vdc in, I consistantly
measure under load (sorry guys--just a wirewound resistor or a 75 watt
incandescent bulb) output voltage which measures 150volts (300 volts
pk to pk)in nearly a square wave prior to rectification. Can anyone
explain a voltage INCREASE with a primary to secondary ratio of 8 to
5? Seems strange to me. If one looks at the lab results shown by
Bearden and Naudin, there seems to be this same strange ratio
inconsistancy. The windings on the patent device are 40windings on the
input coils and 450 windings on the output coils. A ratio, primary to
secondary of 4:45 or .09  The voltage in that we see is about 90 and
out is 1500 (3000 pk to pk) or .06.
  Thanks, Norm

> S. Michael Hoke
> EcoLynx.com

Michael
     In response to your request for a circuit layout, Contact me
directly. I am in my 4th generation of circuits and the one I now use
is extremely reliable and has it's own regulated 12v power supply on
the board for the ICs. The switches I use are rated up to 1000volts
for the control coils. It does NOT have a high voltage power supply.
If you or other MEG builders are interested, I
can have some more boards manufactured.

sincerely, Norm Fletcher

--- In MEG_builders@y..., "Robert Bielik" <robert.bielik@g...> wrote:
> Wavelength/antenna length ~ 40 . Yet the CFA performs _better_ than
your normal quarter-wavelength antenna. Go figure...

Actually, the CFA does *not* perform better. The theory behind it is
totally flawed, and its inventors are seriously deluded. See
http://home.att.net/~jnrstanley/mainpres1.html (be sure to see the
notes at the end).

The fact is that almost *any* electrical circuit, no matter how small,
will radiate *some* energy at almost any frequency used in the circuit
unless great care is taken in its construction. That's why
electromagnetic interference can be so hard to cure.

But there's a very big difference between an accidental radiator and a
device designed to radiate efficiently (i.e., an antenna). Because
radio systems operate without wires, the attenuation between
transmitter and receiver is very large. Ergo, receivers must be
extremely sensitive. So an accidental radiator near a receiver can
interfere with it even if only a miniscule fraction of the energy
within the radiator is actually radiated.

Such is certainly the case with Naudin's load resistor. I'm sure that
if you connected a pickup coil to a scope and held the coil near his
load resistor, you'd see a signal on the scope. But only a tiny
fraction of the energy fed to the resistor is being picked up in this
way. The vast majority is still being dissipated as heat in the
resistor. There is simply no "missing energy" that would account for
the discrepancy between resistor heating and Naudin's measurements.
Naudin's claim of EM radiation is simply desperate handwaving on his
part as he frantically tries to maintain the illusion that MEG is
overunity. It's not.

Phil

--- In MEG_builders@y..., "fletchmo47" <fletchmo47@n...> wrote:

> Can anyone
> explain a voltage INCREASE with a primary to secondary ratio of 8 to
> 5? Seems strange to me.

I'd expect this when the transformer is operated at or near its
self-resonant frequency. The windings have both inductance and
capacitance, and they form a parallel resonant circuit. Excite a
high-Q resonant circuit, and you can get some pretty high voltages.

This explains the sinusoidal output waveforms from Naudin's MEG, even
though the driving circuit applies a square wave.

The MEG closely resembles the ferroresonant transformer, a device that
has been around for over a century. It was originally invented to
regulate the voltage being applied to lamps to reduce flickering, but
it can also be used to convert square waveforms into sinusoids. There
is (or was) a line of uninterruptible power supplies (UPSes) made by
Best that use ferroresonant transformers to produce clean sinusoids
from a square wave inverter drive, and also to provide a "flywheel"
through the switching transients when mains power fails and the
inverter is just coming on.

Ferroresonant transformers are notorious for their low efficiency and
for the accoustic noise they produce, so they are not widely used
these days.

Phil