All,

Are we still here?

Jon F

All,

Very recently Dave and I were informed by Yahoo that attachments to
messages will no longer be permitted and in fact even the existing
attachments will be PERMANENTLY deleted very shortly, like tomorrow
Aug. 7.  Ouch!!

Dave and I will be ATTEMPTING to recover these attachments from our
personal copies of the messages to this group ... the files on our
personal PCs ... and post them to the FILES area, cataloging and most
likely sorting them by date and time.  This will likely be a time
consuming task, to say the least!!!  :-):-(

In the meantime, depending on how you have your message handling set
up, you may be seeing a lot of "NEW FILE POSTED" messages coming your
way.  We appologize for this but that's just the way it works.

Wish us luck!

Best,

Stan
Co-moderator for MEG_Builders

Hi David,

Thanks for your most interesting post and especially the info on your
experiment(s). For some reason though, the images did not come thru on my
end so I'm wondering if you could send them to me or post them on this
site's archive? I have done many experiments with the external A-Field on
MEG configurations but never used an external core material!

Looking forward to hearing more from you-

Regards,
Jon

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

Experiments with a new A-potential theory.

    In searching the internet for information on the interaction of the
magnetic
vector potential (A) and charged particles, the following information was
gleaned
from a lecture summary:

(Fig 1.)


    Essentially what is being done is to use the moving charged particle as
the point of
reference and observing what it would see as it moves.  This derivation
shows that as it
moves through a magnetic vector potential, the charged particle will
experience an electric
field, which will either accelerate or decelerate the particle depending on
whether the
gradient of the magnetic vector potential is decreasing or increasing.  The
most important
part of this derivation, other than the fact that the magnetic vector
potential can be static
(as from a permanent magnet), is that the effect depends entirely on the
velocity of the
charged particle.  For a copper wire at room temperature, the "drift"
velocity of the electrons
(the average velocity after collisions with the molecules of the copper
wire) within the wire
is approximately millimeters per second, which yields a very small electric
field when
moving through the potential.  However, if the electrons can be brought to
the surface of the
wire, where there will be fewer collisions, the velocity will be much
higher, approaching the
"Fermi" velocity (motion in the empty space between the molecules of the
copper wire),
which can be millions of meters per second (and can approach the speed of
light,
300,000,000 meters/second).  When numbers are plugged into the above
derivation for
what might be a typical device:
      1.  A neodymium permanent magnet with a magnetic field of 10,000 gauss
      2.  A magnetic core completely containing the magnetic field (such as a
nanocrystalline
core)
      3.  A main core thickness of about 25 millimeters
      4. An external core which might be 12 millimeters above the surface of
the main core
      5.  Windings around the external core to carry electrons.

    If we assume a velocity of 1,000 meters/second, moving away from the main
core surface,
the particle will see an effective electric field of about 100 volts/meter.
This is not
insignificant.  Note that once the charged particle is in motion, the
particle gains kinetic
energy simply from moving through the gradient of the magnetic vector
potential.  Of course, when the particle is moving toward the main core
surface it will lose kinetic energy.
    A possible device that could exploit this is:

(Fig 2.)


    The main core has a magnetic field that is parallel to its surface.  The
direction of this
field can be in and out of the this page, or left to right across the page,
only the gradient
of the magnetic-vector-potential which forms this field, which is
perpendicular to the main
core surface, is important.

    The external core has a primary winding, driven by voltage taken from a
coil wound
around the main core, and a secondary winding used to detect changes in the
external core's magnetic field.

   Note that the electron moving away from the main core experience an
acceleration,
whereas the electron moving toward the core will experience a deceleration.
Assuming
nothing happens to tap the electron kinetic energy, one-time around the loop
and the
electron will end up with the same energy it had when starting.  Michael
Berry
  ( http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/staff/berry_mv.html ) says that even though
this is true, the
phase of the particle as determined by its wave equation will not be the
same.  Thus
something has changed during the motion around the external core.  In
addition, there
will be synchrotron radiation because of the acceleration/deceleration of
the charged
particle, although the Larmor formula indicates that for the given
conditions this
radiation energy will be very small.  It is my belief, and the direction of
my current
experiments, to determine that the faster motion of the charged particles
changes the
magnetic field in the external core, since to the external core this appears
to the core
to be a larger current.  As long as this external core contains all the
induced magnetic
field, such as a toroid, this magnetic field will not produce a Lorentz
force ( velocity
times magnetic field) to deflect and interfere with the particle motion.

   A build-up has been constructed, using a Honeywell amorphous
nanocrystalline core,
AMCC-320, a nedymium magnet, and a "bridge" MOSFET driver to induce voltage
into
a coil which drives electrons into the winding on the external core.  The
coil driven by
the MOSFETs is 10 turns, the coil driving current through the winding on the
external
core is 60 turns.  The winding on the external core is a bifilar winding of
24 turns, with
a secondary winding of 24 turns.  The bifilar winding is to pursuade the
electrons in the
winding to move near the surface of the wire, hopefully increasing their
velocity.  The
value of the load resistor is variable, typically enough to cause a current
flow of about
40 mA, which is a good number of electrons in motion.

(Fig 3.)


   Note that the winding on the external core is connected so that electron
flow will
be in the same direction on each of the wires of the bifilar winding to and
through the
load resistor.

   To date, experiments to detect this effect have been inconclusive. This is
probably
because the charged particles must have a significant velocity relative to
the drift
velocity ( and hence travelling on the surface of the wire ), which is not
the normal
electron path at low frequencies in a wire, and the influence of the
voltages used in
providing a driving voltage on the external core's secondary winding which
masks
what is a small effect in comparison (parasitic capacitance between the
bifilar core
and the oscilloscope 'sense' winding).
   It may be that only by the use of several drive windings and external-core
windings
will there be a clear effect observed due to a multiplying effect of each
external
winding on the total voltage/current flow (a ping-pong as explained by
others).

    I purchased an inexpensive gaussmeter and Neodymium  magnets from
ForceField/WonderMagnet, http://www.wondermagnet.com
   There are plans for an inexpensive gaussmeter at:
http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/magmeter.htm
http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/magmetr1.htm
   Dr. Bearden has mentioned some guidelines of MEG construction in
correspondence on his site:
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/061603.htm
and some pitfalls of MEG operation in
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/052003.htm
    When you read this closely, and consider the A-interaction outlined
above, it
makes sense.

David J.

Hi David and all,
Thanks for an interesting post. I have been investigating the
convective derivative of the A field as it relates to an induced E
field, and have not found a
theory that works completely with experiments. The A field predicts
the emf generated in a transformer- using the partial time
derivative,
in addition the convective derivative works for a coil moving w.r.t.
a
magnet or another coil.

However for the simple case of a crosspiece moving on 2 rails in a
uniform magnetic field, it gives an incorrect answer. There are
other examples. In addition, using an electron beam in a CRT with
velocities about 10E7 m/s, no effects of a force could be detected.
The CRT neck was placed in the hole of a toroidal coil which produced
the switched A field.
-Dave D.

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "David Jenkins" <djenkins@r...>
wrote:
> Experiments with a new A-potential theory.
>
>    In searching the internet for information on the interaction of
the magnetic
> vector potential (A) and charged particles, the following
information was gleaned
> from a lecture summary:

i'm having trouble getting the core from metglas, as soon as i
mention i need one core to be sent to south africa i never hear from
the sales people again. They're quite rude, no responses to emails,
etc. I have even had a family member in the UK try to contact these
people and the same thing happens to them, as soon as you mention one
core, boom like magic the genie goes back into the lamp.

the cost of the AMCC320 core is extremely high if you don't earn
dollars and shipping it to South Africa is even more expensive.

Does anyone know of any alternative nanocrystaline core manufactures.

I did read briefly that david ball was purchasing NAC cores from
china, does anyone have contact details on this alternate core
manufacturer.

does anyone have any suggestions on a) buying the core b) shipping it
long distance (south africa)

In their rebuttal to the critics of their original paper, "Further
Considerations on Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory",
Physical Review, August 15, 1961, Aharonov and Bohm state that a
moving electron will have a back-reaction on to a source of A
(magnetic vector potential).  Unfortunately they did not further
explain this back-reaction.  After posting my message (MEG_builders
message #1204, Sep 11, 2003) about the convective derivative, how
the velocity of charge is affected by it's motion through a gradient
of A, I wanted to observe some change in the magnetic field of an
output coil which may be caused by such a condition.  I built a
transformer on a nanocrystalline core with small "sense" coils at
the base of the output coil.  Two sense coils are on the outside of
the leg of the core, two others are in the interior space of the
core.

    See the bitmap image, "ACoreTst1.bmp".
     Go to "Files" then go to the folder "MESSAGE ATTACHMENTS", go
to the folder "Results from a new A-Theory", and open
"AcoreTst1.bmp".

    The basic core is a Honeywell AMCC-320, cut core (The core has
been cleanly cut into two halves.  Uncut cores can be purchased
also, and will have lower reluctance because there is no gap from
the cut).  Honeywell cores can be purchased from Eastern Components,
www.eastern-components.com.

    Spaced from the core by 0.02-inch-thick tape, the ferrite sense
coils are placed at the side and the center of the leg of the main
core.  This was to provide an indication of any differences between
the outside edge of the output coil and its center.  Above the
sense coils is a sheet of 0.002-inch thick brass which acts as a
shield to any electrical field between the output coil and the sense
coils.  (Typically the output coil operates at several hundred volts
peak, and coupling of that voltage into the sense coils could mask
measurements of the magnetic field.)  The ends of this shield layer
are insulated from one-another to prevent it from becoming a
shorted turn which of course would kill the transformer action.

    There is another layer of 0.02-inch tape over the brass shield
to reduce the capacitance between it and the output coil.  The
output coil is a bifilar (two wires in parallel) winding of #23
enamel-coated magnet wire, of 23 bifilar turns per layer, with
a 0.006-inch layer of teflon tape between the winding layers.
There are a total of 13 layers for a total of 299 bifilar turns.
Then end of one bifilar wire is connected to the start of the
other wire to provide an effective total of 598 turns.  At the
junction of the two wires, a capacitor can be placed to adjust
the series-resonant frequency so that different operating
frequencies can be tested (This series resonance is between the
transformed capacitance of the output coil and the leakage
inductance of the drive coil).

    In the illustration, a permanent magnet is shown.  Tests
were made with and without a stack of Neodymium magnets to note
any differences.

    The outside sense coils are in a region where there is only
one contribution to the A-field, from the leg of the core.  The
other sense coils are in the interior space of the core where
there are contributions from the top, bottom, and the leg of
the core.  The magnetic-vector-potentials are additive, in
accordance with the usual vector addition (direction and
amplitude are equally important).

    See the bitmap image, "AgradCor1.bmp".
     Go to "Files" then go to the folder "MESSAGE ATTACHMENTS", go
to the folder "Results from a new A-Theory", and open
"AgradCor1.bmp".

    The image illustrates the A-potential vectors as I visualize
them around the nanocrystalline core.  This drawing was to
illustrate the static A from a permanent magnet, but it also is
true for the dA/dt when the core is used as a transformer.  In the
case of the dA/dt, there are only three contributions to the A in
the interior of the core space, A from the magnet is ignored.

    I had anticipated that where the A-potential was greatest, there
would be the greatest B-field reaction from the electrons moving
in the coil.  Instead what I find is that the volume where the
A-potential is weakest (outside the core leg), has the greatest
B-field from the output coil.  I'm cetain I'm observing the
B-field, and it is solely from the current in the output coil.
This was verified by driving the core at low frequencies where the
drive coil would magnetize the core significantly, but little
resonant current and only load current would occur in the output
coil.  The jpeg, "AllSigsLowFreq.jpg", illustrates this.  This
image is in the folder "Results from a new A-Theory".

   Channel 1 of the oscilloscope is connected to the side-mounted
sense coil on the outside of the core leg, channel 2 is connected to
the side-mounted sense coil on the interior side of the core leg,
channel 3 is the timing clock from the drive-coil logic, and channel
4 is connected to the output coil through a 200:1 voltage divider.
There is a simple R-C filter on the sense coil outputs to linearize
their response with frequency so that the voltage indications at
different frequencies will be proportional to the magnetic field,
and not the frequency.  The top trace is the clock for the drive-
coil controller and its leading-edge indicates the beginning of a
cycle.  Digital logic makes each phase of the drive signal about 49%
of the period, which provides a square wave to the drive coil.
Channel 1's  trace is just below the square-wave of the driver-
controller signal, and ranges from about 3.3 divisions above the
bottom of the screen to about 6.7 divisions.  Thus the peak-to-peak
signal is about 3.4 divisions at 50 mV/division for an amplitude of
170 mV.  Channel 2's trace ranges from just about 0.3 division above
the bottom to about 3.9 divisions at 20 mV/division for an amplitude
of 78 mV.  The output voltage ranges from 2.8 divisions to 5.1
divisions at 200 volts/division for an amplitude of 460 volts.  Thus
the ratio of voltages between the two sense coils is 170/78 which is
2.2 to 1.  NOTE: the notation at the bottom of the screen says
800VP-P and was for a different measurement and is in error for this
measurement.  The load on the output coil was 15k ohms.  Also, only
one wind of the bifilar coil was used, so that resonance of the
output coil would be at a frequency much higher than the operating
frequency for this test.  I didn't want resonance effects to
interfere with the transformer action.

   The image, "AllSigsHiFreq.jpg", in the folder "Results from a new
A-Theory", illustrates the output coil operating in series resonance
with the drive-coil.  A 500 pF capacitor and 2.2 mH inductor are in
series between the end of one bifilar wire and the start of the
other.  The 2.2 mH inductor was placed to allow higher frequency
effects such as the Lenz pulse to occur more easily (less capacitive
loading of the core).  Note that the channel 1 and 2 sensitivities
have been changed significantly.  Channel 1's signal now ranges from
3.5 divisions to 6.5 divisions at 200 mV/division for a total
amplitude of 600 mV peak-to-peak.  Channel 2's signal ranges from 0.8
divisions to 3.2 divisions for an amplitude of 240 mV.  The ratio of
the two sense coils is 2.5 to 1.  The output coil amplitude is now
6 divisions at 200 volts/division for a total amplitude of 1,200 volts
peak-to-peak.  As noted on the screen, there is a 60k ohm load
connected to the output coil.

    NOTE:  the sense-coil signals are shifted (delayed) about 90
degrees (1/4 cycle) due to the R-C filters.  Without the R-C filters,
the signals from the sense-coils are in phase with the output voltage,
as they should be, but then high-frequency artifacts appear stronger
than they are in reality.

    The image "CoreBuildUp.jpg", in the folder "Results from a new A-
Theory", shows the built-up core.  There are two drive coils in place
to try different resonance frequencies because the leakage inductance
will change based on the length of the magnetic path from the drive
coil to the output coil.  The output coil being tested is on the
right-hand side of the image, where the coaxial-cable connections to
two of the sense coils can be seen.  The output coil on the left has
the connections to each layer brought out so that experiments can be
performed with different total turns in its circuit.

    A note about the drive circuit: it is composed of four MOSFETs in
a bridge configuration so that the full supply voltage can be applied
across the drive coil for each phase of the drive.  For this test,
it's only function is to provide a variable-frequency square wave to
the drive coil to provide large values of dB/dt in the core, and
consequent large values of dA/dt outside the core.  A simplified
circuit diagram can be seen in the image "TestCir1.bmp", in the
folder "Results from a new A-Theory".

    The ratio of measured B-field inside the output coil is close to
the 3:1 value of the A strength ratios in my idealization.  Why they
are not precisely 3:1 is probably due to the fact that I have
approximated the A values, and because A is not blocked by the core
(or any other physical matter) there are some vectorial subtractions
occurring due to vectors interfering around the output coil which
results in less than a 3:1 ratio occurring.

    By the way, the addition of the permanent magnet to the core
did not change the ratio significantly and I have not made precise
measurements of its impact at this time.  The difference in ratio
may have been 10%, not a lot compared to the basic ratio.  The
images in this report are those with the magnet in place.

   Also, there was no significant difference in signal level
between the sense-coils on the outside of the leg versus
those at the center.

   To help eliminate experimental error, I built an entirely
different configuration, on an AMCC-1000 uncut core, which is
dramatically different in size from the AMCC-320.  The sense-
coils are also very different in size.  The effect is
repeatable as the measured ratio between outside and interior
of the core is 3.2:1 which is close to that reported here.

    A symmetrically wound coil will have a reasonably uniform
magnetic field at points that are symmetrically similar.  (The
field distribution in a rectangular shape is not uniform, although
at symmetric points around the center of the shape the field will
be the same.)  This experiment indicates to me that the magnetic
vector potential is real, as theorized by Aharonov and Bohm, and
that we have not fully exploited it as yet.

David J.

Files:
    ACoreTst1.bmp
    AgradCor1.bmp
    AllSigsLowFreq.jpg
    AllSigsHiFreq.jpg
    CoreBuildUp.jpg
    TestCir1.bmp

David,

Nice test report. Will take some time to digest your findings. Keep up the
good work!

Jon

----- Original Message -----
From: "davidj95650" <djenkins@...>
To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 10:44 AM
Subject: [MEG_builders] Results from a new A-Theory


>    In their rebuttal to the critics of their original paper, "Further
> Considerations on Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory",
> Physical Review, August 15, 1961, Aharonov and Bohm state that a
> moving electron will have a back-reaction on to a source of A
> (magnetic vector potential).  Unfortunately they did not further
> explain this back-reaction.  After posting my message (MEG_builders
> message #1204, Sep 11, 2003) about the convective derivative, how
> the velocity of charge is affected by it's motion through a gradient
> of A, I wanted to observe some change in the magnetic field of an
> output coil which may be caused by such a condition.  I built a
> transformer on a nanocrystalline core with small "sense" coils at
> the base of the output coil.  Two sense coils are on the outside of
> the leg of the core, two others are in the interior space of the
> core.
>
>    See the bitmap image, "ACoreTst1.bmp".
>     Go to "Files" then go to the folder "MESSAGE ATTACHMENTS", go
> to the folder "Results from a new A-Theory", and open
> "AcoreTst1.bmp".
>
>    The basic core is a Honeywell AMCC-320, cut core (The core has
> been cleanly cut into two halves.  Uncut cores can be purchased
> also, and will have lower reluctance because there is no gap from
> the cut).  Honeywell cores can be purchased from Eastern Components,
> www.eastern-components.com.
>
>    Spaced from the core by 0.02-inch-thick tape, the ferrite sense
> coils are placed at the side and the center of the leg of the main
> core.  This was to provide an indication of any differences between
> the outside edge of the output coil and its center.  Above the
> sense coils is a sheet of 0.002-inch thick brass which acts as a
> shield to any electrical field between the output coil and the sense
> coils.  (Typically the output coil operates at several hundred volts
> peak, and coupling of that voltage into the sense coils could mask
> measurements of the magnetic field.)  The ends of this shield layer
> are insulated from one-another to prevent it from becoming a
> shorted turn which of course would kill the transformer action.
>
>    There is another layer of 0.02-inch tape over the brass shield
> to reduce the capacitance between it and the output coil.  The
> output coil is a bifilar (two wires in parallel) winding of #23
> enamel-coated magnet wire, of 23 bifilar turns per layer, with
> a 0.006-inch layer of teflon tape between the winding layers.
> There are a total of 13 layers for a total of 299 bifilar turns.
> Then end of one bifilar wire is connected to the start of the
> other wire to provide an effective total of 598 turns.  At the
> junction of the two wires, a capacitor can be placed to adjust
> the series-resonant frequency so that different operating
> frequencies can be tested (This series resonance is between the
> transformed capacitance of the output coil and the leakage
> inductance of the drive coil).
>
>    In the illustration, a permanent magnet is shown.  Tests
> were made with and without a stack of Neodymium magnets to note
> any differences.
>
>    The outside sense coils are in a region where there is only
> one contribution to the A-field, from the leg of the core.  The
> other sense coils are in the interior space of the core where
> there are contributions from the top, bottom, and the leg of
> the core.  The magnetic-vector-potentials are additive, in
> accordance with the usual vector addition (direction and
> amplitude are equally important).
>
>    See the bitmap image, "AgradCor1.bmp".
>     Go to "Files" then go to the folder "MESSAGE ATTACHMENTS", go
> to the folder "Results from a new A-Theory", and open
> "AgradCor1.bmp".
>
>    The image illustrates the A-potential vectors as I visualize
> them around the nanocrystalline core.  This drawing was to
> illustrate the static A from a permanent magnet, but it also is
> true for the dA/dt when the core is used as a transformer.  In the
> case of the dA/dt, there are only three contributions to the A in
> the interior of the core space, A from the magnet is ignored.
>
>    I had anticipated that where the A-potential was greatest, there
> would be the greatest B-field reaction from the electrons moving
> in the coil.  Instead what I find is that the volume where the
> A-potential is weakest (outside the core leg), has the greatest
> B-field from the output coil.  I'm cetain I'm observing the
> B-field, and it is solely from the current in the output coil.
> This was verified by driving the core at low frequencies where the
> drive coil would magnetize the core significantly, but little
> resonant current and only load current would occur in the output
> coil.  The jpeg, "AllSigsLowFreq.jpg", illustrates this.  This
> image is in the folder "Results from a new A-Theory".
>
>   Channel 1 of the oscilloscope is connected to the side-mounted
> sense coil on the outside of the core leg, channel 2 is connected to
> the side-mounted sense coil on the interior side of the core leg,
> channel 3 is the timing clock from the drive-coil logic, and channel
> 4 is connected to the output coil through a 200:1 voltage divider.
> There is a simple R-C filter on the sense coil outputs to linearize
> their response with frequency so that the voltage indications at
> different frequencies will be proportional to the magnetic field,
> and not the frequency.  The top trace is the clock for the drive-
> coil controller and its leading-edge indicates the beginning of a
> cycle.  Digital logic makes each phase of the drive signal about 49%
> of the period, which provides a square wave to the drive coil.
> Channel 1's  trace is just below the square-wave of the driver-
> controller signal, and ranges from about 3.3 divisions above the
> bottom of the screen to about 6.7 divisions.  Thus the peak-to-peak
> signal is about 3.4 divisions at 50 mV/division for an amplitude of
> 170 mV.  Channel 2's trace ranges from just about 0.3 division above
> the bottom to about 3.9 divisions at 20 mV/division for an amplitude
> of 78 mV.  The output voltage ranges from 2.8 divisions to 5.1
> divisions at 200 volts/division for an amplitude of 460 volts.  Thus
> the ratio of voltages between the two sense coils is 170/78 which is
> 2.2 to 1.  NOTE: the notation at the bottom of the screen says
> 800VP-P and was for a different measurement and is in error for this
> measurement.  The load on the output coil was 15k ohms.  Also, only
> one wind of the bifilar coil was used, so that resonance of the
> output coil would be at a frequency much higher than the operating
> frequency for this test.  I didn't want resonance effects to
> interfere with the transformer action.
>
>   The image, "AllSigsHiFreq.jpg", in the folder "Results from a new
> A-Theory", illustrates the output coil operating in series resonance
> with the drive-coil.  A 500 pF capacitor and 2.2 mH inductor are in
> series between the end of one bifilar wire and the start of the
> other.  The 2.2 mH inductor was placed to allow higher frequency
> effects such as the Lenz pulse to occur more easily (less capacitive
> loading of the core).  Note that the channel 1 and 2 sensitivities
> have been changed significantly.  Channel 1's signal now ranges from
> 3.5 divisions to 6.5 divisions at 200 mV/division for a total
> amplitude of 600 mV peak-to-peak.  Channel 2's signal ranges from 0.8
> divisions to 3.2 divisions for an amplitude of 240 mV.  The ratio of
> the two sense coils is 2.5 to 1.  The output coil amplitude is now
> 6 divisions at 200 volts/division for a total amplitude of 1,200 volts
> peak-to-peak.  As noted on the screen, there is a 60k ohm load
> connected to the output coil.
>
>    NOTE:  the sense-coil signals are shifted (delayed) about 90
> degrees (1/4 cycle) due to the R-C filters.  Without the R-C filters,
> the signals from the sense-coils are in phase with the output voltage,
> as they should be, but then high-frequency artifacts appear stronger
> than they are in reality.
>
>    The image "CoreBuildUp.jpg", in the folder "Results from a new A-
> Theory", shows the built-up core.  There are two drive coils in place
> to try different resonance frequencies because the leakage inductance
> will change based on the length of the magnetic path from the drive
> coil to the output coil.  The output coil being tested is on the
> right-hand side of the image, where the coaxial-cable connections to
> two of the sense coils can be seen.  The output coil on the left has
> the connections to each layer brought out so that experiments can be
> performed with different total turns in its circuit.
>
>    A note about the drive circuit: it is composed of four MOSFETs in
> a bridge configuration so that the full supply voltage can be applied
> across the drive coil for each phase of the drive.  For this test,
> it's only function is to provide a variable-frequency square wave to
> the drive coil to provide large values of dB/dt in the core, and
> consequent large values of dA/dt outside the core.  A simplified
> circuit diagram can be seen in the image "TestCir1.bmp", in the
> folder "Results from a new A-Theory".
>
>    The ratio of measured B-field inside the output coil is close to
> the 3:1 value of the A strength ratios in my idealization.  Why they
> are not precisely 3:1 is probably due to the fact that I have
> approximated the A values, and because A is not blocked by the core
> (or any other physical matter) there are some vectorial subtractions
> occurring due to vectors interfering around the output coil which
> results in less than a 3:1 ratio occurring.
>
>    By the way, the addition of the permanent magnet to the core
> did not change the ratio significantly and I have not made precise
> measurements of its impact at this time.  The difference in ratio
> may have been 10%, not a lot compared to the basic ratio.  The
> images in this report are those with the magnet in place.
>
>   Also, there was no significant difference in signal level
> between the sense-coils on the outside of the leg versus
> those at the center.
>
>   To help eliminate experimental error, I built an entirely
> different configuration, on an AMCC-1000 uncut core, which is
> dramatically different in size from the AMCC-320.  The sense-
> coils are also very different in size.  The effect is
> repeatable as the measured ratio between outside and interior
> of the core is 3.2:1 which is close to that reported here.
>
>    A symmetrically wound coil will have a reasonably uniform
> magnetic field at points that are symmetrically similar.  (The
> field distribution in a rectangular shape is not uniform, although
> at symmetric points around the center of the shape the field will
> be the same.)  This experiment indicates to me that the magnetic
> vector potential is real, as theorized by Aharonov and Bohm, and
> that we have not fully exploited it as yet.
>
> David J.
>
> Files:
>    ACoreTst1.bmp
>    AgradCor1.bmp
>    AllSigsLowFreq.jpg
>    AllSigsHiFreq.jpg
>    CoreBuildUp.jpg
>    TestCir1.bmp

The possible mechanism on how the Meg actually works, I believe, is
described in this 1998 patent WO9840960:

http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/bnsviewer?
CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=WO9840960&ID=WO+++9840960A1+I+

  "The electromagnetic device of the present invention exploits a
practically unlimited source of energy and it is thus vey
cheap.....The pulses applied to the windings 110 and 115 perturb the
magnetic field generated by the magnet 105 and produce a total
magnetic field having an amplitude which is extremely higher than the
amplitude of the magnetic field generated by the magnet 105.
Experimental tests have shown that the resulting magnetic field has
an amplitude far higher (e.g. several thousand times) than the field
produced by the magnet 105 and that the energy generated by the
electromagnetic device 100 is extremely higher than the energy
absorbed by the unit 120 for generating the pulse sequences."

Ken

Here's some good info from Tom Bearden about the MEG:

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Fact_Sheets/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20MEG%
20-%20
How%20it%20works1.doc

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

> Here's some good info from Tom Bearden about the MEG:
>
> http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Fact_Sheets/Fact%20Sheet%20-%
20MEG%
> 20-%20
> How%20it%20works1.doc

(Ken)

Ken,

Thanks for this "paper".  It is relatively new as is dated August
2003.  Hopefully there is some good info here.

Best,
Stan
P.S.  For those of you that want to check this out, you need to note
that the web address is really long and needs to include
the "words" ...

20MEG%20-%20How%20it%20works1.doc

David, In the photo of your MEG there are flat pieces of metal in
between your magnets to make the stack fit inside the core. This
causes fringing B-fields around the core and the Aharonov-Bohm effect
will not happen as Bearden explains.

Ken

Hi Ken,

    On a third build-up of this type of test set-up,
I measured the leakage flux around the magnet stack and
especially near the transformer-laminations used to make
the magnet stack fit tightly inside the AMCC core.  Placing
a gaussmeter probe against the edge of the transformer
laminations, I measured up to 350 gauss.  At the junction
of the magnet stack and the AMCC core I measured up to
145 gauss.  At the surface of the output core, adjacent to
the transformer laminations I measured up to 48 gauss.
Away from that location the measured field decreased to
about 10 gauss, then increased to about 25 gauss near the
locations at top and bottom where the magnet stack contacts
the AMCC core.  Outside the AMCC core, there is no
measurable magnetic field (gaussmeter resolution = 1 gauss).

   I am assuming that with the low-reluctance path provided
by the nanocrystalline core, the NIB magnet stack will reach
a field strength of about 10,000 gauss (a single magnet in
air measures 4,000 gauss at its surface).  Thus these
measurements are a small percentage of the total field.
The dA/dt still holds even if the A is not entirely curl-
free (B = del x A).  In the event of curled A (B), there
is a transverse force by the familiar relationship of qV x B.
I am assuming that Dr. Bearden means that if there is a B
field present, the surface electrons will be driven
transverse to their propagation along the wire, thus
increasing their collisions with atoms at the surface and
reducing their velocity.

   Because of your question, I conducted an experiment on
this third build-up of this configuration (yes, the
relationship of outside/interior sense coil voltage still
holds, although enhanced in this build-up because I used a
larger block of ferrite on the outside sense coil).  I
placed an NIB magnet, 1/2-inch x 1-inch x 1/2-inch thick,
4,100 gauss at its surface, near the interior sense coil.
For "N" polarity of the magnet face the sense voltage of
only the interior coil decreases about two per-cent.  For
the "S" polarity, the outside sense coil voltage decreases
about one per-cent and the voltage from the interior sense
coil does not change.  The polarities of this magnet react
oppositely depending on which side of the output coil it
is placed.  Placing either face near the outside of the
output coil and in the vicinity of the outside sense coil,
there is no discernable effect on the sense voltages.
This by itself is an interesting effect, and needs further investigation.  I
repeated these tests about ten times to
be sure the effects were real and not something as simple
as a changing resonant frequency of the output coil. (N
of the magnet stack inside the AMCC core is at its top).

   An e-mailer asked if this set-up isn't measuring the CEMF
of the output coil, and I replied that yes that is exactly
what is being measured.  The fact that it is different for
locations on opposite sides of a core leg is the point that
is important.  By classical E-M it shouldn't be.  "A" is
real.

David J.

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "carbonprobe" <carbonprobe@y...> wrote:
> David, In the photo of your MEG there are flat pieces of metal in
> between your magnets to make the stack fit inside the core. This
> causes fringing B-fields around the core and the Aharonov-Bohm effect
> will not happen as Bearden explains.
>
> Ken

See message 1207, "Results from a new A-Theory".
    An e-mailer inquired if flux-coupling to the main core
might influence the results I reported about the magnetic
field from the output coil being greater on the outside of
the core leg than in the interior of the core space.
Based on the measured inductance change with the ferrite
sense coils in air and then in place at the core leg,
there is some coupling (about a 40% change in inductance ),
but this is not enough to skew the results I measured.  To
further eliminate any flux coupling, I built a fourth
set-up using a Honeywell AMCC-100 core.  This is a small
core, and the size difference provides further variation.
Instead of ferrite sense coils, I used Allegro/Sprague
UGN-3503U Hall-Effect sensors.  These devices have a
linear response to about 23 kHz and a sensitivity of
about 1.3 mV output per gauss.  Prior to installing them
near the core leg, I measured their sensitivity and chose
two devices whose output was within five per-cent when
exposed to the same field from a solenoid coil resonating
at 10 kHz.  I used balsa wood to provide a spacer and
support so that the devices were about one-tenth inch
away from the core surface, about one-tenth inch from the
first layer of the output coil, and held in the center of
the core leg.  These supports were made as closely
similar as was practical.  Unfortunately, I neglected to
add an electrostatic shield, so the measurements are
sensitive to frequency.  Therefore, I made four
measurements at four separate frequencies to determine a
trend of frequency response.  The results at the lowest
frequency I tried, 1.23 kHz, were output-side sensor:
49 mV, interior sensor: 11 mV for a ratio of 4.5 to 1.
At the highest frequency I made measurements, 3.71 kHz,
the output-side sensor: 78 mV, the interior sensor: 38 mV,
for a ratio of 2.1 to 1.  These devices are packaged in
plastic and have an internal operational-amplifier which
is clearly sensitive to external electric fields.  A more
precise set-up should use a thin brass layer to provide an
electrostatic shield between the output coil and the
sensors.

David J.

All,

There has been an interesting paper of late regarding what looks to be a working
Maxwell's
demon.  Right click on this link and select "save as" to download and save a
copy locally.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0311/0311104.pdf

This fits the bill of a MEG type device so I thought I'd bring it to the group's
attention.
Harvey Norris had some interesting things to say about it on his list
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/), I copied it below.

Best,

Dave Narby


=====================

Realizations of Maxwell's (Demon) Hypothesis.
from Jaio Tong Univ; Shanghai, China

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0311/0311104.pdf

What the authors here have done is to make a "virtual" free energy
machine by reacting A ceramic-8 based magnetic field at right angles
to the electron movements caused by  Ag-O-Cs photoelectric cathodes,
which can eject thermal electrons at room temperature.  The Lorentz
force causes electron spiraling from the former straight line
progressions. Using two cathodes one cathode will then increase
potential with respect to the other by receiving a higher % of return
spiraled electron paths. A load placed on the differing cathode
potentials showed a minuscule .01 volt extracting 10^-13 A.   This
output current is accompanied by a small loss of temperature from the
device, which is replenished by the ambient room temperature, from
which the device itself draws its effects. Maxwell's Demon problem is
shown, and how it here applies to thermal electrons, which actually
have a rms speed of 117 km/sec at room temperature.

The importance here is that apparently the energy of the magnet is
tapped, via the medium that already functions at room temperature.
This application here is very similar to proposed flux cap scenarios,
only there the applied magnetic field is one that is also in
movement, and polarity change, accompanied by an othogonal electric
field that is made to mirror the magnetic field actions in unison.

Sincerely HDN

In my message to Yahoo MEG-Builders #1207 dated 03 NOV 2003,
I reported the results of an experiment to measure the magnetic
field inside the output coil at locations on the inside and
outside of the core opening.  That experiment indicated that
there is a large difference in the magnetic field based on
location which I attribute to the difference in magnetic-vector-
potential (A) at those locations.  Those findings prompted me to
want to know if there are differences in even smaller regions
around the output coil since there will be differences in the
gradient of A for small differences in location.  Hence I built
another setup using ferrite inductors as sense coils spaced
evenly around the circumference of the core leg.  I used short
inductors to reduce coupling to adjacent core surfaces at the
top and bottom of the core opening.  A drawing of the test setup
is in the file "ACorTst2.bmp".

    Go to "Files" then go to the folder "MESSAGE ATTACHMENTS", go
to the folder "Magnets Make a Difference", and open
"ACorTst2.bmp".

    The core is again a Honeywell AMCC-320, cut core.  Honeywell
cores can be purchased from Eastern Components,
www.eastern-components.com.  A layer of electrical insulating
tape 0.020-inch thick is placed on the core.  On this tape are
placed 31 inductors side-by-side, centered on the core leg.
These inductors are Jeffers Electronics part number 19A472-J,
and are 4.7 mH, 0.194-inch diameter, and 0.450-inch in length.
Similar inductors can be purchased from Digi-Key
(www.digikey.com) and other electronics distributors.  There is
nothing special about these inductors, I had a package of them
in my "junk" box and used them.  A layer of insulating tape
covers the inductors and holds them firmly in place.  Over the
insulating tape is placed a single layer of 0.002-inch brass
shim stock to provide an electrical shield between the
inductors and the voltage in the output coil.  The ends of this
brass shield are insulated to prevent it from becoming a
shorting turn which would be a low-resistance block to any
changing magnetic field in the core or output coil.

    Two layers of insulating tape 0.0022-inch thick are placed
over the brass layer, followed by 6 layers of 0.0015-inch teflon
tape commonly used by plumbers.  The teflon layer reduces the
capacitance between the first layer of the output coil and the
brass shield.  Such capacitance would reduce the resonant
frequency of the output coil.

    The output coil is wound using #24 enamel-coated magnet wire
wound bifilar (two wires side-by-side) creating a large
capacitance between the two wires.  The layers are wound 12
turns of this bifilar configuration per layer, for a total of
five layers and 112 bifilar turns.  Four layers of teflon tape
0.0015-inch thick are used to insulate between layers.  When
the end of one wire is connected to the beginning of the other,
the output coil is a total of 224 turns and measures 314 mH.
The capacitance between the two wires is 4.83 nF, and the
series resonance of the output coil with the nearest drive-coil
is 33.5 kHz.

   On the other core half is an output coil of 224 turns wound
similarly, but not identically, whose series-resonance with its
drive-coil is 29.5 kHz.  Having two resonant output coils
provides some balance to the changing flux in the core.

   A resistor of 12k ohms was placed on each output coil.  A
filter is placed between the output of the 10x probe (used to
measure the voltage on the inductors) and the oscilloscope
input.  The 3dB cut-off frequency of this filter is 90 kHz.
Its purpose is to reduce the "ringing" voltage of the
inductors (about 300 kHz) to make it easier to measure the
voltages on the oscilloscope.  This ringing is the response
to the sharp changes in flux induced by the square-wave drive
pulse.

   There are two drive circuits, each composed of two MOSFETs
in a half-bridge configuration so that the full supply
voltage can be applied across the drive coil.  Each drive
circuit produces a half-square wave to its respective drive
coil to provide large values of dB/dt in the core, and
consequent large values of dA/dt outside the core.

   The drive logic turns on each drive circuit for about 49%
of the total period.  Thus there is no overlap of drive
signals, and during most of the time there is drive to the
core.  Providing a small amount of "off" time allows the
core to discharge if there is any asymmetry in the applied
drive.

   The voltage at the output coil was kept constant at 1,000
volts peak-to-peak for all measurements.  This level of
output provides a reasonable amount of dB/dt in the output
coil, encourages the formation of surface charge and
requires about five watts of drive power.

   Measurements were made during a single test session to
reduce any possible changes due to changing environmental
conditions (temperature, humidity, etc).  These conditions
will slightly change the response because the metal of the
core will expand or contract which changes the coupling
between drive coil and output coil, resonant frequency,
and related effects.

   For the results posted here, the measurements were made at
a fixed frequency of 31.75 kHz without and then with the
magnets in place.  Because the permeability of the core changes
slightly with the large magnetic field of the Neodymium magnets
used, other measurements were made at the different resonant
frequencies without and with magnets.  The results were similar
to those reported here.

   With the magnets in place, a gauss-meter was used to measure
leakage flux near the output coil.  In all areas, especially
those closest to the magnet stack, the static field was
measured at less than 100 gauss.  When the magnet stack was in
place, prior to placing transformer laminations to eliminate
the air gap between magnets and core, placing the probe in that
gap showed a magnetic field greater than 8,000 gauss.  The magnet
stack is 1.5-inch in length, 0.75-inch width, and height of 1.25-
inch.

   The drawing, "ATstRslt.bmp" plots the results of my
measurements versus location on the core leg.  As can be seen,
there is a significant difference in measured B field based on
the location.  Of particular note is that with the magnets in
place, there is a significant difference in the measured flux in
the inside core space whereas there is almost no change for the
measured flux outside the core space.  In the inside core space
there is much more A, and a large gradient in A, as detailed in
my message #1207.

   This drawing is done so that if the voltage were zero, the
test point would occur on the dotted line surrounding the core.
The location of each test point is directly proportional to
its measurement.  Thus the drawing becomes a contour of flux
measurements versus location on the core leg.  It is
interesting to note the large difference between the sense
inductors near a corner of the leg, and those in the center of
the leg.  The results are not perfectly symmetrical probably
due to slight differences in placement of the inductors (they
may not be the same distance from the core surface due to
irregularities in the insulating tape, and perhaps forced up
and away from the core due to force from their connecting
leads).  Also, there are slight imperfections in the bifilar
winding, sometimes the adjacent wires do not lay against one
another, slightly changing the circumstances for surface
charge (whose motion through the gradient of the permanent-
magnet-induced A is what I believe is responsible for these
results).

   In message #1207, I noted that I had observed, but not
quantified, the difference when the magnets were placed in
the core.  Also, I had not observed much difference in that
test between an inductor at the center of the leg, and one
placed near the edge.  Here, obviously, with better resolution
of location, and more attention to the measurements,
differences are very clear.

   As noted earlier, these tests were run under different
operating conditions and similar or greater differences were
noted without and with the magnets in place.

   Several questions arise:
      1. What is the back-reaction to the drive circuit from
this increased magnetic field in the output coil ?
      2. What should be done with this increased magnetic
field ?
      3. How can this effect be increased ?

   More exploration, hopefully more discovery :-) !!

    David J.

Files:
    ACorTst2.bmp
    ATstRslt.bmp

Hi David,
These look like very interesting tests.
Do you have a plot of the output of the 32 inductors around the
core and inside the output coil, showing the measurement of the mmf
or
the A-field distribution, with load?
-Dave D.
--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "davidj95650" <djenkins@r...>
wrote:
>    In my message to Yahoo MEG-Builders #1207 dated 03 NOV 2003,
> I reported the results of an experiment to measure the magnetic
> field inside the output coil at locations on the inside and
...

Hi Dave,

    I do not presently have such a plot.  I've been working on a program that
would generate such a plot so that I could compare mathematics, as I
understand it, and results.  The increases in measured voltage at each corner
are due to greater coupling between the embedded inductors and the output
coil.

   BTW, I changed the output connections so that the two bifilar wires were in
parallel, then added a 1.8nF capacitor to make it series-resonant at 44 kHz.
This changed the observed difference between no magnets and magnets to
about twice that of the bifilar connection.   I also removed the laminations
that
make a tight fit between the magnet stack and the core and the results did
not vary.  Making this observation is limited by the ability to accurately
measure voltage on the screen of the oscilloscope.  I expect that there should
be a small decrease because there is now  a much larger reluctance in the
path of the magnetic field from the magnets which will cause a decrease in
the static field in the core.  The air gap at the bottom of the magnet stack was
just over 0.10-inch.

   I am building another setup to concentrate on the changes of magnetic
field at the core-interior side of the output coil and to determine what
physical
changes increase the no-magnet/magnet difference.

   David J.

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "davedameron" <ddameron@e...> wrote:
> Hi David,
> These look like very interesting tests.
> Do you have a plot of the output of the 32 inductors around the
> core and inside the output coil, showing the measurement of the mmf
> or
> the A-field distribution, with load?
> -Dave D.
> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "davidj95650" <djenkins@r...>
> wrote:
> >    In my message to Yahoo MEG-Builders #1207 dated 03 NOV 2003,
> > I reported the results of an experiment to measure the magnetic
> > field inside the output coil at locations on the inside and
> ...

Is anybody out there in MEG Land?

My latest deep thoughts:

The MEG can be considered a parallel LCR circuit. When an LCR circuit
is in resonance the voltage is maximum and the current is minimized.
So I conclude that the permeability of the core will be extremely
high at resonance. Since current is minimized - H (magnetizing force)
will be minimized, and since Voltage is maximized - B (Flux density)
will be maximized.

Thus B/H = mu = huge permeability

I couldn't understand why the MEG was using such high frequencies -
my reasoning was - if you take a look at the data sheet for any core,
the permeability drops as frequency goes up, and this would in turn
switch only a small bit of flux in he MEG.

But since the MEG is at resonance (and high permeability) then it's
switching much more flux than I had previously thought.

Anybody Agree?

Ken

Is anybody out there in MEG Land?

My latest deep thoughts:

The MEG can be considered a parallel LCR circuit. When an LCR circuit
is in resonance the voltage is maximum and the current is minimized.
So I conclude that the permeability of the core will be extremely
high at resonance. Since current is minimized - H (magnetizing force)
will be minimized, and since Voltage is maximized - B (Flux density)
will be maximized.

Thus B/H = mu = huge permeability

I couldn't understand why the MEG was using such high frequencies -
my reasoning was - if you take a look at the data sheet for any core,
the permeability drops as frequency goes up, and this would in turn
switch only a small bit of flux in he MEG.

But since the MEG is at resonance (and high permeability) then it's
switching much more flux than I had previously thought.

Anybody Agree?

Ken










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

Good Morning everybody

I write this post to inform you my lasts results in experimenting my MEG
(not really mine, a friend of me gave me it to test it). I attached some
of the MEG's pictures in the mail.

* The driver circuit is a clone of JL Naudin's 3.1 MEG driver with three
minor modifications: a switch has been added to main power (with a LED)
and to primary coils power. Mosfet transistor have been replaced by
IRF740 (more stronger than BUZ11) with a big radiator for each one. All
other specifications are identical. The core is the same AMCC-320
Honeywell PowerLite C-Core. Primary and secondary coils are identical
too: the same number of turn and the same AWG reference for wire than
Naudin's one. Magnets are not the same than Naudin's one.
See: http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm and
http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/meg31dg.gif for schematic
* The magnets are small one but powerfull (rare earth magnet, said my
friend). Magnet stack is 35mm and the PowerLite core is 35mm width, but
the magnets were not fitting, because of some 1/10 mm difference. I
first experimented with a 30mm stack magnet width, so there was a GAP. I
have read a Bearden's writting and a Naudin's post in this group saying
that with a GAP the MEG will not work. So I used a file to make magnet
stack fit exactly the space. I have two such 35mm magnet stacks, put
aside in the MEG Core (the same poles in top, the same poles in bottom).

MEG photo:
Photo_MEG_general.jpg
Photo_MEG_driver.jpg
Photo_MEG_windings.jpg

2004/03/03 measurements:
First of all, we measured inductance ans resistance values of first and
secondary coils.
Lprimary = 66mH, Rprimary = 1,9ohms (Naudin's one: 24mH,1,6ohms)
Lsecondary = 12,8 H, Rsecondary = 37ohms (Naudin's one:  5,7 H, 37 ohms)
I can't explained why such a difference in L measurement, because when
measuring with magnet and without magnet, there is no difference at all!!

2004/03/12 measurements: (after many experimentations):
Lsecondary = 6,36 H, Rsecondary (the value was constant during all the day)
I don't understand!! So I removed the magnets, I powered MEG, then
afterwards I measured Lsecondary=12,1 H.
I inserted again magnets, and measureed Lsecondary=12,1 H. I powered MEG
and measured afterwards L=10,1 H.
Removing and inserting magnets has no incidence on Lsencondary unless I
power MEG. There is some kind of magneting memory effect (hysteresis??)
Lsecondary=10H 03/12 at night, Lsecondary=9,8H 03/13 around midday,
Lsecondary=9,6H 03/14 around midday, but I have not used the MEG since
03/12.
I try to understand all this.


All further experimentations have been done before 2004/03/12 magnet
removing, we can assume Lsecondary=6,36H (I hadn't thought in measuring
Lsecondary after my first measurement 03/03). I will not give you all my
experimentations, but major ones.

***************
** 2004/03/03: **
***************
Primary coils feeded both with the driver
Secondary coils: number1:  a 470Kohms, 2Watt resistor
Secondary coils: number2:

VDR1 = VDR2 = 420V / 400pF
Rch = resistor12ohms, 10Watts

         Bobinage n°2

      U1 ____mmmmm_______ U2
     |                                           |
     --VDR1--VDR2--*--Rch---
     |                             |             |
     sB                        sA           |
     |                             |             |
    CHB                 CHA        masse


*: measure point
sB: probe B linking U1 to CHB
sA: probe A linking * to CHA
CHB: on oscillo ( Voltage measurement between secondary coil: V=voltage
difference beetween U1 and U2)
CHA: sur oscillo (Current measurement between Rch charge resistor, in
order to measure I current throw secondary coil)

(L=12,8 H?)

First, experimenting with f=40kHz approximately: 20040303_exp_oscillo.jpg
Current is not a sin wave, but voltage is approximately a sin wave. I
have approximated the Power calculations using Current sin wave
approximation.
P  = (Umax * Imax /2) * cos PHI  where PHI is the phase angle. PHI=87°.
This lead to a 75mW output power with a 3,4Watts input Power!! COP < 2,5%
I have been unable to obtain a pure sin wave like Naudin's one on his
website

So I decided not to use the frequencies specifications given by the
driver. I added a 10nF capacity in parallel with the 1nF capacity,
driving the clock TL494 circuit and changed my frequency panel.

***************
** 2004/03/11: **
***************
Primary coils feeded both with the driver
Secondary coils: number1: the same feeding than number2
Secondary coils: number2:

VDR1 = VDR2 = 420V / 400pF
Rch = resistor12ohms, 10Watts

         Bobinage n°2

      U1 ____mmmmm_______ U2
     |                                           |
     --VDR1--VDR2--*--Rch---
     |                             |             |
     sB                        sA           |
     |                             |             |
    CHB                 CHA        masse

*: measure point
sB: probe B linking U1 to CHB
sA: probe A linking * to CHA
CHB: on oscillo ( Voltage measurement between secondary coil: V=voltage
difference beetween U1 and U2)
CHA: sur oscillo (Current measurement between Rch charge resistor, in
order to measure I current throw secondary coil)
(L=6,36 H?)


sB:  10:1, parasit capacity: 47pF
sA:  1:1, parasit capacity unknown
Time base: 50 micro secondes/Division
CHA: 0,05 Volts/Division, at top
CHB: 20 Volts/Division, at bottom

Voltage driver circuit consumption with no MEG Primary connected: Ugen=29,1V
Current driver circuit consumption with no MEG Primary connected:
Igen=45,4mA
Pconsumption with no Primary MEG connected= 1,3 Watts

I tuned frequency so input current was at maximum, so Power input was at
maximum.

Voltage driver circuit consumption with MEG Primary connected: Ugen=27,2V
Current driver circuit consumption with MEG Primary connected: Igen=138,6mA
Pconsumption = 3,77Watts, say 3,8 Watts


Signal are not sinusoidal at all!!
Period of signal: 7 divisions, 7 x 50 micro sec = 350 micro sec <-->
2,86 KHz


20040311_exp1_patchworkoscillo.jpg:  I had to take many oscillo
pictures, and a patchwork, because Voltage was to high
20040311_exp1_calculs.jpg: I used a numerical computation, with a
software I programmed specifically to integrate U(t)*I(t): on Yellow on
the graph

  P = (1/T) * Integral on a T period of (U(t)*I(t)*dt)
Results: Power out = 1,7 watts
I have measured output on the other secondary coil, the signals are
roughly the same; so we can say: Total Power output is 1,7 Watts * 2 =
3,4 Watts

COP = 3,4Watts / 3,8 Watts = 0,89 = 89%
If we substract the no load power consumption (1,3 Watts) we can say that
P MEG consumption power = 3,8-1,3 =  2,5 Watts, so COP = 3,4/2,5 = 1,36
But this is only hypothetical, because driver consumption may change
when operating with the MEG load, and with no load. The only certitude
is COP=0,89

I was very excited!!!

***************
** 2004/03/12: **
***************
The same experiment than 2004/03/12 has been done, but with and without
magnets. What strikes is that there is NO DIFFERENCE with or without
magnets, so my MEG is only a transformer, and I as right when saying
only COP=0,89 is correct

Signals for current and voltage are exactly the same with and without
magnets!! I tried at various frequencies, and it is the same thing.

-------------

An other experiment in order to hav sin wave at output (before having
removed magnets, so L=6,36H)
I changed capacity driver value in order to test many frequency ranges:
from T=600 micro sec (f=1,6Khz) to T= 20 micro secondes (f=50 KHz)
Only one frequency give a nearly pure sin wave for Current and Voltage:
T=125 micro secondes ( f=8KHz)
I have calculated power output with P = (Umax * Imax )* cos PHI
formulae, and with  PHI = phase angle

Voltage driver circuit consumption with MEG Primary connected: Ugen=26,7V
Current driver circuit consumption with MEG Primary connected: Igen=0,38A
Pinput driver=10,1 Watts
U sin wave from -1200V to +1000V
I sin wave from -13,3mA to 8,3mA
PHI= 115°
P=cos PHI*Umax*Imax/2 + 250mW  (25àmW comes from Uref=-100V and Iref=-2,5mA)
Umax = (Upic to pic)/2  and  Imax = (Ipic to pic)/2
Poutput= 2,3 Watts per secondary coil, so a total  4,6 Watts
COP = 4,6/10,1 = 0,46
So, when tuning driver to obtain pure sin wave I have a small COP

***************
** Conclusions: **
***************

My MEG is not working!

When tuning to Bearden frequency (40KHz) my MEg has a COP=2,5%
When tuning to have max input Power, the MEG has a COP=89% (but no sin
wave at all)
When tuning to have pure sin wave output, the MEg has a COP=46%
When using magnet or not outpu signal are the same!!! So my MEG is not a
MEG!!!! Someone has tried to do measurements with and without to compare?

I have tried tuning the MEG to secondary coil resonance (I measured
Cequivalent of MOV and oscillo probe circuit and calculated resonance
frequency, but voltage climbs too high, so I was afraid to break
something, and a big noise was heard). I tried to use only one 420volts
VDR, two 420volts VDR and two 420volts added with a 275volts VDR to make
several power measurements, but there is no significant change!

So, I am in a dead way. Could someone help? Mr Naudin, if you read this,
maybe?

What can be changed:
*Magnets
*using a conditionned resistor instead of MOV, but I can't build
conditionned resistor. Has someone succeded in measuring COP>1

I want to do more experimentations, but I don't know what to do. Could
someone help me?

I have posted details of all my experimentations in a french forum here:
(all written in french, sorry for english readers!)
http://www.onnouscachetout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56281
http://www.onnouscachetout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56392
http://www.onnouscachetout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56491
http://www.onnouscachetout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56744
http://www.onnouscachetout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56890

Best regards to all,

Pascal

Hi Pascal,

Thank you for sharing your nicely detailed work!

In my MEG experimentation with MOV loads, I had experienced similar
variations in the output/input coil inductances/resistances  and my opinion
as to the cause was this-

With no load or MOV loads on the output of a MEG configured with the turns
ratio that JLN was using as you have done, the peak secondary voltages reach
destructive levels in regards to the insulation on the magnet wire. This
will cause internal arcing between windings within the secondary which also
create hot spots at these same local areas. This would create complex
variable resistance "shorts" between windings during operation and a small
buildup of carbon would result. When the unit is shut off, a difference in
inductance of both the primary and secondary windings will result due to
local heating of the arced areas along with the carbon deposit. After some
cooling period, sometimes the inductance along with the dc resistance will
show an increase but not always.

A simple test to confirm this is to compare both sets of primaries and
secondaries to each other. There would most likely be a difference between
the paris if the above is occuring. If there was some sort of magnetic
hystersis in the core, then changes in inductance in the pairs would be very
close to each other.

Hope this is of some helpt to you and good luck in your experimentation,

Jon

PS- It is good to see some activity on this list again!!!!

Hello everybody

I have continued my tests over the MEG and I have not yet succeeded in a
COP greater than 1, it is less than 1, very less than 1. My las t
experiments have showed no overunity with frequency range from 17kHz to
50kHz with a MOV (see my last email), so I have tried with a Neon tube
in this frequency range, and I tried again with MOV at 2,7kHz (because
it was my best output power result last time, and I am now able to
measure simultaneously input signals too)
The MEG radiates powerfull electromagnetic waves, which I can't measure
because I have no device to do so, but I feel these radiations in my
body (on face, arms, etc) because it's very powerfull. This is, in my
sense, the way the missing Output power goes out (because a lot of power
is missing from expected at output!)

I have used 2 oscilloscopes to measure simultaneously input and output
(on one input coil, and one output coil). My experiments lead me to ask
wether to compute power and which one using to compute COP. In effect, I
read electronic litterature, and we have 3 power types:

P apparent power =  Power calculated withe the product U(t) and I(t) [
see http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213719,00.html]
P active power (or real power) = Power dissipated in Joule effect in a
resistor (Watts)  [ see
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213720,00.html]
P reactive power = Power alternately stored and released by inductors
and/or capacitors [ see
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213721,00.html]

I consider the Output Coil as a power source and my dipole power
consumer is Neon+Resistor or MOV+Resistor
In my numeric computations, I compute:

P = (1/T) * Integral of (V(t)*I(t)*dt, from 0 to T)  apparent average power
P = (1/T) * Integral of (R * I(t)², from 0 to T) =  average active power
throw resistor R (the problem is that this value can't be computed
because I don't know and can't measure MOV resistor value or Neon
resistor value, because it changes with the applied voltage)

And what can I do with apparent power? Sometimes it goes negative, what
does it mean? I have not changed the way I measure currents, so why a
negative powe sometimes? What is the link with the powerfull radiated
electromagnétic waves? All this leads me to a more profond questionning
about power, its meaning and the way we compute power. What do you
consider as a correct power for COP computations? If you can help me
with your advices, i would be very happy.

Thank you in advance for you comments.
Mr Naudin, if you read this email, please help me: how do you manage
measuring sinusoidal phased signals? (with Neon tube experiment, you
have had this and not me). I really try to obtain something with my MEG,
but each time it doesn't work.

(en français: Mr Naudin, pourriez-vous s'il vous plaît aider un
constructeur de MEG qui essaie tant bien que mal de suivre vos traces et
souffre de ne pas être capable de reproduire un tant soit peu vos
résultats concernant les signaux sinusoïdaux en phase dans l'expérience
du tube au Néon (ou des varistances d'ailleurs) avec le MEG 3.1).

Sincerely,

Pascal DI SCALA

------------- Experiment Resume ----------------
Experiment number 1: operating frequency about 18Khz
I have experienced with Neon tube 4W+Resistor 12ohms on each Output
coil, instead of MOV or conditionned resistor (I have not built such a
device resistor) because I wanted to reproduce Naudin's experiment:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/meg32io.jpg

It's disappointing, because I have not at all the same signals than
Naudin (and the cause is not the conditionned resistor this time; I have
the same 3.1 MEG than Naudin's one, except for magnets). The operating
frequency is in the rspacified Naudin's range. But my COP is very poor
(problem with power computations used to compute the COP??)

attached files related to this experiment:
20040328_exp1_schema.jpg
20040328_exp1_oscilloOUTPUTuncalibrated.jpg
20040328_exp1_oscilloOUTPUTpower.jpg
20040328_exp1_oscilloINPUTuncalibrated.jpg
20040328_exp1_oscilloINPUTpower.jpg

------

Experiment number 2: operating frequency about 2,7 KHz
I have experienced with a MOV 840V(two MOV 420 serialized in
fact)+Resistor 12 ohms on each Output coil. I have tuned operating
frequency to maximise input current consumption by the MEG driver in the
2kHz to 5,5kHz range.
Disappointing too. COP very little.

attached files related to this experiment:
20040328_exp2_schema.jpg
20040328_exp2_oscilloOUTPUTuncalibrated.jpg
20040328_exp2_oscilloOUTPUTpower.jpg
20040328_exp2_oscilloINPUTcalibrated.jpg
20040328_exp2_oscilloINPUTpower.jpg

------

I have also tried to link together output coils, and when doing so, I
managed to obtain approximate sinusoidal waves for output voltage (but
not  for output current) at all frequencies, and for special
frequencies, approximate sinusoidal waves for output current and
voltage, with MOV loads. But it is not in ohase at all, dephasage is 60°
to 80°

You can see oscillo shots with voltage and current for these special
signals:
http://www.lesensdenosvies.org/topics/ver/20040327_OUTPUTcoil_01.jpg
http://www.lesensdenosvies.org/topics/ver/20040327_OUTPUTcoil_02.jpg

If I link output coils reversing one coil the output volatage is not
sinusoidal:
http://www.lesensdenosvies.org/topics/ver/20040327_OUTPUTcoil_01.jpg

------------- Experiments Notes----------------

---------------------
EXPERIMENT 1
----------------------
LINleft=50mH    LINright=48mH
LOUTleft=11,90H    LOUTright=11,94H

CequivRIGHTload<1pF
CequivRIGHTload<1pF

Neon tube: 4Watts fluorescent tube (F4T5/D)
Resistor=12ohms (10Watt, ceramic, non inductive)
(same resistor for INPUT and OUTPUT measurements)

MEG driver consumption:
V no load=29,1V
I no load=45,4mA
(P no load= 1,32 Watts)

V load =33,7V
I load =0,06A (large imprecision due to multimeter 200mA fuse crash, I
have used another calibration, 10A)
(P load= 2 Watts, bettween 2 and 3 Watts I presume)

Operating frequency = approximately 18Khz

INPUT oscilloscope:
calibrated experience:
chA=1V/div
chB=5V/div (probe 1:10)
T=5 micro sec

uncalibrated experience:(56 pix / div)
chA=1V/div [1,4880952 mA / pix]
chB=10V/div (probe 1:10) [1,785714 V / pix]
T=5 micro sec uncalibrated ratio 56/53 [0,0943396 micro sec / pix]
P apparent power (equal to true power given par MEG driver oscillator?)
= 1,05Watts (x 2 = 2,1 Watts)
P active power throw resistor = 89 milli Watts


OUTPUT oscilloscope: (56 pix / div)
chA=0,05V/div [0,07440476 mA / pix]
chB=10V/div (probe 1:10) [1,78571429 V / pix]
T=5 micro sec uncalibrated ratio 56/50 [0,1 micro sec / pix]
P apparent power (equal to true power given par MEG driver oscillator?)
= 0,7Watts (x 2 = 1,4 Watts)
P active power throw resistor = 0,17 milli Watts

COP = 0,67 ???
which power do I compute?
(P OUTPUT apparent power / P INPUT apparent power = 0,67)
(P OUTPUT real power watt on resistor / P INPUT active power throw
resistor = 0,00019)

---------------------
EXPERIMENT 2
----------------------
LINleft=50mH    LINright=48mH
LOUTleft=11,90H    LOUTright=11,94H

CequivRIGHTload=188pF
CequivRIGHTload=187pF

MOV1=MOV2=420V (DNR14D431K)
Resistor=12ohms (10Watt, ceramic, non inductive)
(same resistor for INPUT and OUTPUT measurements)

MEG driver consumption:

V no load=29,1V
I no load=45,4mA
(P no load= 1,32 Watts)

V load=28,8V
I load=0,13A (large imprecision due to multimeter 200mA fuse crash, I
have used another calibration, 10A)
(P=3,8 Watts, beetween 3,5 and 4 Watts I presume)

INPUT oscilloscope: (on picture: 55pix/div)
chA=1V/div [1,5151515 mA / pix]
chB=1V/div (probe 1:10) [0,18181818 V / pix]
T=50 micro sec [0,90909091 micro sec / pix]
P apparent power (equal to true power given par MEG driver oscillator?)
= 1,32Watts (x 2 = 2,64 Watts)
P active power throw resistor = 222 milli Watts

OUTPUT oscilloscope:
calibrated measurements:
chA=0,1V/div
chB=20V/div (probe 1:10)
T=50 micro sec

uncalibrated measurements: (on picture: 55pix/div)
chA=0,1V/div [0,151515 mA / pix]
chB=20V/div (probe 1:10) ratio 1/0,71  --> 28,17V/div (1:10) [5,121639 V
/ pix]
T=50 micro sec [0,90909091 micro sec / pix]
P apparent power = -0,32 Watts ( x 2 = 0,64 Watts) What's the meaning of
this minus sign?
P real power watt on resistor (usable) = 0,000995Watts (x 2 = 1 milli Watts)

COP = 0,48 ???
which power do I compute?
(P OUTPUT apparent power / P INPUT apparent power = 0,48)
(P OUTPUT real power watt on resistor / P INPUT active power throw
resistor = 0,0045)

Hi Pascal,

Thank you for sharing your nicely detailed work!

In my MEG experimentation with MOV loads, I had experienced similar
variations in the output/input coil inductances/resistances  and my opinion
as to the cause was this-

With no load or MOV loads on the output of a MEG configured with the turns
ratio that JLN was using as you have done, the peak secondary voltages reach
destructive levels in regards to the insulation on the magnet wire. This
will cause internal arcing between windings within the secondary which also
create hot spots at these same local areas. This would create complex
variable resistance "shorts" between windings during operation and a small
buildup of carbon would result. When the unit is shut off, a difference in
inductance of both the primary and secondary windings will result due to
local heating of the arced areas along with the carbon deposit. After some
cooling period, sometimes the inductance along with the dc resistance will
show an increase but not always.

A simple test to confirm this is to compare both sets of primaries and
secondaries to each other. There would most likely be a difference between
the paris if the above is occuring. If there was some sort of magnetic
hystersis in the core, then changes in inductance in the pairs would be very
close to each other.

Hope this is of some helpt to you and good luck in your experimentation,

Jon

PS- It is good to see some activity on this list again!!!!




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

New application copies existing patent

   The new application simply copies the verbiage of the existing
patent.  What is different are the claims where the patent claimed
a "device and the new application claims a "method".  There is no
new information disclosed.  To me this is taking advantage of the
patent office without offering anything substantive to the spirit
of the patent law.

   IMHO neither provides a complete description of the operation
of the MEG.  I have shown in previous postings that the presence
of the magnet enhances the magnetic field within the output coil.
How to tap this increase usefully is of course the real secret.
Possibly a high-frequency sampling method might be part of the
answer:  the drawings in the patent labelled "6C" and "6D" show
a 1 MHZ "noise" on the input current and voltage measurements.
This is probably a subtle way for the inventors to claim that
they disclosed the information when there is a future argument
about the patent.

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Narby" <dnarby@s...> wrote:
> All,
>
> Stefan Sundström on the JLNlabs yahoo group list posted that Magnetic Ene=
rgy Ltd. has a new
> patent application:
>
>
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2=
Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f
=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22Patrick%2C+Stephen+L%22.IN.&OS=IN/
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dave Narby

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

From: Dave Narby

To: MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 2:53 PM

Subject: [MEG_builders] New MEG photos

(I Corrected the bad link -Dave)

 

All,

 

Here are some links to photos in the files section of what appears to be a newer MEG by Bearden and co. which was recently forwarded to me.  There are also pictures of power in/out scope readings, they aren't the best quality but they do show the waveforms. Hopefully this will be of some use to those with MEG test setups.  You will need to be signed in to see them.

 

Best regards,

 

Dave Narby

 

 

MEG2

http://tinyurl.com/2wsbg

 

MEG2 power in

http://tinyurl.com/3yxto

 

MEG2 power out

http://tinyurl.com/2rdon

 

 

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