In message #1260 I indicated that I had not made accurate
measurements of the power input/output comparing a bridge
driver to the pulsed driver.  I have since made some
measurements that seem to be reasonably accurate.  I say
"reasonably" because this pulsed driver generates much
interference with every item of electronics in the vicinity:
the TV, the radio, the regulated power supplies providing
the control and supply voltages.  I have since found that
intense isolation of the power supply leads allows the
power supplies to function without going into a crazy
mode of operation where the output develops much line-
frequency ripple and the output voltage decreases
dramatically.  Anyway, the results are as follows:

H-Bridge:
   RL = 1,720 ohm, Vo = 258, Po = 39W, 82% efficiency
   RL = 2,860 ohm, Vo = 324, Po = 37W, 88% efficiency

Pulse-at-start (instead of at end)
   RL = 1,720 ohm, Vo = 321, Po = 60W, 76% efficiency
   RL = 2,860 ohm, Vo = 351, Po = 43W, 83% efficiency

RL is the load resistor connected across the output
capacitors.
Vo is the voltage on the output capacitors.
Po is the calculated power in the load resistor.
Efficiency is the ratio of output to input power.

   I attribute the difference in efficiency to the fact that
the MOSFETs on the H-bridge are lower voltage, lower on-
resistance devices, and the clamp diodes are Shottky.  The
MOSFETs on the pulse-driver are high-voltage, higher on-
resistance, and the diodes have higher voltage drop than
Shottky.

   The H-bridge is four MOSFETs configured so that each
drive-coil is connected to power, then allowed to discharge
at the same voltage as the supply voltage when the MOSFETs
are turned off.

   BTW, I changed the drive-control logic to pulse the
drive-coil at the start of the cycle instead of the end
because it appears that this is more appropriate.  The
supply current using pulse-at-start is more nearly a
steady value, except for the start of the pulse where
capacitor CP supplies the initial voltage to charge the
drive coil.

   I have taken pictures of the oscilloscope for the H-bridge
and the pulse-driver.  Go to "Files" then go to the folder
"MESSAGE ATTACHMENTS", go to the folder "MEG2 Experiments",
and open "HbrdCoil.jpg" for the current in the drive-coil
driven by the H-bridge.  File "PulsCoil.jpg" shows the coil
current when driven by a pulse at the start.  Files
"HbrdIs.jpg" and "PulsIs.jpg" show the supply current for
the H-bridge and pulse drivers.

   The current measurements are made by a Tektronix probe
configured for DC operation.  The zero-line for the current
measurements is the second horizontal line on the oscilloscope.
Note that the edges are much sharper, and there is an overshoot,
for the current in the pulsed-coil configuration.  This means
that the core magnetic field is changing much faster than with
the H-bridge:  the flux is switching rapidly from one state to
the other.

   Note that the supply-current measurement for the pulsed-driver
is very similar to the current shown in the photos of the MEG-2.

   I am investigating allowing the coil-drives to overlap.  This
would cause an increase in the drive-coil currents since they are
opposing each other, and consequently increase the fields associated
with "leakage" even though the core magnetic field will essentially
remain unchanged.

   More experiments, more time, hopefully more fun.
   David J.

The most recent pictures of the MEG show batteries
as the source of power.  I e-mailed Dr. Bearden to ask
if an isolated source of energy is required for OU
to appear.  He replied that batteries are not essential,
but are portable and allow for easy demonstration of the
MEG.  In addition, the energy state of batteries can be
easily measured with conventional instruments.

David J.

Hi:

    I too am building a  meg device, but my concern is
the fact that on toms site and others there is nn new
information. I am a bit concerned about that. Is that
because tom is ill or being held back?
     I don't know.

Regards Andy.

  --- davidj95650 <djenkins@...> wrote:
>
>
>    The most recent pictures of the MEG show
> batteries
> as the source of power.  I e-mailed Dr. Bearden to
> ask
> if an isolated source of energy is required for OU
> to appear.  He replied that batteries are not
> essential,
> but are portable and allow for easy demonstration of
> the
> MEG.  In addition, the energy state of batteries can
> be
> easily measured with conventional instruments.
>
> David J.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

I'm currently collecting parts for a Naudin's MEG v3 replication...
I'm planing to use this type of logic in order to do a close-loop
attempt :
http://www.la-machine.net/avpump/closingloop.jpg

with this battery charger : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JMPulseCharger

What do you think ?

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "witness_ir" <witness_ir@y...>
wrote:
>
> I'm currently collecting parts for a Naudin's MEG v3 replication...
> I'm planing to use this type of logic in order to do a close-loop
> attempt :
> http://www.la-machine.net/avpump/closingloop.jpg
>
> with this battery charger :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JMPulseCharger
>
> What do you think ?

> (Witness)

Hello Witness(?),

I've built several MEGs ... unfortunately none of them were OU ... so
I guess I am qualified to offer some opinions. :-)

I have QUICKLY reviewed the JMPulseCharger circuit and while it
appears to be a very efficient charger, IMHO, a charger is a charger
is a charger.  You don't explain why you have chosen this charger so
I can't really comment on it for this application.

I have also reviewed your closed loop concept and definitely have
some suggestions to offer here.  Per comments from Bearden and
Naudin, closing the loop is really really tricky and as I understand
it, this was and probably still is a major hurtle for Bearden in the
production model he is working on.

May I suggest that you concentrate on just getting the basic MEG
running, that is, getting the coils wound (insulating them
rigorously), the core assembled, the magnets tighly stuffed into the
throat of the core, the control electronics going and then carefully
selecting and testing the driver/switching transistor devices in your
MEG and tuning things.  This is in a major job.

When you get all this done and do some testing in open loop mode,
THEN you can move on to trying to close the loop.

Just my two cents!!

I hope that you do indeed build a MEG and I hope that you report your
findings, be they for a successful unit or not, to this site because
that's what this site is about.  We're here to learn from each
other.

Very best and good luck!
Stan Mayer

1. On building the coils does anyone know of a company that
will wind the coils for you?  Is this a critical construction
element?  Hand winding or not?

2. On the permanent rectangular magnet in the center.
Will any type of magnet work?  Can anyone suggest a
good company to buy from or will any electronic supplier
do? How tight should the fit be?

3. On "CLOSING THE LOOP".  Do you mean to disconnect
from or by-pass the battery altogether?  Is this what
is ment by "CLOSING THE LOOP"?

4. On the 320 core.  Why is this size of core being used?
What about a bigger core?  Would a bigger core be better
in terms of avoiding core saturation and producing greater
power output?

5. The Battery.  Will 24 Volts work instead of 25 volts?
Is there a battery type that will work better than some other?

6. Stan.  Where can I buy that electronic circuit simulator
you mentioned using in one of your responses?

1. On building the coils does anyone know of a company that
will wind the coils for you?  Is this a critical construction
element?  Hand winding or not?

2. On the permanent rectangular magnet in the center. 
Will any type of magnet work?  Can anyone suggest a
good company to buy from or will any electronic supplier
do? How tight should the fit be?

3. On "CLOSING THE LOOP".  Do you mean to disconnect
from or by-pass the battery altogether?  Is this what
is ment by "CLOSING THE LOOP"?

4. On the 320 core.  Why is this size of core being used? 
What about a bigger core?  Would a bigger core be better
in terms of avoiding core saturation and producing greater
power output?

5. The Battery.  Will 24 Volts work instead of 25 volts? 
Is there a battery type that will work better than some other?

6. Stan.  Where can I buy that electronic circuit simulator
you mentioned using in one of your responses?





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

In the Naudin Diagram 25 volts DC is specified. 

 

1. Would the replication work using 24 Volts DC?

2. What type of battery configuration would work best?

3. What type of battery should we use?

 

Thanks.

 

---

Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


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

Can anyone tell me where I can buy good heat sinks for the buz11's used
in the input circuit of the Naudin replication?

As well, can anyone tell me where to by plexi-glass to mount the input
circuit on?

Thanks!

Just about any heat skink that will work well can be scavanged from any old
computer power supply.
as far as plexiglass go to your local window glass company.. they might even
have a scrap or two they might just give you.

Kent
----- Original Message -----
From: "source_dipole" <source_dipole@...>
To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 2:50 PM
Subject: [MEG_builders] Finding A Good Heat Sink


>
>
>
> Can anyone tell me where I can buy good heat sinks for the buz11's used
> in the input circuit of the Naudin replication?
>
> As well, can anyone tell me where to by plexi-glass to mount the input
> circuit on?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Main page:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEG_builders
>
>
>  To post a message to this group, send email to
>  MEG_Builders@yahoogroups.com
>
>  To contact the moderator of this group, send email to
>  MEG_Builders-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>  MEG_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Hello everybody

I recall everybody that the MEG I work with is the same as J.L.
Naudin 3.1 one:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm

All my mast year experimentations here:
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe.php

There is only two differencies with Naudin'one: magnet and power
supply is not the same. In effect my magnet was a stack of 10 disc
rare earth element magnets, 5mm diameter. And my power supply is a
fix 30V output, 1A max. Specifications are those of Naudin.

All my tests were negative, power calculations were very poor, with
COP less than 0.5, no overunity. A big problem was that I had not
sinusoidal signals for currents and voltages at all. And when my
load was a MOV, there was a phase angle and calculations have proven
that power out was little.

I have bought a new magnet and made new experiments. My magnet has
been specifically designed to fit the MEG C core (very expensive
magnet), in rare earth elements. Density flux is 1.2 Tesla, less
than saturation core in theory.

I have taken in account the fact that as described in Bearden
papers, input coils must be feed with currents signals that produce
magnetic fields that contrary the one of magnet. In effect, one of
my input coil was not correctly oriented. I corrected this.

All experiments I made these last days are negative again.
I mesured input signals in the primary coils, I signals are not what
they should be. They should be square signals, 30V and 0V, when one
primary coil is fed, the other one must not be.
My control board is exactly the same thant JL Naudin's one, my
primary coils are wounded with the same number of turns, and the
same wire that he specified, but my input signals are not the same
that his.

I saw that input signals were excatly what I waited for when
changing operating frequency (frequencies beetween 1700Hz and
5000Hz); but completely deformed at JL Naudin's control board
operatingfrequencies (between 17 000 Hz and 50 000 Hz). I mesured
plate 30V and some pics to -80V at higher frequencies, not enough to
have a plate (and it's not 0V).

Induced back currents in primary coils (when FET basculates) is the
cause of these perturbations. I have tried too solutions.
First one, a diode in parallel with my primary coils (in the
opposite way). But too many currents was flowing through, and this
lead to an excess input consumption. I have added a resistor with my
diode, but when the resistor was some kOhm, it was too much in
comparison with primary coil impedance at operating frequency, so
induced back currents were not going through the diode but through
the coil, and a too small resistor led to a high power consumption.
The input signal was correct with a diode.

Second solution: a capacitor in parallel with my primary coil
instead of a diode; few nF (ranging from 10 to 30 nF). This
stabilised my negative pics at higher frequencies and my input
signal was then acceptable: plate 30V and half sin from 30V to -60V.
I used this montage.

With this correct input signals, my output was different: always
sinusoidal output, for a resistive load or a MOV load.
So the reason why last year I never mesured sinusoidal waves is that
control board is not properly designed for operating frequencies
from 17KHz to 50KHz; but Naudin says he measured his sin waves at
20KHz approx. with his control board. How has he done, it's not
possible?

With my correct input signals, my correct primary coil orientation
so magnetic field of the coil contrary magnet field, and my new
powerfull magnet all was set up to be correct but ... negative again.

All experiments (more than 30 experiments) lead to that conclusion:
1) With a resistive load, current and voltage are sinusoidal wave in
phase. Power output is a quarter power input on each secondary,
which gives output power half of the input. Power calculations are
easywith such phased waves.

Pout = Umax²/(2*R) = Ueff²/R
or
Pout= Umax*Imax*cos(phase)/2 = Ueff*Ieff*cos(phase) with cos(phase)=1
These formulaes give the same output power each times (with little
decimal difference).

My resistive load is 120kohm(0,5Watt) and 12ohm (10Watt) series
resistors, the second is used to measure current.
chA and chB are probes on oscilloscope:
--chA--R120kOhm--chaB--R12Ohm---Mass--
COP=0.5
(very bad transformer)

Voltages are not too high: 600 to 800 V pic to pic.

2)With a MOV load (I tried with one 420V MOV, 2 420V MOV, 3 420V MOV
and 4 420V MOV in series, to that was the same as varying MOV from
420 to 1680V) all signals are sinusoidal, but there is a phase angle.
If I insert a 120 kohm resistor in series with my MOV (and my 12ohm
resistor used to measure currents), phase angle becomes very little
(which is logical if you draw a phases in a complex plane: a big
resistor is a big real impedance and phase angle comes from the
complex impedance of MOV, whoch is little). But with a 120kohm
resistor in series, measurements are the same than with no MOV and
only resistor.

Phase angle is constant when varying frequency.

When varying frequency from from 17KHz to 50KHz, power output was
reducing, and so power input. There is no current pic as claimed on
JL Naudins website, so no "tuning". The less the frequency is, the
more current and voltages I have.

And there is no tuning as claimed by Naudin " the working frequency
must be tuned so as to get a pure sine wave and the max amplitude at
the output (>1KV peak-to-peak loaded),".

Voltages vary from 800V to 1400V pic to pic. There is a resonance
effect with MOV (MOV have a capacitor value) but the operating
frequencies used does not reach pic resonance.

Currents are much more higher than with a pure resistive load, but
with phase angle, power output is:
Pout= Umax*Imax*cos(phase)/2 = Ueff*Ieff*cos(phase) with
cos(phase)<0.5

and this give Power output varying from 1/10 to 1/4 of power input
(depending of frequency).
Again best COP = 0.5 approximately.

But ther is no power gain.
So, what I gain in current I lose in phase angle.

Naudin says "the voltage and current are in phase as shown in my
scope pictures above,
-  a "conditionned" RLoad (100 Kohms, non inductive carbon, 5Watts)
or a MOV (Metal Oxide Varistor) is REQUIRED for getting the output
datas measured above,"

Again measurements are contradictory to Naudin, where output current
and voltage are in phase with his conditioned resistor, but with 9W
neon too. With a neon, I obtain phase angle again.

This is logical, these non linear components give birth to a phase
angle. Naudin never give the schema of his load measurements?. He
gives us oscilloscope pictures, but does not give us what he
measured on his channel of his oscilloscope. This is very important
as to understand what I did to have no phase angle with a neon!

Naudin says "The current has been measured with a 10 ohms ceramic
and non inductive resistor . the same resistor and the same method
of measurement has been used for input and also the output"

So, he measured currents with his 10ohm resistor (I used 12 ohm
resistor). But for the rest? Has he measured both secondary coils
linked together, only one secondary with a neon and his resistor in
series, etc?

I bought batteries to try wether power supply was a problem, but
this changed nothing.

CONCLUSION
All Naudin claims are contradicted with a replication of his
experiment. He is the only one I know claiming a MEG success with
published measurements; but measurements are not reproductible with
the same device than his. His control board does not fit his input
signals. His loads do not fit his output signals; nothong is right.
I waited for one year to have an answer from him, but i had nothing.

Do you know another successfull overunity MEG construction? The only
thing I can read here is questions, but I don't read any success.
Maybe I have made a mistake?

When reading Bearden's Patent, we can see that no specific load is
needed (conditionned Rload or MOV), and patent says that secondary
output coils can be wounded with less turns that input primary
coils, so to have a very little voltage, and this leads not to a COP
loss for the MEG, so claims of voltage that must build up have no
foundations.

Bearden does not reveal his scheme for his MEG, so we can not say
wether it works or not, but for Naudin it is possible. Why does not
he answer direct simple questions? Maybe because this is a big LIE.
I don't say that MEG is a lie, but Naudin replications may be. If
not, why doesn't he give us clear answers about his measurements? I
cantoo take pictures of phased voltages and currents, with high
current values, and saying you: that's my MEG results!! There is
overunity.
But if I give you an exact way to reproduce my experiment and you
don't find the same thing you can say that I am a lier. But if I
give you only some partial results, not everything... and a special
conditioned Rload, and a magic neon, then I can tell you that you
experiment is not the same than mine, so I am the only one to have
success.

Simple question to make the points? Who, in this list has had a
overunity MEG success in his experiments?

Hi,

I am interested in your results.  I looked at your web page, but I do
not read French and it looks long and would take too much time to
analyze.  I would only want to see an image of one full cycle of the
voltage & current of all four windings-- both primary and secondary.
Could you please post a picture of this?

Also I am curious where and how much you paid for your Metglas
AMCC-320 core?

BTW, I wanted caution people about using FEMM on any materials that
are close to saturation.  FEMM has no understanding of saturations.
When saturation values are programmed into FEMM's database then FEMM
fails miserably.  The FEMM snapshot taken by Naudin is incorrect
because the magnet saturates the core.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg4cf.htm

Thanks
YT

Hello my name is Steven (new to this list and MEG'ing)

I have a question about flux transfer through the MEG.
First of all, I did some flux simulations with Femm. I was
experimenting with different MEG designs like the MEGII as on
http://starglider.netfirms.com/ But here is the thing I don't
understand about flux traveling trough steel: What we do in case of
the meg is switching the (most of it) magnetic flux through the
metal in a "closed loop" from magnet north> through metal> to south.
Well Femm simulation show a strong magnetic field through the steel.
Well, I created that test setup. BUT when you hold a pieces of steel
next to the meg-arm with the whole flux going trough, it is not
attracted to it at all (well, maybe just a little) So the flux of
the magnet is completely "IN" the steel of the MEG. So how can that
be efficient for generating power when the magnetic field does
not 'radiate' outside the steel for us to capture with a coil..?

Hope anyone can give me some insight on this.
Thanks!

My experiments were crude, using ordinary iron laminations and magnets
from microwave oven, plus coils I had around and pulled from other
transformers. I was unable to even get any output: I thought if I saw at
least 80 per cent or more that it was worth getting a better magnetic
core but my results seemed to show a strong damping from the magnets
instead of a 'spring' or flyback ringing. Had a brain storm about a
coaxial design; all components layered from the center out.... maybe
magnets inside or maybe magnets as final layer but after earlier
failures never went further. I admit the 'idea' is very intriqing and
'seems' like it should work but if fancy expensive cores and other parts
are needed it gets hard for the backyard mad scientist to succed. I know
negative results aren't much fun but I gotta report my mistakes if it
helps; probably not.LOL    brent

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "sanderpupae" <s.sinttruye@w...>
wrote:
> Hello my name is Steven (new to this list and MEG'ing)
>
> I have a question about flux transfer through the MEG.
> First of all, I did some flux simulations with Femm. I was
> experimenting with different MEG designs like the MEGII as on
> http://starglider.netfirms.com/ But here is the thing I don't
> understand about flux traveling trough steel: What we do in case of
> the meg is switching the (most of it) magnetic flux through the
> metal in a "closed loop" from magnet north> through metal> to south.
> Well Femm simulation show a strong magnetic field through the steel.
> Well, I created that test setup. BUT when you hold a pieces of steel
> next to the meg-arm with the whole flux going trough, it is not
> attracted to it at all (well, maybe just a little) So the flux of
> the magnet is completely "IN" the steel of the MEG. So how can that
> be efficient for generating power when the magnetic field does
> not 'radiate' outside the steel for us to capture with a coil..?
>
> Hope anyone can give me some insight on this.
> Thanks!

Hi,

You cannot think in terms of magnetic lines when dealing with EMF.  It
very easy to demonstrate that an area in space that contains no
magnetic field or lines can contain EMF.  The reason is because EMF
not only depends upon the magnetic field polarity but also the
direction the field is traversing.  For example, you could have a
magnetic field (down polarity) traversing right and another magnetic
field (up polarity) traversing left and you get EMF but no magnetic
field.  That is, the magnetic fields cancel out but they are still
there.  Even though the magnetic fields are canceled out they are
still traversing in opposite directions so the EM forces sum up.

You could have a perfect uniform field in a perfect toroid, and FEMM
will tell you that there is ZERO magnetic field outside the toroid,
but in reality there would be strong EMF.

FEMM is good for getting a rough idea on ONLY magnetic fields, not
EMF, and assuming you are not saturating any magnetic materials.

YT

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, brent and gay meyer christensen
<brentco@c...> wrote:
> My experiments were crude, using ordinary iron laminations and magnets
> from microwave oven, plus coils I had around and pulled from other
> transformers. I was unable to even get any output: I thought if I
saw at
> least 80 per cent or more that it was worth getting a better magnetic
> core but my results seemed to show a strong damping from the magnets
> instead of a 'spring' or flyback ringing. Had a brain storm about a
> coaxial design; all components layered from the center out.... maybe
> magnets inside or maybe magnets as final layer but after earlier
> failures never went further. I admit the 'idea' is very intriqing and
> 'seems' like it should work but if fancy expensive cores and other
parts
> are needed it gets hard for the backyard mad scientist to succed. I
know
> negative results aren't much fun but I gotta report my mistakes if it
> helps; probably not.LOL    brent


Hi,

I'll take a wild guess that your coil did not have enough current
going through them to overcome the magnet.

I think its great that you and others are at least trying.  I would
say that IMHO the MEG is extremely reliant upon the high permeable
properties of the core.  I've seen people selling their metglas cores.
  Perhaps you could find one really cheap.

Also, I think the exact current signals are extremely sensitive in the
MEG.  Perhaps if the current signals are not close enough then it
won't work.

For anyone who's had a little success with the MEG, but who cannot get
it run continuously ... I would suggest, as an experiment, that they
try heating the core to various different degrees.  Look at the
metglas core specs and find the curie temperature.  Try keeping the
core to a high enough temperature where the core is still efficient.
If your MEG only works at a specific temperature then that could be a
big hint.

My 2 cents ;)

YT

--- joseph lhelias <jolhelias@...> wrote:
> My name is Jo, in order to reply to Steven about flux
> question inside the MEG,  I agree with you and I guess all
> the bad experiences is linked to what you are talking about. In
> fact , like you, from my point of view, in order
> to generate a significant power output, I guess it is physicaly
necessary
> to influence the flux of the magnet as a FET transistor is operatin
> . Like you, I cannot understand how we can have an efficient
> way, only by modulating the flux from outside the magnet circuit.
> Like in a transistor, we have to insure alternatively the blocking of
> the magnetic flow and the release in order to generate a power ouput
> proportional to the variations of the magnetic flow . If we don
> t do this by inserting a coil in the magnet circuit, how
> does it works ? and in this case, like in a transisto
> , a gap is mandatory between the field generated by the coil and
> the one generated by th e magnet circuit, in order to have
> a locking point without having to use the same input power as the
> possible output power .

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEG_builders/message/1280

--- Monsieur Bonheur <dude_buggy@...> wrote:
> The current doesn't have anything to do with the
> force of the field.
>
> It's the voltage and the number of turns that gives
> you strength of the field. Experiment a little bit,
> so you'll be able to understand.

Magnetic field is generated by current, not voltage.  Current is
generated by voltage potentials.  The voltage itself has does not
create the magnetic field and is not a factor.  You can have 10 volts
or 1,000,000 volts and still end up with the same magnetic field.  It
is current, not voltage.  Check out some basic physics books and
perhaps the following web page will help you.
http://www.netdenizen.com/emagnet/offaxis/iloopcalculator.htm

The Electric fields in a transformer are generated by di/dt.  "di" is
a change in current.  "dt" is a change in time.  Let me know if you
need help learning about this and I'll try to find you a web page for
educational purposes.

YT and all

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "YoTango" <yotango@y...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am interested in your results.  I looked at your web page, but I
do
> not read French and it looks long and would take too much time to
> analyze.

You can see that French page in English by entering it's URL at
http://world.altavista.com/

>
> Also I am curious where and how much you paid for your Metglas
> AMCC-320 core?
>

I bought mine at
http://www.metglas.com/products/page5_1_6_2_5_18.htm

I think I paid around $90 for it a number of years ago.

Bob

Hello all,

First I would like to say, I am very impressed with the site.
It will take a bit to catch up with the posts.
I read through the files section, and the photos.
This is some very good work, I apreciate that such a good record is
available. Congrats to the moderators.

I would like to comment on the one file by Dave Squires on 11/8/2000.
"MEG Theory.htm" posted by dnarby.

This is an excellent document, however I see one problem that really
glares out at me. The assumption that an opened copper coil will not
effect the energy of a moving magnetic field inside it. I believe that
this assumption is wrong because of the magnetic expierments I have
conducted using spining copper cylinders. Any copper inside a moving
magnetic field becomes a drag to the system and draws energy. This is
the down side of using copper wire. Copper atoms are never at rest in a
a moving magnetic field. They will attempt to convert the field to
[electricity] and/or to motion [torsional energy]. Thus copper losses
are still present in an opened circuited copper winding. Copper always
resists a moving magnetic field, and will be physically dragged along
with it.

In a moving magnetic field, copper is either generating fields
[induction] or sucking them up and changing them to heat or [torsion]
pressure. Since this is happening at the atomic level there is really
no way to stop it by opening the circuit. This effect has been observed
to be far stronger then I originally expected, and needs consideration
if OU is involved.

The only solution to these losses I have found is to keep all copper
windings energized and in a state that will aid the desired effect, or
keep the magnetic field away from the copper with opposing static
fields, or positioning during off periods.

Has anyone done anything with other kinds of wire like, iron or mu-
metal wire, where little resistance to moving magnetic fields is
encountered? Or has anyone tried capacitive wound, dual wiring
techniques with pancake type coils?

Dave

Hello,

Theory about Planck particle pairs as a origin of the zero point
energy has some interesting properties when thinking about MEG systems
possible power sources.
I think that formation of the nested cylindrical EM-fields around the
MEG can be the method for tapping energy from zero point field.
More about this on my web-page,
http://www.kolumbus.fi/esa.maunu/
This is mostly thoughts about gravity.

Regards,

Esa

Here is my analysis about the MEg principle:

http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/COP2_iswrong.jpg 

This analysis is not correct: http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megdsqth.htm 

The reasons are:

First, I made many various experimentations with a MEG which is a clone of Naudin's one version 3.1.

To see my experiments:
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005.php 

(translate my website with: http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en)

All gave negative results. With or without magnet nothing was changing in the output current and voltage.

Not only teh MEG I test is not working, but it does not react at all to magnet presence inside it. See:  http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005_5.php 

But, with no magnet, the MEG is only a transformer.

MEG magnet sends magnetic flux dividing in 2 equal parts in each C core. When a primary coil is feeded with current, it should pull the lagnetic flux of the magnet into the other C core side. Reluctance of the primary side should change because of inductrion lines, and so magnet magnetic's lines should go into the other C core side because reluctance is less important.

This is WRONG!!! reluctance is a fonction of length, section, permeability, but not of other magnetic lines opposing or not the magnetic lines you want to insert into. It depends only of material used, ans material saturation. When saturated, no more magnetic lines can go inside, things are different then.
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/reluctance.jpg 

If one studies more precisely magnetic circuits theory, thes es circuits are equivalents to electric circuits. One does not ask wether resistance change when a current flows throw a wire! Magnetic flux is algebraicly additive.

http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivalence.jpg 

http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivalence2.jpg 

The flux created by primary adds to the flux created by the magnet, and we find a greater total flux one side, an a lesser total flux on the other side. But magnet flux itself has not moved at all! Each magnetic lines are together sharing space inside the core. When is there noi more space to share? When we reach saturation (what we have not, unless MEG is consuming energy, wasting this energy).

Then, sayong that when you cut youy primary current, the magnet flux comes back to its place and then does a magnetic work which gives free energy is consequently WRONG! At best we so do have CÖP=1 (with an ideal transformer, but in reality the COP is less because of electric frictions and various energy wastes).

No overunity!

If the MEG is working, it does not relay on this principle. But exotic explanation of MEg principle by Bearden is not in accordance with its patent, which relies on the previous explanation. What is more, its rare experiment pictures let us see the same principle.  So I conclue that MEG is not working at all. My experiments go in this way, and I have made theses experiments to conclue to overunity, not to debunk the MEG, so I am not dishonest.

We then understand why Bearden postpones commercialisation of MEG since 2003, sayong that maybe it will be never commercialised, with unclear arguments (artisanal production doesn't require so much money).

There is only yet Naudin, but its claims about MEG are not in accordance with its results: oscilloscope datas are contradictory with its output charges, its circuit is not correctly feeding the MEG to fullfill whats we see on his scopes. See my website.

Naudin who is french like me has never answered any of my emails about MEG since 2 years. There is some reason... Why does he experiment new devices so quickly, with astonishing COP, when only one successfull device is enough for energetic independance? But he does not developp the devices, and let it go down, to search an other one. Does he really succeed or is he lying? Maybe could he give us an answer, if he reads these lines... but he wills not answering questions, what is a shame.

Here you can read the same post in french (my native language) for those who can read this language:

____________

en français pour ceux qui comprennent la langue:

Voir mon analyse sous forme d'image ici :

 http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/COP2_iswrong.jpg 

L'analyse faite du fonctionnement du MEG qui « prouve » sa surunité à COP=2 ne tient pas :

http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megdsqth.htm

Voici les raisons de ceci.

Tout d'abord je tiens à dire que j'ai fait de très nombreuses expérimentations sur un MEG qui est une réplique exacte de celui de Naudin version 3.1.

Voir mes expériences :

http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005.php

Toutes se sont révélées infructueuses. En regardant de plus près, j'ai fait le constat que toutes les mesures sur les courants et tensions de sortie des bobinages du secondaire ne changeaient pas avec ou sans aimant, et cela avec plusieurs types d'aimants plus ou moins puissants.

Non seulement le MEG que je teste ne marche pas, mais surtout il révèle n'avoir aucune sensibilité à la présence ou non d'un aimant. Voir à ce propos :

http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005_5.php

Or, sans aimant, le MEG n'est qu'un vulgaire transformateur, donc il fallait comprendre ce qu'il en est.

L'aimant central du MEG envoie des flux magnétiques en part égale dans chaque morceau en U du cœur. Lorsqu'un bobinage primaire est alimenté, il est sensé repousser le flux  magnétique de l'aimant de la branche dans laquelle il se trouve vers l'autre branche. En effet l'explication est que lors de l'apparition d'un champ magnétique contraire engendré par le primaire dans le cœur magnétique, le champ magnétique de l'aimant voit donc une résistance magnétique (appelée réluctance)de ce côté de cœur, et va faire passer son flux magnétique par l'autre branche.

La réluctance s'exprime en fonction de la longueur, de la section et de la perméabilité magnétique du matériau que traverse le champ magnétique, et pas en fonction de la présence ou non d'autres lignes de champs magnétiques contraires. La réluctance (résistance au passage du flux magnétique) dépend uniquement du matériau présent et pas de ce qu'on fait passer dedans (sauf quand on arrive à saturation du matériau, auquel cas on ne peut plus faire rentrer d'autres lignes de champ magnétique dedans).

 http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/reluctance.jpg 

D'ailleurs si on étudie de plus près la théorie des circuits magnétiques, dans laquelle les circuits magnétiques sont équivalents aux circuits électriques, on ne se demande jamais si il faut changer la résistance d'un circuit quand on y insère un courant ! La résistance est une caractéristique physique du circuit. Les courants s'ajoutent dans les fils électriques, quelle que soit leur résistance. De même les flux s'ajoutent dans le cœur magnétique.

http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivalence.jpg 

http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivalence2.jpg 

En fait, le flux engendré par le bobinage du primaire s'ajoute algébriquement au flux de l'aimant, et on trouve un flux total moindre dans un côté du cœur, et supérieur de l'autre côté. Mais cela ne veut certainement pas dire que c'est le flux de l'aimant qui s'est déplacé. En fait le flux de l'aimant comme celui engendré par le bobinage primaire se partagent l'espace intérieur du cœur magnétique et se côtoient (tant qu'il y a de la place, c'est-à-dire tant qu'on ne sature pas le cœur). Pour ce faire cela nous a coûté de l'énergie (l'énergie consommée dans le primaire pour produire ce flux contraire).

La suite qui consiste à dire qu'en coupant le flux du primaire, le flux de l'aimant qui était passé de l'autre côté revient, et que ce faisant il effectue un travail dans le secondaire ne tient donc plus. Et justement c'était ça l'énergie gratuite récupérée de l'aimant : ce travail qui n'existe pas. Du coup le MEG analysé selon ce principe a un COP=1 au mieux (c'est-à-dire sans les pertes, que j'ai mis de côté pendant mon analyse). Rien de surunitaire.

Donc si le MEG fonctionne ce n'est certainement pas selon de principe. Or, comme l'explication exotique donnée par Bearden ne correspond pas du tout au brevet du MEG, ni à ses publications expérimentales (c'est-à-dire les rares photos de son MEG), mais correspondent bien à ce principe d'énergie gratuite prélevée par le travail du flux de l'aimant, il semble bien que le MEG ne marche donc pas du tout. En tous cas mes expériences vont dans ce sens, et dieu sait si je les ai faites dans le but au contraire de démontre que le MEG fonctionne.

Ainsi tout ceci ne serait qu'une vaste fumisterie.

On comprend alors pourquoi Bearden a repousse depuis 2003 la sortie commerciale du MEG, finissant par dire qu'elle ne se ferait probablement jamais, tout en ne donnant toujours pas de plan détaillé de réalisation, et en invoquant des prétextes fumeux d'argent, alors que la production artisanale ne nécessite pas les sommes sont il parle.

Il reste Naudin, seul au monde à proclamer avoir réussi un MEG et dont les résultats donnés sur ses captures d'oscillo sont incohérents avec son montage, et qui ne répond pas aux questions sur le MEG.

Je penche donc pour la thèse de la vaste fumisterie, soutenue par Naudin qui soit se trompe, soit est incompétent, soit les deux, soit désinforme volontairement  sur les sujets des énergies libres. D'ailleurs on constate à quel point il est productif : ses inventions marchent à tous les coups, et dès qu'une d'entre elle marche, il l'abandonne complètement pour passer à une autre, sans jamais rien développer, alors qu'une seule invention fonctionnelle suffit à donner l'autonomie énergétique au monde. Puisque mon expérience du MEG me montre qu'il y a erreur (pour ne pas supposer triche volontaire) sur le MEG, que dire de TOUT le RESTE ?

Quant en plus on ne répond pas aux questions, cela veut tout dire il me semble, non ?

Bref, l'aventure MEG je la termine ici ; preuve étant faite que la théorie ne fonctionne pas, et que l'expérience ne fonctionne pas. Evidemment, je peux avoir fait des erreurs expérimentales, mais alors que ceux qui les pointent pour dire : voilà ce qu'il aurait fallu faire le fassent et viennent me le dire après.

J'ai bien lu, tout regardé, mais il demeure un test à faire...

Je n'ai pas vu d'aimants réguliers, en céramique. Avez-vous essayé?

Je n'ai pas l'impression que ça changera les résultats, mais ce serait une
curiosité.

Gardez le C-Core, l'avenir nous réserve une surprise avec cet anneaux...

J'garde informé des développements.

Monsieur Bonheur


<Bablefish http://babelfish.altavista.com/ translation>

I read, very looked at well, but it remains a test to be made...

I did not see regular magnets, out of ceramics. Did you test?

I do not have the impression that that will change the results, but it would be
a curiosity.

Keep C-Core, the future reserves a surprise with this rings to us...

I keep informed developments.

Mr Bonheur



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Pascal_di_SCALA
   To: MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 6:43 PM
   Subject: [MEG_builders] MEG overunity principle is not working: proof is here


   Here is my analysis about the MEg principle:

   http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/COP2_iswrongjpg

   This analysis is not correct: http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megdsqth.htm


   The reasons are:

   First, I made many various experimentations with a MEG which is a clone of
Naudin's one version 3.1.


   To see my experiments:
   http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005.php

   (translate my website with: http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl==en)

   All gave negative results. With or without magnet nothing was changing in the
output current and voltage.

   Not only teh MEG I test is not working, but it does not react at all to magnet
presence inside it. See:  http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005_5.php


   But, with no magnet, the MEG is only a transformer.

   MEG magnet sends magnetic flux dividing in 2 equal parts in each C core. When
a primary coil is feeded with current, it should pull the lagnetic flux of the
magnet into the other C core side. Reluctance of the primary side should change
because of inductrion lines, and so magnet magnetic's lines should go into the
other C core side because reluctance is less important.

   This is WRONG!!! reluctance is a fonction of length, section, permeability,
but not of other magnetic lines opposing or not the magnetic lines you want to
insert into. It depends only of material used, ans material saturation. When
saturated, no more magnetic lines can go inside, things are different then.
   http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/reluctance.jpg

   If one studies more precisely magnetic circuits theory, thes es circuits are
equivalents to electric circuits. One does not ask wether resistance change when
a current flows throw a wire! Magnetic flux is algebraicly additive.

   http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivalence.jpg

   http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivalence2jpg

   The flux created by primary adds to the flux created by the magnet, and we
find a greater total flux one side, an a lesser total flux on the other side.
But magnet flux itself has not moved at all! Each magnetic lines are together
sharing space inside the core. When is there noi more space to share? When we
reach saturation (what we have not, unless MEG is consuming energy, wasting this
energy).



   Then, sayong that when you cut youy primary current, the magnet flux comes
back to its place and then does a magnetic work which gives free energy is
consequently WRONG! At best we so do have CÖP==1 (with an ideal transformer, but
in reality the COP is less because of electric frictions and various energy
wastes).

   No overunity!

   If the MEG is working, it does not relay on this principle. But exotic
explanation of MEg principle by Bearden is not in accordance with its patent,
which relies on the previous explanation. What is more, its rare experiment
pictures let us see the same principle.  So I conclue that MEG is not working at
all. My experiments go in this way, and I have made theses experiments to
conclue to overunity, not to debunk the MEG, so I am not dishonest.

   We then understand why Bearden postpones commercialisation of MEG since 2003,
sayong that maybe it will be never commercialised, with unclear arguments
(artisanal production doesn't require so much money).

   There is only yet Naudin, but its claims about MEG are not in accordance with
its results: oscilloscope datas are contradictory with its output charges, its
circuit is not correctly feeding the MEG to fullfill whats we see on his scopes.
See my website.

   Naudin who is french like me has never answered any of my emails about MEG
since 2 years. There is some reason... Why does he experiment new devices so
quickly, with astonishing COP, when only one successfull device is enough for
energetic independance? But he does not developp the devices, and let it go
down, to search an other one. Does he really succeed or is he lying? Maybe could
he give us an answer, if he reads these lines... but he wills not answering
questions, what is a shame.

   Here you can read the same post in french (my native language) for those who
can read this language:

   ____________



   en français pour ceux qui comprennent la langue:

   Voir mon analyse sous forme d'image ici :

    http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/COP2_iswrongjpg

   L'analyse faite du fonctionnement du MEG qui « prouve » sa surunité à COP==2
ne tient pas :

   http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megdsqth.htm

   Voici les raisons de ceci.

   Tout d'abord je tiens à dire que j'ai fait de très nombreuses expérimentations
sur un MEG qui est une réplique exacte de celui de Naudin version 3.1.

   Voir mes expériences :

   http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005.php

   Toutes se sont révélées infructueuses. En regardant de plus près, j'ai fait le
constat que toutes les mesures sur les courants et tensions de sortie des
bobinages du secondaire ne changeaient pas avec ou sans aimant, et cela avec
plusieurs types d'aimants plus ou moins puissants.

   Non seulement le MEG que je teste ne marche pas, mais surtout il révèle
n'avoir aucune sensibilité à la présence ou non d'un aimant. Voir à ce propos :

   http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005_5.php

   Or, sans aimant, le MEG n'est qu'un vulgaire transformateur, donc il fallait
comprendre ce qu'il en est.

   L'aimant central du MEG envoie des flux magnétiques en part égale dans chaque
morceau en U du cour. Lorsqu'un bobinage primaire est alimenté, il est sensé
repousser le flux  magnétique de l'aimant de la branche dans laquelle il se
trouve vers l'autre branche. En effet l'explication est que lors de l'apparition
d'un champ magnétique contraire engendré par le primaire dans le cour
magnétique, le champ magnétique de l'aimant voit donc une résistance magnétique
(appelée réluctance)de ce côté de cour, et va faire passer son flux magnétique
par l'autre branche.



   La réluctance s'exprime en fonction de la longueur, de la section et de la
perméabilité magnétique du matériau que traverse le champ magnétique, et pas en
fonction de la présence ou non d'autres lignes de champs magnétiques contraires.
La réluctance (résistance au passage du flux magnétique) dépend uniquement du
matériau présent et pas de ce qu'on fait passer dedans (sauf quand on arrive à
saturation du matériau, auquel cas on ne peut plus faire rentrer d'autres lignes
de champ magnétique dedans).

    http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/reluctance.jpg

   D'ailleurs si on étudie de plus près la théorie des circuits magnétiques, dans
laquelle les circuits magnétiques sont équivalents aux circuits électriques, on
ne se demande jamais si il faut changer la résistance d'un circuit quand on y
insère un courant ! La résistance est une caractéristique physique du circuit.
Les courants s'ajoutent dans les fils électriques, quelle que soit leur
résistance. De même les flux s'ajoutent dans le cour magnétique.

   http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivalence.jpg

   http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivalence2jpg



   En fait, le flux engendré par le bobinage du primaire s'ajoute algébriquement
au flux de l'aimant, et on trouve un flux total moindre dans un côté du cour, et
supérieur de l'autre côté. Mais cela ne veut certainement pas dire que c'est le
flux de l'aimant qui s'est déplacé. En fait le flux de l'aimant comme celui
engendré par le bobinage primaire se partagent l'espace intérieur du cour
magnétique et se côtoient (tant qu'il y a de la place, c'est-à-dire tant qu'on
ne sature pas le cour). Pour ce faire cela nous a coûté de l'énergie (l'énergie
consommée dans le primaire pour produire ce flux contraire).

   La suite qui consiste à dire qu'en coupant le flux du primaire, le flux de
l'aimant qui était passé de l'autre côté revient, et que ce faisant il effectue
un travail dans le secondaire ne tient donc plus. Et justement c'était ça
l'énergie gratuite récupérée de l'aimant : ce travail qui n'existe pas. Du coup
le MEG analysé selon ce principe a un COP==1 au mieux (c'est-à-dire sans les
pertes, que j'ai mis de côté pendant mon analyse). Rien de surunitaire.

   Donc si le MEG fonctionne ce n'est certainement pas selon de principe. Or,
comme l'explication exotique donnée par Bearden ne correspond pas du tout au
brevet du MEG, ni à ses publications expérimentales (c'est-à-dire les rares
photos de son MEG), mais correspondent bien à ce principe d'énergie gratuite
prélevée par le travail du flux de l'aimant, il semble bien que le MEG ne marche
donc pas du tout. En tous cas mes expériences vont dans ce sens, et dieu sait si
je les ai faites dans le but au contraire de démontre que le MEG fonctionne.

   Ainsi tout ceci ne serait qu'une vaste fumisterie.

   On comprend alors pourquoi Bearden a repousse depuis 2003 la sortie
commerciale du MEG, finissant par dire qu'elle ne se ferait probablement jamais,
tout en ne donnant toujours pas de plan détaillé de réalisation, et en invoquant
des prétextes fumeux d'argent, alors que la production artisanale ne nécessite
pas les sommes sont il parle.

   Il reste Naudin, seul au monde à proclamer avoir réussi un MEG et dont les
résultats donnés sur ses captures d'oscillo sont incohérents avec son montage,
et qui ne répond pas aux questions sur le MEG.

   Je penche donc pour la thèse de la vaste fumisterie, soutenue par Naudin qui
soit se trompe, soit est incompétent, soit les deux, soit désinforme
volontairement  sur les sujets des énergies libres. D'ailleurs on constate à
quel point il est productif : ses inventions marchent à tous les coups, et dès
qu'une d'entre elle marche, il l'abandonne complètement pour passer à une autre,
sans jamais rien développer, alors qu'une seule invention fonctionnelle suffit à
donner l'autonomie énergétique au monde. Puisque mon expérience du MEG me montre
qu'il y a erreur (pour ne pas supposer triche volontaire) sur le MEG, que dire
de TOUT le RESTE ?

   Quant en plus on ne répond pas aux questions, cela veut tout dire il me
semble, non ?

   Bref, l'aventure MEG je la termine ici ; preuve étant faite que la théorie ne
fonctionne pas, et que l'expérience ne fonctionne pas. Evidemment, je peux avoir
fait des erreurs expérimentales, mais alors que ceux qui les pointent pour dire
: voilà ce qu'il aurait fallu faire le fassent et viennent me le dire après.



   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



   SPONSORED LINKS Energy management  Energy conservation home  Energy savings
         Energy  Energy efficiency  Energy audit


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

     a..  Visit your group "MEG_builders" on the web.

     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      MEG_builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


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

Did you remember to include the Aharanov-Bohm effect? Tom states that
this is a requirement for the MEG.

I personally wish I knew more about the MEG and ZPE-drawing devices,
but I know someone who went to school with someone else who built a
MEG generator where the OU was almost 9:1 for 30 seconds, but then
the frequency gave and it wouldn't produce any more OU. He said
something about how he built his MEG with cheap materials being the
reason. I don't where he is today, but this is what my friend said he
saw in person - 9:1 OU from Bill's MEG for about 30 seconds.

I was wondering if anyone here knew of ANY zero point energy machines
that do work if they are disenchanted with the MEG. Tom spoke of a
simple-to-make OU device with nothing more than a charged capacitor
and a magnet where you place the capacitor 90 degrees to the magnet's
H-field. Is anyone familiar with this:

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/vanflandern.htm

My 2 cents


--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Pascal_di_SCALA"
<pdiscala@t...> wrote:
>
> Here is my analysis about the MEg principle:
>
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/COP2_iswr
ong.jpg
>
> This analysis is not correct:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megdsqth.htm
>
>
> The reasons are:
>
> First, I made many various experimentations with a MEG which is a
clone of Naudin's one version 3.1.
>
>
> To see my experiments:
> http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005.php
>
> (translate my website with: http://www.google.com/language_tools?
hl=en)
>
> All gave negative results. With or without magnet nothing was
changing in the output current and voltage.
>
> Not only teh MEG I test is not working, but it does not react at
all to magnet presence inside it. See:
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005_5.php
>
>
> But, with no magnet, the MEG is only a transformer.
>
> MEG magnet sends magnetic flux dividing in 2 equal parts in each C
core. When a primary coil is feeded with current, it should pull the
lagnetic flux of the magnet into the other C core side. Reluctance of
the primary side should change because of inductrion lines, and so
magnet magnetic's lines should go into the other C core side because
reluctance is less important.
>
> This is WRONG!!! reluctance is a fonction of length, section,
permeability, but not of other magnetic lines opposing or not the
magnetic lines you want to insert into. It depends only of material
used, ans material saturation. When saturated, no more magnetic lines
can go inside, things are different then.
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/reluctanc
e.jpg
>
> If one studies more precisely magnetic circuits theory, thes es
circuits are equivalents to electric circuits. One does not ask
wether resistance change when a current flows throw a wire! Magnetic
flux is algebraicly additive.
>
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivalen
ce.jpg
>
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivalen
ce2.jpg
>
> The flux created by primary adds to the flux created by the magnet,
and we find a greater total flux one side, an a lesser total flux on
the other side. But magnet flux itself has not moved at all! Each
magnetic lines are together sharing space inside the core. When is
there noi more space to share? When we reach saturation (what we have
not, unless MEG is consuming energy, wasting this energy).
>
>
>
> Then, sayong that when you cut youy primary current, the magnet
flux comes back to its place and then does a magnetic work which
gives free energy is consequently WRONG! At best we so do have CÖP=1
(with an ideal transformer, but in reality the COP is less because of
electric frictions and various energy wastes).
>
> No overunity!
>
> If the MEG is working, it does not relay on this principle. But
exotic explanation of MEg principle by Bearden is not in accordance
with its patent, which relies on the previous explanation. What is
more, its rare experiment pictures let us see the same principle.  So
I conclue that MEG is not working at all. My experiments go in this
way, and I have made theses experiments to conclue to overunity, not
to debunk the MEG, so I am not dishonest.
>
> We then understand why Bearden postpones commercialisation of MEG
since 2003, sayong that maybe it will be never commercialised, with
unclear arguments (artisanal production doesn't require so much
money).
>
> There is only yet Naudin, but its claims about MEG are not in
accordance with its results: oscilloscope datas are contradictory
with its output charges, its circuit is not correctly feeding the MEG
to fullfill whats we see on his scopes. See my website.
>
> Naudin who is french like me has never answered any of my emails
about MEG since 2 years. There is some reason... Why does he
experiment new devices so quickly, with astonishing COP, when only
one successfull device is enough for energetic independance? But he
does not developp the devices, and let it go down, to search an other
one. Does he really succeed or is he lying? Maybe could he give us an
answer, if he reads these lines... but he wills not answering
questions, what is a shame.
>
> Here you can read the same post in french (my native language) for
those who can read this language:
>
> ____________
>
>
>
> en français pour ceux qui comprennent la langue:
> Voir mon analyse sous forme d'image ici :
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/COP2_iswr
ong.jpg L'analyse faite du fonctionnement du MEG qui « prouve » sa
surunité à COP=2 ne tient
pas :http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megdsqth.htmVoici les raisons de
ceci.Tout d'abord je tiens à dire que j'ai fait de très nombreuses
expérimentations sur un MEG qui est une réplique exacte de celui de
Naudin version 3.1.Voir mes
expériences :http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005.phpToutes
se sont révélées infructueuses. En regardant de plus près, j'ai fait
le constat que toutes les mesures sur les courants et tensions de
sortie des bobinages du secondaire ne changeaient pas avec ou sans
aimant, et cela avec plusieurs types d'aimants plus ou moins
puissants.Non seulement le MEG que je teste ne marche pas, mais
surtout il révèle n'avoir aucune sensibilité à la présence ou non
d'un aimant. Voir à ce
propos :http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005_5.phpOr, sans
aimant, le MEG n'est qu'un vulgaire transformateur, donc il fallait
comprendre ce qu'il en est.L'aimant central du MEG envoie des flux
magnétiques en part égale dans chaque morceau en U du cœur. Lorsqu'un
bobinage primaire est alimenté, il est sensé repousser le flux
magnétique de l'aimant de la branche dans laquelle il se trouve vers
l'autre branche. En effet l'explication est que lors de l'apparition
d'un champ magnétique contraire engendré par le primaire dans le cœur
magnétique, le champ magnétique de l'aimant voit donc une résistance
magnétique (appelée réluctance)de ce côté de cœur, et va faire passer
son flux magnétique par l'autre branche.  La réluctance s'exprime en
fonction de la longueur, de la section et de la perméabilité
magnétique du matériau que traverse le champ magnétique, et pas en
fonction de la présence ou non d'autres lignes de champs magnétiques
contraires. La réluctance (résistance au passage du flux magnétique)
dépend uniquement du matériau présent et pas de ce qu'on fait passer
dedans (sauf quand on arrive à saturation du matériau, auquel cas on
ne peut plus faire rentrer d'autres lignes de champ magnétique
dedans).
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/reluctanc
e.jpg D'ailleurs si on étudie de plus près la théorie des circuits
magnétiques, dans laquelle les circuits magnétiques sont équivalents
aux circuits électriques, on ne se demande jamais si il faut changer
la résistance d'un circuit quand on y insère un courant ! La
résistance est une caractéristique physique du circuit. Les courants
s'ajoutent dans les fils électriques, quelle que soit leur
résistance. De même les flux s'ajoutent dans le cœur magnétique.
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivalen
ce.jpg
>
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivalen
ce2.jpg
>  En fait, le flux engendré par le bobinage du primaire s'ajoute
algébriquement au flux de l'aimant, et on trouve un flux total
moindre dans un côté du cœur, et supérieur de l'autre côté. Mais cela
ne veut certainement pas dire que c'est le flux de l'aimant qui s'est
déplacé. En fait le flux de l'aimant comme celui engendré par le
bobinage primaire se partagent l'espace intérieur du cœur magnétique
et se côtoient (tant qu'il y a de la place, c'est-à-dire tant qu'on
ne sature pas le cœur). Pour ce faire cela nous a coûté de l'énergie
(l'énergie consommée dans le primaire pour produire ce flux
contraire).La suite qui consiste à dire qu'en coupant le flux du
primaire, le flux de l'aimant qui était passé de l'autre côté
revient, et que ce faisant il effectue un travail dans le secondaire
ne tient donc plus. Et justement c'était ça l'énergie gratuite
récupérée de l'aimant : ce travail qui n'existe pas. Du coup le MEG
analysé selon ce principe a un COP=1 au mieux (c'est-à-dire sans les
pertes, que j'ai mis de côté pendant mon analyse). Rien de
surunitaire.Donc si le MEG fonctionne ce n'est certainement pas selon
de principe. Or, comme l'explication exotique donnée par Bearden ne
correspond pas du tout au brevet du MEG, ni à ses publications
expérimentales (c'est-à-dire les rares photos de son MEG), mais
correspondent bien à ce principe d'énergie gratuite prélevée par le
travail du flux de l'aimant, il semble bien que le MEG ne marche donc
pas du tout. En tous cas mes expériences vont dans ce sens, et dieu
sait si je les ai faites dans le but au contraire de démontre que le
MEG fonctionne.Ainsi tout ceci ne serait qu'une vaste fumisterie.On
comprend alors pourquoi Bearden a repousse depuis 2003 la sortie
commerciale du MEG, finissant par dire qu'elle ne se ferait
probablement jamais, tout en ne donnant toujours pas de plan détaillé
de réalisation, et en invoquant des prétextes fumeux d'argent, alors
que la production artisanale ne nécessite pas les sommes sont il
parle.Il reste Naudin, seul au monde à proclamer avoir réussi un MEG
et dont les résultats donnés sur ses captures d'oscillo sont
incohérents avec son montage, et qui ne répond pas aux questions sur
le MEG.Je penche donc pour la thèse de la vaste fumisterie, soutenue
par Naudin qui soit se trompe, soit est incompétent, soit les deux,
soit désinforme volontairement  sur les sujets des énergies libres.
D'ailleurs on constate à quel point il est productif : ses inventions
marchent à tous les coups, et dès qu'une d'entre elle marche, il
l'abandonne complètement pour passer à une autre, sans jamais rien
développer, alors qu'une seule invention fonctionnelle suffit à
donner l'autonomie énergétique au monde. Puisque mon expérience du
MEG me montre qu'il y a erreur (pour ne pas supposer triche
volontaire) sur le MEG, que dire de TOUT le RESTE ?Quant en plus on
ne répond pas aux questions, cela veut tout dire il me semble, non ?
Bref, l'aventure MEG je la termine ici ; preuve étant faite que la
théorie ne fonctionne pas, et que l'expérience ne fonctionne pas.
Evidemment, je peux avoir fait des erreurs expérimentales, mais alors
que ceux qui les pointent pour dire : voilà ce qu'il aurait fallu
faire le fassent et viennent me le dire après.
>

Yes, i agree that experiments made only with a pure magnetic
materials, gives negative results.
But there can be some other system,that gives rise to AG effects.

ESR,electron spin resonance is used in spectroscopy to detect
presence
of the materials,that have a ODD number of nucleons,materials that
have a half integer spin structure,they are called paramagnetic
materials.
In a homogeneous magnetic field with this method we can find sharp
resonances in a given magnetic field,and the resonance with
reference frequency/magnetic field strenght tells,what paramagnetic
material is observed.Also this radiation,when it is coherent, gives
rise to Maser effect,when in standing wave mode.

One of the paramagnetic materials is magnesium.When we have very pure
magnesium in a homogenous magnetic field,we can have magnesium to
resonance ( spin resonance ).With lot of simultaneously spin
precessions in a paramagnetic material, this can lead to spontaneous
magnetization.This magnetization is what we need to form the nested
cylindrical EM fields to compress planck particle pairs (zero point
field ).

Planck particle pairs consists of the smallest particles,we can find.
Also Planck particle pairs have a positive and negative charge,and
spin gives an magnetic field for PPP.
Now, with a external magnetic field (  nested cylindrical EM fields
created by coherent spin precession radiation )we can collect or
compress the PPP:s that have magnetic properties.

This locally compressed area of PPP leads to repulsion from mass.
It is the same system,that in a large scale makes the universe to
expand.

Esa



--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Pascal_di_SCALA"
<pdiscala@t...> wrote:
>
> Here is my analysis about the MEg principle:
>
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/COP2_isw
rong.jpg
>
> This analysis is not correct:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megdsqth.htm
>
>
> The reasons are:
>
> First, I made many various experimentations with a MEG which is a
clone of Naudin's one version 3.1.
>
>
> To see my experiments:
> http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005.php
>
> (translate my website with: http://www.google.com/language_tools?
hl=en)
>
> All gave negative results. With or without magnet nothing was
changing in the output current and voltage.
>
> Not only teh MEG I test is not working, but it does not react at
all to magnet presence inside it. See:
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005_5.php
>
>
> But, with no magnet, the MEG is only a transformer.
>
> MEG magnet sends magnetic flux dividing in 2 equal parts in each C
core. When a primary coil is feeded with current, it should pull the
lagnetic flux of the magnet into the other C core side. Reluctance
of the primary side should change because of inductrion lines, and
so magnet magnetic's lines should go into the other C core side
because reluctance is less important.
>
> This is WRONG!!! reluctance is a fonction of length, section,
permeability, but not of other magnetic lines opposing or not the
magnetic lines you want to insert into. It depends only of material
used, ans material saturation. When saturated, no more magnetic
lines can go inside, things are different then.
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/reluctan
ce.jpg
>
> If one studies more precisely magnetic circuits theory, thes es
circuits are equivalents to electric circuits. One does not ask
wether resistance change when a current flows throw a wire! Magnetic
flux is algebraicly additive.
>
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivale
nce.jpg
>
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivale
nce2.jpg
>
> The flux created by primary adds to the flux created by the
magnet, and we find a greater total flux one side, an a lesser total
flux on the other side. But magnet flux itself has not moved at all!
Each magnetic lines are together sharing space inside the core. When
is there noi more space to share? When we reach saturation (what we
have not, unless MEG is consuming energy, wasting this energy).
>
>
>
> Then, sayong that when you cut youy primary current, the magnet
flux comes back to its place and then does a magnetic work which
gives free energy is consequently WRONG! At best we so do have CÖP=1
(with an ideal transformer, but in reality the COP is less because
of electric frictions and various energy wastes).
>
> No overunity!
>
> If the MEG is working, it does not relay on this principle. But
exotic explanation of MEg principle by Bearden is not in accordance
with its patent, which relies on the previous explanation. What is
more, its rare experiment pictures let us see the same principle.
So I conclue that MEG is not working at all. My experiments go in
this way, and I have made theses experiments to conclue to
overunity, not to debunk the MEG, so I am not dishonest.
>
> We then understand why Bearden postpones commercialisation of MEG
since 2003, sayong that maybe it will be never commercialised, with
unclear arguments (artisanal production doesn't require so much
money).
>
> There is only yet Naudin, but its claims about MEG are not in
accordance with its results: oscilloscope datas are contradictory
with its output charges, its circuit is not correctly feeding the
MEG to fullfill whats we see on his scopes. See my website.
>
> Naudin who is french like me has never answered any of my emails
about MEG since 2 years. There is some reason... Why does he
experiment new devices so quickly, with astonishing COP, when only
one successfull device is enough for energetic independance? But he
does not developp the devices, and let it go down, to search an
other one. Does he really succeed or is he lying? Maybe could he
give us an answer, if he reads these lines... but he wills not
answering questions, what is a shame.
>
> Here you can read the same post in french (my native language) for
those who can read this language:
>
> ____________
>
>
>
> en français pour ceux qui comprennent la langue:
> Voir mon analyse sous forme d'image ici :
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/COP2_isw
rong.jpg L'analyse faite du fonctionnement du MEG qui « prouve » sa
surunité à COP=2 ne tient
pas :http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megdsqth.htmVoici les raisons de
ceci.Tout d'abord je tiens à dire que j'ai fait de très nombreuses
expérimentations sur un MEG qui est une réplique exacte de celui de
Naudin version 3.1.Voir mes
expériences :http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005.phpToutes
  se sont révélées infructueuses. En regardant de plus près, j'ai
fait le constat que toutes les mesures sur les courants et tensions
de sortie des bobinages du secondaire ne changeaient pas avec ou
sans aimant, et cela avec plusieurs types d'aimants plus ou moins
puissants.Non seulement le MEG que je teste ne marche pas, mais
surtout il révèle n'avoir aucune sensibilité à la présence ou non
d'un aimant. Voir à ce
propos :http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/expe2005_5.phpOr, sans
aimant, le MEG n'est qu'un vulgaire transformateur, donc il fallait
comprendre ce qu'il en est.L'aimant central du MEG envoie des flux
magnétiques en part égale dans chaque morceau en U du cœur.
Lorsqu'un bobinage primaire est alimenté, il est sensé repousser le
flux  magnétique de l'aimant de la branche dans laquelle il se
trouve vers l'autre branche. En effet l'explication est que lors de
l'apparition d'un champ magnétique contraire engendré par le
primaire dans le cœur magnétique, le champ magnétique de l'aimant
voit donc une résistance magnétique (appelée réluctance)de ce côté
de cœur, et va faire passer son flux magnétique par l'autre
branche.  La réluctance s'exprime en fonction de la longueur, de la
section et de la perméabilité magnétique du matériau que traverse le
champ magnétique, et pas en fonction de la présence ou non d'autres
lignes de champs magnétiques contraires. La réluctance (résistance
au passage du flux magnétique) dépend uniquement du matériau présent
et pas de ce qu'on fait passer dedans (sauf quand on arrive à
saturation du matériau, auquel cas on ne peut plus faire rentrer
d'autres lignes de champ magnétique dedans).
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/reluctan
ce.jpg D'ailleurs si on étudie de plus près la théorie des circuits
magnétiques, dans laquelle les circuits magnétiques sont équivalents
aux circuits électriques, on ne se demande jamais si il faut changer
la résistance d'un circuit quand on y insère un courant ! La
résistance est une caractéristique physique du circuit. Les courants
s'ajoutent dans les fils électriques, quelle que soit leur
résistance. De même les flux s'ajoutent dans le cœur magnétique.
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivale
nce.jpg
>
>
http://www.conspirovniscience.com/meg/images/MEG2005/analyse/equivale
nce2.jpg
>  En fait, le flux engendré par le bobinage du primaire s'ajoute
algébriquement au flux de l'aimant, et on trouve un flux total
moindre dans un côté du cœur, et supérieur de l'autre côté. Mais
cela ne veut certainement pas dire que c'est le flux de l'aimant qui
s'est déplacé. En fait le flux de l'aimant comme celui engendré par
le bobinage primaire se partagent l'espace intérieur du cœur
magnétique et se côtoient (tant qu'il y a de la place, c'est-à-dire
tant qu'on ne sature pas le cœur). Pour ce faire cela nous a coûté
de l'énergie (l'énergie consommée dans le primaire pour produire ce
flux contraire).La suite qui consiste à dire qu'en coupant le flux
du primaire, le flux de l'aimant qui était passé de l'autre côté
revient, et que ce faisant il effectue un travail dans le secondaire
ne tient donc plus. Et justement c'était ça l'énergie gratuite
récupérée de l'aimant : ce travail qui n'existe pas. Du coup le MEG
analysé selon ce principe a un COP=1 au mieux (c'est-à-dire sans les
pertes, que j'ai mis de côté pendant mon analyse). Rien de
surunitaire.Donc si le MEG fonctionne ce n'est certainement pas
selon de principe. Or, comme l'explication exotique donnée par
Bearden ne correspond pas du tout au brevet du MEG, ni à ses
publications expérimentales (c'est-à-dire les rares photos de son
MEG), mais correspondent bien à ce principe d'énergie gratuite
prélevée par le travail du flux de l'aimant, il semble bien que le
MEG ne marche donc pas du tout. En tous cas mes expériences vont
dans ce sens, et dieu sait si je les ai faites dans le but au
contraire de démontre que le MEG fonctionne.Ainsi tout ceci ne
serait qu'une vaste fumisterie.On comprend alors pourquoi Bearden a
repousse depuis 2003 la sortie commerciale du MEG, finissant par
dire qu'elle ne se ferait probablement jamais, tout en ne donnant
toujours pas de plan détaillé de réalisation, et en invoquant des
prétextes fumeux d'argent, alors que la production artisanale ne
nécessite pas les sommes sont il parle.Il reste Naudin, seul au
monde à proclamer avoir réussi un MEG et dont les résultats donnés
sur ses captures d'oscillo sont incohérents avec son montage, et qui
ne répond pas aux questions sur le MEG.Je penche donc pour la thèse
de la vaste fumisterie, soutenue par Naudin qui soit se trompe, soit
est incompétent, soit les deux, soit désinforme volontairement  sur
les sujets des énergies libres. D'ailleurs on constate à quel point
il est productif : ses inventions marchent à tous les coups, et dès
qu'une d'entre elle marche, il l'abandonne complètement pour passer
à une autre, sans jamais rien développer, alors qu'une seule
invention fonctionnelle suffit à donner l'autonomie énergétique au
monde. Puisque mon expérience du MEG me montre qu'il y a erreur
(pour ne pas supposer triche volontaire) sur le MEG, que dire de
TOUT le RESTE ?Quant en plus on ne répond pas aux questions, cela
veut tout dire il me semble, non ?Bref, l'aventure MEG je la termine
ici ; preuve étant faite que la théorie ne fonctionne pas, et que
l'expérience ne fonctionne pas. Evidemment, je peux avoir fait des
erreurs expérimentales, mais alors que ceux qui les pointent pour
dire : voilà ce qu'il aurait fallu faire le fassent et viennent me
le dire après.
>

hey everyone,

i was just wondering where you all got your ferrite cores from? ive
scoured the internet looking for a supplier, alas i can not find one
:( i live in the U.K, so if any of you know where i can get my hands
on some cores, woud be extremely usefull.

thanx in advanced,
Dan