Pascal,

I am new to the understanding of the MEG, but I am an EE living in
Florida USA.  Your work on the MEG 2004 and 2005 is excellent and
well documented.  There is only on thing I do not understand.

In your calculation of output power you measure only one of the
output coils and continually divide the results by 2.  I do not
understand this.  The MEG is applying the output to each of the
output coils equally (assuming the same output load resistance.  It
seems to me that you should be MULTIPLYING the measured output power
by 2.  In this case the best of your results is about a COP=>2.8

Please clarify your rationale for this.

John Hackett


--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Pascal_di_SCALA"
<pdiscala@...> 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.
>

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "YoTango" <yotango@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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.
>
In the same instance you can have hundreds of amps and a neglible
magnetic field. Take an air cored coil, say it generated a field
value of 0.1 for the sake of simplicity , say 1 Amp flowing then add
a metal core say pig iron, now we have a field of say 0.5 but still 1
amp flowing, change the core to super permalloy now we might have a
field of 1 but still only 1 amp flowing, move to nano crystaline etc,
The point is, the core material , the number of windings, the guage
of wire,the coil dimensions and the voltage applied hence current
flowing, all these factors dictate the field strength, the current
flowing is way low down in priority of field strength, the core
material and number of windings being the factors which dictate the
most.

Hi all!

I'm an EE and was intriqued by MEG because of simple circuitry
required to operate. I've built my own replication of the MEG - also
unsuccessfully (I mean I didn't obtain COP > 1). In my controller I
can independently change both frequency and duty cycle of the gate
driving voltage. My MEG has taps on both primary and secondary
windings and I can play with turns ratio. While working without load,
I obtained output voltage with close to sine waveform and amplitudes
around reported by Bearden and Naudin. However, after loading the
output (even lightly with 100kOhm resistor), output voltage decreases
significantly to a few volts.

It's pretty hard to debug the device since I don't understand how it
should work. I started to dig into Berden's patent and I have a
question: does anybody have an idea how Bearden measured the current
in both primary (Fig 6D) and secondary (Figs 6G,H)?

The question arised because the primary current he described has
extremely small duty cycle - around 1 microsecond for both rise and
fall. It supposes duty cycle with around 500 nanoseconds of active
driving voltage - nothing comparable can be seen in Figs 6A,B. Also I
tried to build high side current measurement circuit and (even with
most recent chips!) it has around 500kHz bandwidth and cannot provide
such a sharp waveform. Thus I presume that Tom measured a voltage on
a small low side resistor. The voltage produced by such measurement
can have short spikes as presented in Fig 6D because of capacitive
coupling from adjacent circuitry and even from the ground ripple
itself.

Hi Lichtrov,

What was your gate driving voltage and frequency? You will get
mysteriously little out of Bearden and Naudin, if anything.

Dr. GG Pitz

lichtrov wrote:
>
> Hi all!
>
> I'm an EE and was intriqued by MEG because of simple circuitry
> required to operate. I've built my own replication of the MEG - also
> unsuccessfully (I mean I didn't obtain COP > 1). In my controller I
> can independently change both frequency and duty cycle of the gate
> driving voltage. My MEG has taps on both primary and secondary
> windings and I can play with turns ratio. While working without load,
> I obtained output voltage with close to sine waveform and amplitudes
> around reported by Bearden and Naudin. However, after loading the
> output (even lightly with 100kOhm resistor), output voltage decreases
> significantly to a few volts.
>
> It's pretty hard to debug the device since I don't understand how it
> should work. I started to dig into Berden's patent and I have a
> question: does anybody have an idea how Bearden measured the current
> in both primary (Fig 6D) and secondary (Figs 6G,H)?
>
> The question arised because the primary current he described has
> extremely small duty cycle - around 1 microsecond for both rise and
> fall. It supposes duty cycle with around 500 nanoseconds of active
> driving voltage - nothing comparable can be seen in Figs 6A,B. Also I
> tried to build high side current measurement circuit and (even with
> most recent chips!) it has around 500kHz bandwidth and cannot provide
> such a sharp waveform. Thus I presume that Tom measured a voltage on
> a small low side resistor. The voltage produced by such measurement
> can have short spikes as presented in Fig 6D because of capacitive
> coupling from adjacent circuitry and even from the ground ripple
> itself.
>
>

Sounds like you have done quite a bit of homework. This seems to be a
typical result from MEG builders
In a video that I watched where bearden goes into detail on the MEG's
operation it is more of a L/C
type of circuit. from what he said in that video the input waveform is
like /`\ ramp up and ramp down.
as you can tell there are some sweet spots between pulse width and
frequency of the drive signal.
since its a L/C circuit you must design a load match transformer that
will allow you to pull power out of it.
simply putting a resistive load across the output will detune the
circuit and throw it out of its "balance"
I have not done this myself yet as I have been short on time but that is
my next step to design a, more or
less a balun or unun to decouple the meg from the effects of the load.

(Kent)

lichtrov wrote:
>
> Hi all!
>
> I'm an EE and was intriqued by MEG because of simple circuitry
> required to operate. I've built my own replication of the MEG - also
> unsuccessfully (I mean I didn't obtain COP > 1). In my controller I
> can independently change both frequency and duty cycle of the gate
> driving voltage. My MEG has taps on both primary and secondary
> windings and I can play with turns ratio. While working without load,
> I obtained output voltage with close to sine waveform and amplitudes
> around reported by Bearden and Naudin. However, after loading the
> output (even lightly with 100kOhm resistor), output voltage decreases
> significantly to a few volts.
>
> It's pretty hard to debug the device since I don't understand how it
> should work. I started to dig into Berden's patent and I have a
> question: does anybody have an idea how Bearden measured the current
> in both primary (Fig 6D) and secondary (Figs 6G,H)?
>
> The question arised because the primary current he described has
> extremely small duty cycle - around 1 microsecond for both rise and
> fall. It supposes duty cycle with around 500 nanoseconds of active
> driving voltage - nothing comparable can be seen in Figs 6A,B. Also I
> tried to build high side current measurement circuit and (even with
> most recent chips!) it has around 500kHz bandwidth and cannot provide
> such a sharp waveform. Thus I presume that Tom measured a voltage on
> a small low side resistor. The voltage produced by such measurement
> can have short spikes as presented in Fig 6D because of capacitive
> coupling from adjacent circuitry and even from the ground ripple
> itself.
>
>

Hi all!

I'm an EE and was intriqued by MEG because of simple circuitry
required to operate. I've built my own replication of the MEG - also
unsuccessfully (I mean I didn't obtain COP > 1). In my controller I
can independently change both frequency and duty cycle of the gate
driving voltage. My MEG has taps on both primary and secondary
windings and I can play with turns ratio. While working without load,
I obtained output voltage with close to sine waveform and amplitudes
around reported by Bearden and Naudin. However, after loading the
output (even lightly with 100kOhm resistor), output voltage decreases
significantly to a few volts.

It's pretty hard to debug the device since I don't understand how it
should work. I started to dig into Berden's patent and I have a
question: does anybody have an idea how Bearden measured the current
in both primary (Fig 6D) and secondary (Figs 6G,H)?

The question arised because the primary current he described has
extremely small duty cycle - around 1 microsecond for both rise and
fall. It supposes duty cycle with around 500 nanoseconds of active
driving voltage - nothing comparable can be seen in Figs 6A,B. Also I
tried to build high side current measurement circuit and (even with
most recent chips!) it has around 500kHz bandwidth and cannot provide
such a sharp waveform. Thus I presume that Tom measured a voltage on
a small low side resistor. The voltage produced by such measurement
can have short spikes as presented in Fig 6D because of capacitive
coupling from adjacent circuitry and even from the ground ripple
itself.

--- Kent Andersen <sci@...> wrote:

> Sounds like you have done quite a bit of homework. This seems to be a
> typical result from MEG builders
> In a video that I watched where bearden goes into detail on the MEG's
> operation it is more of a L/C
> type of circuit. from what he said in that video the input waveform
> is
> like /`\ ramp up and ramp down.

That makes sense since the primary and secondary should be closely
coupled ( as distinct from the sine output of a high Q self resonant
secondary that is loosely coupled)

> since its a L/C circuit you must design a load match transformer that
> will allow you to pull power out of it.
> simply putting a resistive load across the output will detune the
> circuit and throw it out of its "balance"

That does not make sense, a resistive load would lower the Q but by
definition not detune anything. It would change the flux in the core,
so that would change the inductance a bit, and some frequency & dwell
adjustments could possibly be helpful. Does the "load match"
transformer you mention have something to do with drawing power from
both secondarys  equally to maintain the balance between the sides?

> I have not done this myself yet as I have been short on time but that
> is
> my next step to design a, more or
> less a balun or unun to decouple the meg from the effects of the
> load.
>
> (Kent)


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

Thank you for the response. I'm thinking about load matching also.

Where the video, you're talking about, can be downloaded from?

And one more question: does anybody have an idea why such a huge
secondary voltage is required (TB in the patent claims that it can be
lowered with smaller secondary windings, but I didn't see anything
done with low secondary voltage)?

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, Kent Andersen <sci@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds like you have done quite a bit of homework. This seems to be
a
> typical result from MEG builders
> In a video that I watched where bearden goes into detail on the
MEG's
> operation it is more of a L/C
> type of circuit. from what he said in that video the input waveform
is
> like /`\ ramp up and ramp down.
> as you can tell there are some sweet spots between pulse width and
> frequency of the drive signal.
> since its a L/C circuit you must design a load match transformer
that
> will allow you to pull power out of it.
> simply putting a resistive load across the output will detune the
> circuit and throw it out of its "balance"
> I have not done this myself yet as I have been short on time but
that is
> my next step to design a, more or
> less a balun or unun to decouple the meg from the effects of the
load.
>
> (Kent)
>
> lichtrov wrote:
> >
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I'm an EE and was intriqued by MEG because of simple circuitry
> > required to operate. I've built my own replication of the MEG -
also
> > unsuccessfully (I mean I didn't obtain COP > 1). In my controller
I
> > can independently change both frequency and duty cycle of the gate
> > driving voltage. My MEG has taps on both primary and secondary
> > windings and I can play with turns ratio. While working without
load,
> > I obtained output voltage with close to sine waveform and
amplitudes
> > around reported by Bearden and Naudin. However, after loading the
> > output (even lightly with 100kOhm resistor), output voltage
decreases
> > significantly to a few volts.
> >
> > It's pretty hard to debug the device since I don't understand how
it
> > should work. I started to dig into Berden's patent and I have a
> > question: does anybody have an idea how Bearden measured the
current
> > in both primary (Fig 6D) and secondary (Figs 6G,H)?
> >
> > The question arised because the primary current he described has
> > extremely small duty cycle - around 1 microsecond for both rise
and
> > fall. It supposes duty cycle with around 500 nanoseconds of active
> > driving voltage - nothing comparable can be seen in Figs 6A,B.
Also I
> > tried to build high side current measurement circuit and (even
with
> > most recent chips!) it has around 500kHz bandwidth and cannot
provide
> > such a sharp waveform. Thus I presume that Tom measured a voltage
on
> > a small low side resistor. The voltage produced by such
measurement
> > can have short spikes as presented in Fig 6D because of capacitive
> > coupling from adjacent circuitry and even from the ground ripple
> > itself.
> >
> >
>

well I think you could use a smaller secondary coil on it. Most of these
guys go for big voltage
because they get the idea that big voltage = big power.
you might try youtube.com they sometimes have these videos pirated there.
Bearden is selling the video on his website here.
http://www.cheniere.org/sales/buy-e1.htm

he has completely moved away from his theories of phase conjugation
(junk science stuff)
to more practical theories that everyone else in the scientific
community is using.
I would surely check out that video if you can before you go out
spending big wads of cash
do your research as it is known that the patents do not contain all of
the information required
to reproduce what it is claimed to do.
some other data you might want to look at is here if you have not already
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm

I recently purchased 2 of the metglass C cores AMCC500 which I am going
to use in some experiments
with ferro magnetic resonance. they were 179.00 per pair..  so if you
decide to build a meg prepare
to go for a ride.

Hope that helps

Kent

lichtrov wrote:
>
> Thank you for the response. I'm thinking about load matching also.
>
> Where the video, you're talking about, can be downloaded from?
>
> And one more question: does anybody have an idea why such a huge
> secondary voltage is required (TB in the patent claims that it can be
> lowered with smaller secondary windings, but I didn't see anything
> done with low secondary voltage)?
>
> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MEG_builders%40yahoogroups.com>, Kent Andersen <sci@...> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like you have done quite a bit of homework. This seems to be
> a
> > typical result from MEG builders
> > In a video that I watched where bearden goes into detail on the
> MEG's
> > operation it is more of a L/C
> > type of circuit. from what he said in that video the input waveform
> is
> > like /`\ ramp up and ramp down.
> > as you can tell there are some sweet spots between pulse width and
> > frequency of the drive signal.
> > since its a L/C circuit you must design a load match transformer
> that
> > will allow you to pull power out of it.
> > simply putting a resistive load across the output will detune the
> > circuit and throw it out of its "balance"
> > I have not done this myself yet as I have been short on time but
> that is
> > my next step to design a, more or
> > less a balun or unun to decouple the meg from the effects of the
> load.
> >
> > (Kent)
> >
> > lichtrov wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all!
> > >
> > > I'm an EE and was intriqued by MEG because of simple circuitry
> > > required to operate. I've built my own replication of the MEG -
> also
> > > unsuccessfully (I mean I didn't obtain COP > 1). In my controller
> I
> > > can independently change both frequency and duty cycle of the gate
> > > driving voltage. My MEG has taps on both primary and secondary
> > > windings and I can play with turns ratio. While working without
> load,
> > > I obtained output voltage with close to sine waveform and
> amplitudes
> > > around reported by Bearden and Naudin. However, after loading the
> > > output (even lightly with 100kOhm resistor), output voltage
> decreases
> > > significantly to a few volts.
> > >
> > > It's pretty hard to debug the device since I don't understand how
> it
> > > should work. I started to dig into Berden's patent and I have a
> > > question: does anybody have an idea how Bearden measured the
> current
> > > in both primary (Fig 6D) and secondary (Figs 6G,H)?
> > >
> > > The question arised because the primary current he described has
> > > extremely small duty cycle - around 1 microsecond for both rise
> and
> > > fall. It supposes duty cycle with around 500 nanoseconds of active
> > > driving voltage - nothing comparable can be seen in Figs 6A,B.
> Also I
> > > tried to build high side current measurement circuit and (even
> with
> > > most recent chips!) it has around 500kHz bandwidth and cannot
> provide
> > > such a sharp waveform. Thus I presume that Tom measured a voltage
> on
> > > a small low side resistor. The voltage produced by such
> measurement
> > > can have short spikes as presented in Fig 6D because of capacitive
> > > coupling from adjacent circuitry and even from the ground ripple
> > > itself.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

--- lichtrov <lichtrov@...> wrote:

> And one more question: does anybody have an idea why such a huge
> secondary voltage is required (TB in the patent claims that it can be
>
> lowered with smaller secondary windings, but I didn't see anything
> done with low secondary voltage)?
>
My speculation based on Naudin's observations that his HV windings gave
out due to internal corona discharge after extensive testing and his
claim that a conditioned resistor (which I think may have internal
discontinuities serving as sites for micro arcs) is that these
discharges are essential, so if his design worked when using low
voltage wire, it may fail simply by changing to 5 KV rated magnet wire.



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

Hi,

At this very moment you can purchase the Metglas AMCC 320 cores for
$110 from http://elnamagnetics.com

There's some very important information MEG researchers should know
about. I spoke with the engineer at Metglas and he said it's difficult
to couple the two U-shaped cut cores together tight enough to achieve
the materials exceptionally high permeability and coercivity. In fact,
the Metglas engineer said his test, which consisted of taping two
pressed cores together, resulted in a completely flat BH-curve with
relatively low permeability. I'm not certain how much pressure one
needs to apply on the core halves, but one should be very cautious as
such nanocrystalline and amorphous material is brittle. My suggestion
is to rub the two cores together thereby creating some micro powder to
fill in any gaps, and then press the two cores together. To verify the
two cores are correctly coupled you could apply two static AC signals.
One signal would be strong low frequency, no higher than 1 Hz.  The
other will be a weak higher frequency signal of a few KHz's. It's
important the KHz signals peak to peak current remain relatively
constant. To achieve this you could place a high resistance resistor
in series with the KHz signal so it's peak to peak current does not
change much as the 1 Hz signal changes. The 1 Hz signal peak must be
high enough to saturate the core. Next, view the induced voltage on a
secondary coil. If the two cores are correctly coupled then the KHz
signal should mostly be low in amplitude along with a blip high in
amplitude.  On the other hand, an improperly coupled core should
result in a flat KHz signal with no blip.

Also you'll want to store such cores stored in a desiccator-- low
humidity environment. Believe it or not, cheap cat litter that
contains silica gel works great. You'll want to microwave the cat
litter to expel the absorbed moisture. Once it cools then place it in
a seal tight bag or container along with the nanocrystalline core.
This will prevent the core from oxidizing.

I learned some very concerning information from the Metglas engineer.
The AMCC cores are not longitudinally annealed, but no-field annealed.
I don't know if they were ever longitudinally annealed, but this was a
shocker since my computer simulations (based on conventional physics)
shows the "free energy" comes from a coil robbing Magnetic entropy
away from Lattice entropy, which occurs when the core goes to
saturation. Present simulations indicate longitudinally annealed cores
have appreciable magnetic entropy, and non-annealed cores have
significantly less magnetic entropy, and transversely annealed cores
have negative entropy when such material is saturated. Actually
simulations show transversely annealed cores behave erratically
depending on various situations. Note that two U-shaped cores not
properly coupled perform just like a transversely annealed core. This
gap effect is seen in simulations due to the micro gaps between the
cut core.

In a nutshell, it's very important to verify your cut AMCC core is
properly coupled and exhibits the materials natural exceptionally high
permeability and coercivity. According to simulations the high
coercivity is very important in achieving magnetic entropy.


Here's an outline of what the simulation software reveals. With no
applied field the magnetic dipole moments on such material on average
are appreciably unaligned because the longitudinally annealing
discourages domain structure-- lower order, higher magnetic entropy.
When the core is saturated the magnetic moments are aligned-- high
order, low magnetic entropy. Normally when magnetic entropy decreases
there's an increase in lattice entropy. Meaning, magnetic entropy is
converted to heat. This is a well-understood process known as MCE
(Magnetocaloric effect). MCE is difficult to notice in typical
magnetic materials at room temp because the domains are mostly
saturated with no applied field; i.e., low magnetic entropy. When the
material is above Curie temp the magnetic moments are in disorder, the
domains are destroyed; i.e., high magnetic entropy. The problem is
such materials have hardly any permeability above Curie. Although,
Superparamagnetic materials have high magnetic entropy well below
Curie.  According to simulations, such material with exceptionally
high permeability require extraordinarily small amount of energy from
the coil used as a catalyst to convert magnetic entropy to lattice
entropy (heat). Last year I witnessed MCE in a Metglas transversely
annealed core, but at the time I couldn't figure out why the effect
was so erratic, and even reverse some times. Actually I asked Metglas
for a longitudinally annealed core, but oddly enough they sent me the
worst type of core for "free energy," a transversely annealed core.
Recently, after discovering this, I bought some Metglas MAGAMP cores,
which are uncut longitudinally annealed 2714A core material. I'm still
in the process of measuring MCE at room temperature in such cores, but
so far it appears they definitely exhibit appreciable MCE at room
temperature. :-)

How to capture such magnetic entropy away from lattice entropy is
another story. What occurs is electrons flip, which generates a pulse,
emits photons. The flip rate depends on the type of atoms, lattice,
and material electrical resistance. Such Metglas cores have low
electrical resistance, which can significantly slow down the flip rate
due to eddy currents. Note that 18 micro tape wound cores reduce macro
eddy currents, but not nano scale eddy currents around the atomic
flip. Ideally the coil would collect a percentage of the pulse,
magnetic entropy. So now the core is saturated-- align magnetic
moments, low magnetic entropy. According to standard physics it
requires energy to break such magnetic alignments. Temperature
(vibrating atoms) breaks such magnetic bonds, which is why such
magnetic materials cool down when the applied field is removed-- the
later half of MCE. Therefore, the coil captures energy that is
normally converted to lattice entropy. When the field is removed the
material cools slightly more than it stated.

The end results are a device that moves ambient energy at the output,
which cools the core. Recent simulations are showing the core domain
structure can abruptly change when this occurs. If true, then it would
require a machine that adapts and re-tunes itself continuously and
dynamically. That could explain why Naudin had trouble closing the
loop. There seems to be controversy what Naudin failed. All I know is
that a person who lives in France, was in direct contact with Naudin,
and claimed that Naudin did indeed closed the loop, but the MEG would
run for a very brief time. He said Naudin could not figure it out. If
Naudin was capturing ambient energy from the core, then it's my
opinion that such a device is finely tuned and highly balanced, and a
slight change in core temperature would cause significant domain
structure. I think the Metglas MEG is legitimate, but someone needs to
spend the time to figure out how to make the circuit adapt to the
cores changes and/or somehow keep the inner core at a stable temperature.

My final comment on the MEG is that presently I see no way of capture
such Magnetic entropy from ferrite cores. In a nutshell, such ferrite
cores are made of powdered iron. A bonding material separates the iron
particles. Therefore, with no applied field, each iron particle will
be appreciably saturated due to strong domains. Furthermore, a
saturated core would actually have *less* B-field magnetic entropy due
to the iron particle separations as caused by the bonding material.
Perhaps an intensely longitudinally annealed ferrite core could work.
Regardless, it's difficult to beat nanocrystalline and amorphous cores
that have permeability over 500000, especially if they are
longitudinally annealed! :-)


Regards,
Paul Lowrance






--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, Kent Andersen <sci@...> wrote:
>
> well I think you could use a smaller secondary coil on it. Most of these
> guys go for big voltage
> because they get the idea that big voltage = big power.
> you might try youtube.com they sometimes have these videos pirated
there.
> Bearden is selling the video on his website here.
> http://www.cheniere.org/sales/buy-e1.htm
>
> he has completely moved away from his theories of phase conjugation
> (junk science stuff)
> to more practical theories that everyone else in the scientific
> community is using.
> I would surely check out that video if you can before you go out
> spending big wads of cash
> do your research as it is known that the patents do not contain all of
> the information required
> to reproduce what it is claimed to do.
> some other data you might want to look at is here if you have not
already
> http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm
>
> I recently purchased 2 of the metglass C cores AMCC500 which I am going
> to use in some experiments
> with ferro magnetic resonance. they were 179.00 per pair..  so if you
> decide to build a meg prepare
> to go for a ride.
>
> Hope that helps
>
> Kent
>
> lichtrov wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for the response. I'm thinking about load matching also.
> >
> > Where the video, you're talking about, can be downloaded from?
> >
> > And one more question: does anybody have an idea why such a huge
> > secondary voltage is required (TB in the patent claims that it can be
> > lowered with smaller secondary windings, but I didn't see anything
> > done with low secondary voltage)?
> >
> > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MEG_builders%40yahoogroups.com>, Kent Andersen <sci@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds like you have done quite a bit of homework. This seems to be
> > a
> > > typical result from MEG builders
> > > In a video that I watched where bearden goes into detail on the
> > MEG's
> > > operation it is more of a L/C
> > > type of circuit. from what he said in that video the input waveform
> > is
> > > like /`\ ramp up and ramp down.
> > > as you can tell there are some sweet spots between pulse width and
> > > frequency of the drive signal.
> > > since its a L/C circuit you must design a load match transformer
> > that
> > > will allow you to pull power out of it.
> > > simply putting a resistive load across the output will detune the
> > > circuit and throw it out of its "balance"
> > > I have not done this myself yet as I have been short on time but
> > that is
> > > my next step to design a, more or
> > > less a balun or unun to decouple the meg from the effects of the
> > load.
> > >
> > > (Kent)
> > >
> > > lichtrov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all!
> > > >
> > > > I'm an EE and was intriqued by MEG because of simple circuitry
> > > > required to operate. I've built my own replication of the MEG -
> > also
> > > > unsuccessfully (I mean I didn't obtain COP > 1). In my controller
> > I
> > > > can independently change both frequency and duty cycle of the gate
> > > > driving voltage. My MEG has taps on both primary and secondary
> > > > windings and I can play with turns ratio. While working without
> > load,
> > > > I obtained output voltage with close to sine waveform and
> > amplitudes
> > > > around reported by Bearden and Naudin. However, after loading the
> > > > output (even lightly with 100kOhm resistor), output voltage
> > decreases
> > > > significantly to a few volts.
> > > >
> > > > It's pretty hard to debug the device since I don't understand how
> > it
> > > > should work. I started to dig into Berden's patent and I have a
> > > > question: does anybody have an idea how Bearden measured the
> > current
> > > > in both primary (Fig 6D) and secondary (Figs 6G,H)?
> > > >
> > > > The question arised because the primary current he described has
> > > > extremely small duty cycle - around 1 microsecond for both rise
> > and
> > > > fall. It supposes duty cycle with around 500 nanoseconds of active
> > > > driving voltage - nothing comparable can be seen in Figs 6A,B.
> > Also I
> > > > tried to build high side current measurement circuit and (even
> > with
> > > > most recent chips!) it has around 500kHz bandwidth and cannot
> > provide
> > > > such a sharp waveform. Thus I presume that Tom measured a voltage
> > on
> > > > a small low side resistor. The voltage produced by such
> > measurement
> > > > can have short spikes as presented in Fig 6D because of capacitive
> > > > coupling from adjacent circuitry and even from the ground ripple
> > > > itself.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Wow Paul!

Very good research! I am very impressed with what you have presented here.
I might add that that one way to get them to dynamically change
resonance is to
PL or phase lock it, the input frequency would have to be determined by
the output frequency.
whereas you would tap a certain amount of power from the output coil to
directly drive the input coil
it should find its resonance and "lock" in on maximum output. of course
there are some factors that
must be addressed and that would have to be a circuit that would
automatically adjust phase delay for
the hysterisys curve of not only the metglass core but the permanant
magnet field that is in the core.
these numbers would obviously vary from each meg.  This is about the
only method I can see to
make it so that the temperature problems could be compensated.


softwarelabus wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> At this very moment you can purchase the Metglas AMCC 320 cores for
> $110 from http://elnamagnetics.com <http://elnamagnetics.com>
>
> There's some very important information MEG researchers should know
> about. I spoke with the engineer at Metglas and he said it's difficult
> to couple the two U-shaped cut cores together tight enough to achieve
> the materials exceptionally high permeability and coercivity. In fact,
> the Metglas engineer said his test, which consisted of taping two
> pressed cores together, resulted in a completely flat BH-curve with
> relatively low permeability. I'm not certain how much pressure one
> needs to apply on the core halves, but one should be very cautious as
> such nanocrystalline and amorphous material is brittle. My suggestion
> is to rub the two cores together thereby creating some micro powder to
> fill in any gaps, and then press the two cores together. To verify the
> two cores are correctly coupled you could apply two static AC signals.
> One signal would be strong low frequency, no higher than 1 Hz. The
> other will be a weak higher frequency signal of a few KHz's. It's
> important the KHz signals peak to peak current remain relatively
> constant. To achieve this you could place a high resistance resistor
> in series with the KHz signal so it's peak to peak current does not
> change much as the 1 Hz signal changes. The 1 Hz signal peak must be
> high enough to saturate the core. Next, view the induced voltage on a
> secondary coil. If the two cores are correctly coupled then the KHz
> signal should mostly be low in amplitude along with a blip high in
> amplitude. On the other hand, an improperly coupled core should
> result in a flat KHz signal with no blip.
>
> Also you'll want to store such cores stored in a desiccator-- low
> humidity environment. Believe it or not, cheap cat litter that
> contains silica gel works great. You'll want to microwave the cat
> litter to expel the absorbed moisture. Once it cools then place it in
> a seal tight bag or container along with the nanocrystalline core.
> This will prevent the core from oxidizing.
>
> I learned some very concerning information from the Metglas engineer.
> The AMCC cores are not longitudinally annealed, but no-field annealed.
> I don't know if they were ever longitudinally annealed, but this was a
> shocker since my computer simulations (based on conventional physics)
> shows the "free energy" comes from a coil robbing Magnetic entropy
> away from Lattice entropy, which occurs when the core goes to
> saturation. Present simulations indicate longitudinally annealed cores
> have appreciable magnetic entropy, and non-annealed cores have
> significantly less magnetic entropy, and transversely annealed cores
> have negative entropy when such material is saturated. Actually
> simulations show transversely annealed cores behave erratically
> depending on various situations. Note that two U-shaped cores not
> properly coupled perform just like a transversely annealed core. This
> gap effect is seen in simulations due to the micro gaps between the
> cut core.
>
> In a nutshell, it's very important to verify your cut AMCC core is
> properly coupled and exhibits the materials natural exceptionally high
> permeability and coercivity. According to simulations the high
> coercivity is very important in achieving magnetic entropy.
>
> Here's an outline of what the simulation software reveals. With no
> applied field the magnetic dipole moments on such material on average
> are appreciably unaligned because the longitudinally annealing
> discourages domain structure-- lower order, higher magnetic entropy.
> When the core is saturated the magnetic moments are aligned-- high
> order, low magnetic entropy. Normally when magnetic entropy decreases
> there's an increase in lattice entropy. Meaning, magnetic entropy is
> converted to heat. This is a well-understood process known as MCE
> (Magnetocaloric effect). MCE is difficult to notice in typical
> magnetic materials at room temp because the domains are mostly
> saturated with no applied field; i.e., low magnetic entropy. When the
> material is above Curie temp the magnetic moments are in disorder, the
> domains are destroyed; i.e., high magnetic entropy. The problem is
> such materials have hardly any permeability above Curie. Although,
> Superparamagnetic materials have high magnetic entropy well below
> Curie. According to simulations, such material with exceptionally
> high permeability require extraordinarily small amount of energy from
> the coil used as a catalyst to convert magnetic entropy to lattice
> entropy (heat). Last year I witnessed MCE in a Metglas transversely
> annealed core, but at the time I couldn't figure out why the effect
> was so erratic, and even reverse some times. Actually I asked Metglas
> for a longitudinally annealed core, but oddly enough they sent me the
> worst type of core for "free energy," a transversely annealed core.
> Recently, after discovering this, I bought some Metglas MAGAMP cores,
> which are uncut longitudinally annealed 2714A core material. I'm still
> in the process of measuring MCE at room temperature in such cores, but
> so far it appears they definitely exhibit appreciable MCE at room
> temperature. :-)
>
> How to capture such magnetic entropy away from lattice entropy is
> another story. What occurs is electrons flip, which generates a pulse,
> emits photons. The flip rate depends on the type of atoms, lattice,
> and material electrical resistance. Such Metglas cores have low
> electrical resistance, which can significantly slow down the flip rate
> due to eddy currents. Note that 18 micro tape wound cores reduce macro
> eddy currents, but not nano scale eddy currents around the atomic
> flip. Ideally the coil would collect a percentage of the pulse,
> magnetic entropy. So now the core is saturated-- align magnetic
> moments, low magnetic entropy. According to standard physics it
> requires energy to break such magnetic alignments. Temperature
> (vibrating atoms) breaks such magnetic bonds, which is why such
> magnetic materials cool down when the applied field is removed-- the
> later half of MCE. Therefore, the coil captures energy that is
> normally converted to lattice entropy. When the field is removed the
> material cools slightly more than it stated.
>
> The end results are a device that moves ambient energy at the output,
> which cools the core. Recent simulations are showing the core domain
> structure can abruptly change when this occurs. If true, then it would
> require a machine that adapts and re-tunes itself continuously and
> dynamically. That could explain why Naudin had trouble closing the
> loop. There seems to be controversy what Naudin failed. All I know is
> that a person who lives in France, was in direct contact with Naudin,
> and claimed that Naudin did indeed closed the loop, but the MEG would
> run for a very brief time. He said Naudin could not figure it out. If
> Naudin was capturing ambient energy from the core, then it's my
> opinion that such a device is finely tuned and highly balanced, and a
> slight change in core temperature would cause significant domain
> structure. I think the Metglas MEG is legitimate, but someone needs to
> spend the time to figure out how to make the circuit adapt to the
> cores changes and/or somehow keep the inner core at a stable temperature.
>
> My final comment on the MEG is that presently I see no way of capture
> such Magnetic entropy from ferrite cores. In a nutshell, such ferrite
> cores are made of powdered iron. A bonding material separates the iron
> particles. Therefore, with no applied field, each iron particle will
> be appreciably saturated due to strong domains. Furthermore, a
> saturated core would actually have *less* B-field magnetic entropy due
> to the iron particle separations as caused by the bonding material.
> Perhaps an intensely longitudinally annealed ferrite core could work.
> Regardless, it's difficult to beat nanocrystalline and amorphous cores
> that have permeability over 500000, especially if they are
> longitudinally annealed! :-)
>
> Regards,
> Paul Lowrance
>
> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MEG_builders%40yahoogroups.com>, Kent Andersen <sci@...> wrote:
> >
> > well I think you could use a smaller secondary coil on it. Most of these
> > guys go for big voltage
> > because they get the idea that big voltage = big power.
> > you might try youtube.com they sometimes have these videos pirated
> there.
> > Bearden is selling the video on his website here.
> > http://www.cheniere.org/sales/buy-e1.htm
> <http://www.cheniere.org/sales/buy-e1.htm>
> >
> > he has completely moved away from his theories of phase conjugation
> > (junk science stuff)
> > to more practical theories that everyone else in the scientific
> > community is using.
> > I would surely check out that video if you can before you go out
> > spending big wads of cash
> > do your research as it is known that the patents do not contain all of
> > the information required
> > to reproduce what it is claimed to do.
> > some other data you might want to look at is here if you have not
> already
> > http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm <http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm>
> >
> > I recently purchased 2 of the metglass C cores AMCC500 which I am going
> > to use in some experiments
> > with ferro magnetic resonance. they were 179.00 per pair.. so if you
> > decide to build a meg prepare
> > to go for a ride.
> >
> > Hope that helps
> >
> > Kent
> >
> > lichtrov wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for the response. I'm thinking about load matching also.
> > >
> > > Where the video, you're talking about, can be downloaded from?
> > >
> > > And one more question: does anybody have an idea why such a huge
> > > secondary voltage is required (TB in the patent claims that it can be
> > > lowered with smaller secondary windings, but I didn't see anything
> > > done with low secondary voltage)?
> > >
> > > --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MEG_builders%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:MEG_builders%40yahoogroups.com>, Kent Andersen <sci@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like you have done quite a bit of homework. This seems to be
> > > a
> > > > typical result from MEG builders
> > > > In a video that I watched where bearden goes into detail on the
> > > MEG's
> > > > operation it is more of a L/C
> > > > type of circuit. from what he said in that video the input waveform
> > > is
> > > > like /`\ ramp up and ramp down.
> > > > as you can tell there are some sweet spots between pulse width and
> > > > frequency of the drive signal.
> > > > since its a L/C circuit you must design a load match transformer
> > > that
> > > > will allow you to pull power out of it.
> > > > simply putting a resistive load across the output will detune the
> > > > circuit and throw it out of its "balance"
> > > > I have not done this myself yet as I have been short on time but
> > > that is
> > > > my next step to design a, more or
> > > > less a balun or unun to decouple the meg from the effects of the
> > > load.
> > > >
> > > > (Kent)
> > > >
> > > > lichtrov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all!
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm an EE and was intriqued by MEG because of simple circuitry
> > > > > required to operate. I've built my own replication of the MEG -
> > > also
> > > > > unsuccessfully (I mean I didn't obtain COP > 1). In my controller
> > > I
> > > > > can independently change both frequency and duty cycle of the gate
> > > > > driving voltage. My MEG has taps on both primary and secondary
> > > > > windings and I can play with turns ratio. While working without
> > > load,
> > > > > I obtained output voltage with close to sine waveform and
> > > amplitudes
> > > > > around reported by Bearden and Naudin. However, after loading the
> > > > > output (even lightly with 100kOhm resistor), output voltage
> > > decreases
> > > > > significantly to a few volts.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's pretty hard to debug the device since I don't understand how
> > > it
> > > > > should work. I started to dig into Berden's patent and I have a
> > > > > question: does anybody have an idea how Bearden measured the
> > > current
> > > > > in both primary (Fig 6D) and secondary (Figs 6G,H)?
> > > > >
> > > > > The question arised because the primary current he described has
> > > > > extremely small duty cycle - around 1 microsecond for both rise
> > > and
> > > > > fall. It supposes duty cycle with around 500 nanoseconds of active
> > > > > driving voltage - nothing comparable can be seen in Figs 6A,B.
> > > Also I
> > > > > tried to build high side current measurement circuit and (even
> > > with
> > > > > most recent chips!) it has around 500kHz bandwidth and cannot
> > > provide
> > > > > such a sharp waveform. Thus I presume that Tom measured a voltage
> > > on
> > > > > a small low side resistor. The voltage produced by such
> > > measurement
> > > > > can have short spikes as presented in Fig 6D because of capacitive
> > > > > coupling from adjacent circuitry and even from the ground ripple
> > > > > itself.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Hi
      I wanted to give you some of the results of my MEG replication and the
current state of
my ongoing investigation.
      Some initial notes:
      1.  The MEG should not be viewed as a transformer. Doing so will just
confuse what the
system is designed to accomplish.
      2.   The usual output of a transformer with a magnet placed as it is in the
MEG is that
of a biased transformer. Most likely, your output waves were not symetrically
sinusoidal
but skewed to either the leading edge or the trailing edge of the sine curve.
This skewing
is due to the magnet's flux direction. This apparently happens at most
frequencies except
for a few near the resonant frequency or harmonics thereof.
If you change the load, as you observed,  the resonant frequency changes. Then
the MEG
becomes inefficient with a common underunity output. Dr. Bearden describes the
MEG as
"Highly non-linear" and one can surmise why with all the variables changing by
the
nanosecond.
      3. I prefer to think of the MEG core as a dual flux pathway for the magnet
with the
control coils acting as flux switches. The unfortunate result of the MEG as
described in the
patent is that the flux from the input coils does not remain locally and change
the
permeability of the core in that small area of the core near the input coils.
Instead, the B
field traverses the entire circuit of the core and mixes with the magnet's flux.
And, just to
recap, the resonant frequency depends on load variance, winding quality, circuit
Q,
strength of the magnet, permeability of the core, slew rate of the core and God
knows
what else.
We believe we have stumbled upon an answer to this problem and sometime in late
June
or July we will be testing a MEG core with radically new input architecture.
As soon as this metalurgic process has a provisional patent status, I will
publish the "how
to" to this group. We hope new MEG consturction will produce a linear device
capable of
determining output based on the usual formulaic components: frequency, core
area, core
permeability, amount of dynamic flux and number of windings.

Wish us luck!

Norm

Hi all!

I recently discovered one Bulgarian experimenter that built MEG like
device with COP > 1. His Website is here: www.inkomp-delta.com. The
site is in Bulgarian, so I asked him and he uploaded one page in
English (http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page9.html).

Valeri generously agreed to answer my questions and we talked for a
few hours. There are 2 conclusions that I got from this conversation,
and I want to share them with you guys:

1. Valeri claims that magnetic flux from control coil and output coil
should be separated. He claims that the structure presented in TB
patent (with mutual flux for both coils) cannot work. He worked
around this problem by inserting additional toroidal core inside the
main core. The control coil is winded on the additional core but its
flux does not go to the output coil.

2. He also claims that capacitor is absolutely necessary to be
connected to the output coil to obtain resonance. It also makes TB's
patent claims about zero phase difference between output coil voltage
and current somewhat suspicious.

There were also other interesting points like:

3. He said that nanocrystalline material is not absolutely necessary
for the effect to be observed. Such materials can improve efficiency,
but nothing unique happens inside the core. For example, one of his
prototypes with measurements published on the Website
(http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page6.html) works at 50Hz (!!!) with
regular transformer steel core and exhibits COP up to 5.4.

4. He also proposed a few constructions for his ideas in his patent
application (http://inkomp-delta.com/page4.html). It's also in
Bulgarian, but all schematic figures are in couples. The first
presents a state without current in control coil, the second presents
a state with current in control coil. Permanent magnet flux is in
blue. Control coil flux is in red.

I hope the above points will help somebody. At least for me it
changed a lot.

Hi lichtrov and all

here is the proper English URL-http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page8.html

Regards
ashtweth

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "lichtrov" <lichtrov@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all!
>
> I recently discovered one Bulgarian experimenter that built MEG like
> device with COP > 1. His Website is here: www.inkomp-delta.com. The
> site is in Bulgarian, so I asked him and he uploaded one page in
> English (http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page9.html).
>
> Valeri generously agreed to answer my questions and we talked for a
> few hours. There are 2 conclusions that I got from this conversation,
> and I want to share them with you guys:
>
> 1. Valeri claims that magnetic flux from control coil and output coil
> should be separated. He claims that the structure presented in TB
> patent (with mutual flux for both coils) cannot work. He worked
> around this problem by inserting additional toroidal core inside the
> main core. The control coil is winded on the additional core but its
> flux does not go to the output coil.
>
> 2. He also claims that capacitor is absolutely necessary to be
> connected to the output coil to obtain resonance. It also makes TB's
> patent claims about zero phase difference between output coil voltage
> and current somewhat suspicious.
>
> There were also other interesting points like:
>
> 3. He said that nanocrystalline material is not absolutely necessary
> for the effect to be observed. Such materials can improve efficiency,
> but nothing unique happens inside the core. For example, one of his
> prototypes with measurements published on the Website
> (http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page6.html) works at 50Hz (!!!) with
> regular transformer steel core and exhibits COP up to 5.4.
>
> 4. He also proposed a few constructions for his ideas in his patent
> application (http://inkomp-delta.com/page4.html). It's also in
> Bulgarian, but all schematic figures are in couples. The first
> presents a state without current in control coil, the second presents
> a state with current in control coil. Permanent magnet flux is in
> blue. Control coil flux is in red.
>
> I hope the above points will help somebody. At least for me it
> changed a lot.
>

Strange it seems he must have changed his web page , here is now
English link, the other link i posted used to be in english.

http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page6.html

regards
ashtweth

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "ashtweth_nihilistic"
<ashtweth@...> wrote:
>
> Hi lichtrov and all
>
> here is the proper English URL-http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page8.html
>
> Regards
> ashtweth
>
> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "lichtrov" <lichtrov@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I recently discovered one Bulgarian experimenter that built MEG like
> > device with COP > 1. His Website is here: www.inkomp-delta.com. The
> > site is in Bulgarian, so I asked him and he uploaded one page in
> > English (http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page9.html).
> >
> > Valeri generously agreed to answer my questions and we talked for a
> > few hours. There are 2 conclusions that I got from this conversation,
> > and I want to share them with you guys:
> >
> > 1. Valeri claims that magnetic flux from control coil and output coil
> > should be separated. He claims that the structure presented in TB
> > patent (with mutual flux for both coils) cannot work. He worked
> > around this problem by inserting additional toroidal core inside the
> > main core. The control coil is winded on the additional core but its
> > flux does not go to the output coil.
> >
> > 2. He also claims that capacitor is absolutely necessary to be
> > connected to the output coil to obtain resonance. It also makes TB's
> > patent claims about zero phase difference between output coil voltage
> > and current somewhat suspicious.
> >
> > There were also other interesting points like:
> >
> > 3. He said that nanocrystalline material is not absolutely necessary
> > for the effect to be observed. Such materials can improve efficiency,
> > but nothing unique happens inside the core. For example, one of his
> > prototypes with measurements published on the Website
> > (http://www.inkomp-delta.com/page6.html) works at 50Hz (!!!) with
> > regular transformer steel core and exhibits COP up to 5.4.
> >
> > 4. He also proposed a few constructions for his ideas in his patent
> > application (http://inkomp-delta.com/page4.html). It's also in
> > Bulgarian, but all schematic figures are in couples. The first
> > presents a state without current in control coil, the second presents
> > a state with current in control coil. Permanent magnet flux is in
> > blue. Control coil flux is in red.
> >
> > I hope the above points will help somebody. At least for me it
> > changed a lot.
> >
>

Hi All,
I'm new group member. I have university education of radio electronics.
Some days ago I made MEG Bearden's style. I use Metglas AMCC 1000 core
and permanent magnet NdFeB with B=1,3T. Now this MEG works like normal
transformer, with bias made by permanent magnet, and COP<1.
I would like to ask, has somebody working example with COP>1, and works
this device real without external power source after starting?
Best Regards,
Sigitas.
_______________________________________________________________________
Sigitas,
This is an add-on note to your message by me, one of the moderators for the
group.  I certainly hope that you get some replies from members who have COP>1
machines.  However I would like to let members know that if they submit messages
to this group about machines that aren't documented and are just rumors, there
is a good chance that such submissions won't be approved. Remember this site is
about sharing the results of experiments and/or helping a experimenter that is
currently building a MEG on this site and is strongly focused on this. Those
people who have info about rumored undocumented MEGs may want to email their
info directly to Sigitas.

Sigitas ... I hope that someday you will share with us the results of your
experiments and even your MEG schematic and other drawings.  The best place to
do this at this site is at the FILES area.

Best regards,
Stan Mayer Co-moderator for MEG_builders.

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, Vincent J Cataldi <vincent.cataldi@...>
wrote:
>
> I found: Permanent magnet flip-flop: with possible with half gainer
> Searching for reversal: need to understand the cause - please help if you
> can
.... Snip .....
> Vince

  NOTE FROM MODERATOR
     Many of you may wonder why this message was approved for posting to MEG
Builders when it is off topic.  I approved it because the principle that Vince
has discovered has the POTENTIAL for energy generation from a MOTIONLESS
concept.  Submissions in regards to this posting should be along the lines of
explaining why the polarity switching is occuring.

Best regards,
Stan Mayer
Co-Moderator for MEG Builders

Vincent,

I did some experiments with the "SMOT" magnetic ramp many years back and it
called for very long and thin magnets. I was able to forcefully  tape together
smaller magnets to increase the width of the north and south poles so they would
push a steel ball up a ramp.

When you take 2 magnets and align them (NS-NS -> NS) the magnetic fields of the
smaller magnets will merge to produce a single magnetic field.

You have observed the reverse effect where a large magnet is split into 2
smaller magnets (NS -> NS-NS). Pulling the magnets apart takes force and so
energy is required to construct the extra pair of poles.

Personally, I think some people may have produced a working MEG but they did not
understand why it worked and Bearden failed to give a simple and valid
explanation.

I believe that what they missed was a phenomenon resulting from magnetostricion
and the resulting interaction of positive charges within the ferrite atoms. When
you combine this phenomenon with LC resonance you get ferrorresonance. For more
information you can check out this white paper on my blog.

http://semresearch.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/ferroresonance3.pdf

Chad.

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, Vincent J Cataldi <vincent.cataldi@...>
wrote:
>
> I found: Permanent magnet flip-flop: with possible with half gainer
> Searching for reversal: need to understand the cause - please help if you
> can
>
> I have stumbled into a curious phenomena that I suspect may glean insight
> into magnet behavior which can be tapped to cause a usable and novel
> approach to an instant change induced through a coil without the need for a
> spark gap or use of electronics which will be useless under the duress of an
> EMP from or own SUN or someones weapon.
>
> I have no idea what the heck is happening, and I need a way to undo it; so I
> need to get an answer as to what the Heck is happening before I can hope to
> reverse to back; and then cycle the process physically or virtually.
>
> Problem is that I can find nothing about this in any reading so far, nor
> through any experts - I am surprised that I can not find anyone who knows
> this happens - but Test away - it is easy to prove this curious behavior of
> magnets.
>
> Take a bar magnet - position so North is Up and South is Down.  Now use an
> anvil, hammer, and a chisel to gently snap the magnet in half.  (works using
> a thin magnet and snapping with fingers gently too) The result is a shock to
> me:
>
> At the center (of the upper piece which was north at the top) - at the break
> - the north field jumps (instantly?) to the center and so the top of the
> upper half is now flipped south - it flipped. It may have flipped
> instantly.
>
> The bottom half does the same thing in reverse: the south jumps to the
> center (top of new lower piece) and the bottom most edge which was a south
> field, is now a north field.  I suspect a pair of pickup coils will catch an
> instantly induced pules from this Physical event.
>
> I think in my last test, breaking a magnet in half showed a top (upper side)
> to bottom (east to west perhaps) flip-flop too; but not sure.  This is the
> half gainer I refer to - but is is confusing and I want to share and ask for
> cooperation before asking Tom Bearden or PJK (as in PJKBook.pdf) for help,
> and before I run out of big magnets to split in half.
>
> My next test is to eliminate all sudden blows to the magnet, and slowly cut
> the magnet in half - when will it flip?  ... at the center as I cut down
> through through it, or 3/4 through, or at the instant the last piece is
> severed?
>
> What about half way cut down, and then half way perpendicular to the first
> cut resulting in a -1./2 and -1/4 = 1/4 the original bar.  Or, what about a
> hole drilled in and through the center, and increasing the hole until the
> smallest possible four filaments remain to hold the original physically
> intact.  Then, if not yet flipped, sever two opposite corners and leave the
> other two, then another corner.  When and why does it flip and can this
> property be reversed virtually and be made to do so repeatedly?
>
> Has any one ever played with this concept to know what the effect would be
> inside an induction pickup coil.  The ability to reverse this process
> physically is unlikely, but a virtual sever and a virtual weld might be
> possible using soft iron and electromagnets.
>
> Sorry if this is well explored and discussed - I am new to group - but well
> motivated.
> Help if you can - Thank for any comments.
>
> Vince
>
> NOTE FROM MODERATOR
>    Many of you may wonder why this message was approved for posting to MEG
Builders when it is off topic.  I approved it because the principle that Vince
has discovered has the POTENTIAL for energy generation from a MOTIONLESS
concept.  Submissions in regards to this posting should be along the lines of
explaining why the polarity switching is occuring.
>
> Best regards,
> Stan Mayer
> Co-Moderator for MEG Builders
>

Hi Vince,

Could you describe your setup a bit more, I have the impression that:

Your anvile is ferromagnetic (as opposed to say a brick)?
Your magnets dimensions Length >> Width >> Thickness?
Your magnets are polarised through the tickness?

What is the magnetic material and how might it have been manufactured
(consider any annealing)?
Are both halves flipping?


As you would know, permanent magnets can be induced to flip polarities
along their axis (or around a number of axis in some materials).  As i
see it, the mechanical shock of the chisel (or snap) would provide
enough of this force. If this is the case then impacting the magnet
halves back together with enough force may again flip their
polarities.

It might be worth studying up on what might be happening at domain or
atomic level but I don't know much to help there.

Cheers
Ragman





2009/3/11 Vincent J Cataldi <vincent.cataldi@...>:
> I found: Permanent magnet flip-flop: with possible with half gainer
> Searching for reversal: need to understand the cause - please help if you
> can
> I have stumbled into a curious phenomena that I suspect may glean insight
> into magnet behavior which can be tapped to cause a usable and novel
> approach to an instant change induced through a coil without the need for a
> spark gap or use of electronics which will be useless under the duress of an
> EMP from or own SUN or someones weapon.
> I have no idea what the heck is happening, and I need a way to undo it; so I
> need to get an answer as to what the Heck is happening before I can hope to
> reverse to back; and then cycle the process physically or virtually.
> Problem is that I can find nothing about this in any reading so far, nor
> through any experts - I am surprised that I can not find anyone who knows
> this happens - but Test away - it is easy to prove this curious behavior of
> magnets.
> Take a bar magnet - position so North is Up and South is Down.  Now use an
> anvil, hammer, and a chisel to gently snap the magnet in half.  (works using
> a thin magnet and snapping with fingers gently too) The result is a shock to
> me:
> At the center (of the upper piece which was north at the top) - at the break
> - the north field jumps (instantly?) to the center and so the top of the
> upper half is now flipped south - it flipped. It may have flipped
> instantly.
> The bottom half does the same thing in reverse: the south jumps to the
> center (top of new lower piece) and the bottom most edge which was a south
> field, is now a north field.  I suspect a pair of pickup coils will catch an
> instantly induced pules from this Physical event.
> I think in my last test, breaking a magnet in half showed a top (upper side)
> to bottom (east to west perhaps) flip-flop too; but not sure.  This is the
> half gainer I refer to - but is is confusing and I want to share and ask for
> cooperation before asking Tom Bearden or PJK (as in PJKBook.pdf) for help,
> and before I run out of big magnets to split in half.
> My next test is to eliminate all sudden blows to the magnet, and slowly cut
> the magnet in half - when will it flip?  ... at the center as I cut down
> through through it, or 3/4 through, or at the instant the last piece is
> severed?
> What about half way cut down, and then half way perpendicular to the first
> cut resulting in a -1./2 and -1/4 = 1/4 the original bar.  Or, what about a
> hole drilled in and through the center, and increasing the hole until the
> smallest possible four filaments remain to hold the original physically
> intact.  Then, if not yet flipped, sever two opposite corners and leave the
> other two, then another corner.  When and why does it flip and can this
> property be reversed virtually and be made to do so repeatedly?
> Has any one ever played with this concept to know what the effect would be
> inside an induction pickup coil.  The ability to reverse this process
> physically is unlikely, but a virtual sever and a virtual weld might be
> possible using soft iron and electromagnets.
> Sorry if this is well explored and discussed - I am new to group - but well
> motivated.
> Help if you can - Thank for any comments.
>
> Vince
>

It is my belief that a magnetic field is effectively a moving mass, involving
constant rotation of the ether from one pole to the other.

So, these are my thoughts and propositions...

In its natural (complete) state the magnet exhibits constant field motion with
the most intense point of field focus at its ends. The centre of the magnet
however can be observed as at equilibrium or, in other words, of zero field
intensity in exact middle of the unbroken rod.

Unlike breaking two separate magnets apart, breaking a single magnet however has
about the most violent effect on the molecular bonds (and associated fields)
that you could induce. At the instant of the break there is a very sudden and an
immediate imbalance in each of the two pieces of the magnet. As the square law
applies to distance and intensity, it can be appreciated just how violent an
effect this would have when imbalancing the field in a magnet at molecular
level.

As the field is most concentrated along the axis of the core material, the
'flux' within the core itself will immediately try to regain equilibrium within
each piece - effectively creating a "rush" of flux from what was the outer pole
to what was the null zone of the unbroken magnet.

The net effect therefore being to switch the polarity as, where before there was
an observable EXTERNAL North-South flow, there is now an INTERNAL North-Null
flow, overcoming the inertia of ether spin and thereby reversing the external
(observable) field.

I'm not at-all confident that this effect could be induced by pulsed coils and
such as the speed by which a coil might be able to distort the natural flow
within a magnet would be many orders of magnitude  less than the speed at which
molecular bonds are broken when the magnet is physically snapped. I could be
wrong of-course as this is conjecture in uncharted territory, though an applied
field of sufficient intensity may simply mean the the magnet is re-magnetised in
the traditional sense.

It is also my guess that the magnet polarity will not flip if gradually cut
through as it would be possible for the magnetic field to equalise gradually -
with rotational inertia maintained by ether spin throughout. However, it is also
my guess that if the magnet were cut to something less than half its full
(magnetic) width and then snapped, only then might there be sufficient field
imbalance along the centre axis to overcome rotational ether inertia and bring
about a switch in polarity in each piece.


I'll be watching this topic for further experimental results to see if my
proposal is supported by experimentation.

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, Vincent J Cataldi <vincent.cataldi@...>
wrote:
>
> I found: Permanent magnet flip-flop: with possible with half gainer
> Searching for reversal: need to understand the cause - please help if you can
..... SNIP ......
> Vince

Vince,
      Your posting has gotten a lot of potential answers to your question about
magnet reversal and I hope that you find your answer within them.  I encourage
you to followup to the answers ... and questions ... provided in the recent
emails via PERSONAL EMAILS rather than postings to this site as your subject is
a bit off topic.

Here's wishing you luck with experiments with breaking magnets!

Stan Mayer - Co-moderator for MEG_Builders

US Patent # 5,221,892 discloses a permanent magnet
generator which incorporates solid state flux control valves
and a rotating field across inductive elements which are
orthogonally displaced in such a manner as to negate the hysterisis
effects normally associated with expanding/contracting fields
across inductive elements.
Any comments by group members with respect to this patent would be appreciated.
The link below will provide the complete text and drawings for this patent.

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5221892

Considering that no one seems to be able to get any O/U from the MEG, maybe we
should try to redesign it a bit. Bearden talked about barium in BaFe magnets
having some special property that makes it easier to extract free energy from,
so why not try barium ferrite cores in the MEG?

Here's what Bearden said about the magnet in the Sweet-VTA:

"Contrary to your disinformation, the magnets were indeed barium ferrite magnets
-- the old audio kind which were quite common in surplus shops at the time.
Again, ask John Bedini.

And for your information, I personally took a Sweet-activated barium ferrite
magnet, placed a shim stock on it, and watched the shim stock oscillate
continuously to and fro for an hour, fanning air and doing free work all the
time. I then locked the self-oscillating magnet and its waving shim stock fan
load) in a safe, and took the key with me. 24 hours later, when I reopened the
safe, there sat the magnet with its shim stock still waving and fanning air and
doing free work. "

Jaro

*********************************************************************
Note from the moderator,

Jaro,

Interesting idea.  Would you be inclined to build a MEG using Sweet Activated
barium-ferrite magnets?  If so, we here at MEG_Builders would certainly be
interested in the results of your experiments because that's what this site is
about ... EXPERIMENTING.

Best regards,
Stan Mayer

Keep in mind that many of the original MEG experiments used materials
like metglass OR orthonol that have a nearly othogonal hysterisis curve.

These materials are very different and have much less losses then a
material like barium ferrite that is designed for permanent magnets.
Floyd did mention that his device required barium ferrite but it relied
on induction at 90 degrees to the B field which is not supposed to
happen.

I am currently researching back-emf and capacitive reflections from
transformer cores made of various materials. I am also studying the
audible vibrations resulting from the magnetostriction. While studying a
typical ferrite core in a half bridge circuit I see a high voltage spike
that is supposedly the result of "parasitic capacitance" but I am not so
sure. The spike on a current loop only shows up if there is high
impedance in the loop. If you draw too much current the spike disappears
but only in the low impedance loop.

This stuff is basic and I am not yet sure if this is significant but if
the claims of Bearden, Sweet, and others have validity then we need to
pay closer attention the interaction of H and B fields.  So far nobody
has been able to develop a mathematical description of what is going on.

Chad.


--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "starraider25" <jaro@...> wrote:
>
> Considering that no one seems to be able to get any O/U from the MEG,
maybe we should try to redesign it a bit. Bearden talked about barium in
BaFe magnets having some special property that makes it easier to
extract free energy from, so why not try barium ferrite cores in the
MEG?
>
> Here's what Bearden said about the magnet in the Sweet-VTA:
>
> "Contrary to your disinformation, the magnets were indeed barium
ferrite magnets -- the old audio kind which were quite common in surplus
shops at the time. Again, ask John Bedini.
>
> And for your information, I personally took a Sweet-activated barium
ferrite magnet, placed a shim stock on it, and watched the shim stock
oscillate continuously to and fro for an hour, fanning air and doing
free work all the time. I then locked the self-oscillating magnet and
its waving shim stock fan load) in a safe, and took the key with me. 24
hours later, when I reopened the safe, there sat the magnet with its
shim stock still waving and fanning air and doing free work. "
>
> Jaro
>
> *********************************************************************
> Note from the moderator,
>
> Jaro,
>
> Interesting idea. Would you be inclined to build a MEG using Sweet
Activated barium-ferrite magnets? If so, we here at MEG_Builders would
certainly be interested in the results of your experiments because
that's what this site is about ... EXPERIMENTING.
>
> Best regards,
> Stan Mayer
>

***** PREFACE BY GROUP MODERATOR *******

I am approving this posting with some trepidation that it might spur a round of
THEORY discussion.  What's the problem with that?  Simple.  This site is about
BUILDING MEG type devices and discussing the results of experiments with them
NOT ABOUT DISCUSSING THEORY.  Since Leskraut is a new member, I'm making an
exception for this posting.

Regards,
Stan Mayer Co-moderator for MEG_ Builders.

P.S. Just FYI ... having been a MEG Builder and moderator for this site for many
many years and having watched it fail to fulfill its purpose of being a place
for people to share the results of their experiments, I AM VERY VERY CLOSE TO
SHUTTING THE SITE DOWN.

May I suggest to those of you who have recently done some MEG experimenting that
you report your results now, placing your photos and drawings in the PHOTOS
section of this site.

*********************************************************

Thank you for letting me join in as a new member.
I am still reviewing the material posted and have learned a great deal.  I have
a lot to read yet. But I ran into this comment and wondered if this relates to
certain changes I have noticed in the MEG design. Even though Dave made this
comment some time ago it certainly seems to have made a mark.

In this picture there are three visible white square rods top, right and left.
Any Ideas what they are? and perhaps the purpose?
http://www.cheniere.org/images/meg/AUT_57061a1.jpg

On this one there are now cross flux magnetic gates.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg4cf.htm

I am wondering if the material used for these flux magnetic gates is available
to attempt this replication?

Thanks
Les


--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <dv_fixit@...> wrote:
>
> Hi guys
> I agree with the idea that driving a coil to impede the  flux path is a
> difficult task. I have worked with dc brushless motors and the motor
> stator permeability is a problem for high torque with small motors.
> As I see it the objective of the meg is not to totally stop the flux
> path but to reduce it just prior to reaching core saturation. Any
> change in flux will result in a change in secondary output.
> I do believe that true over unity can be achieved with the new
> materials being invented with a crystalline structure that could shift
> polarity and hinder a flux path with a small current applied.
>
> Dave
>