I finished my magnet/coil/c-core assembly and mounted it on the
microcontroller-based board as shown:
   <http://www.intalek.com/WarpDrive/Lab/Shockcharger/01.jpg>

   <http://www.intalek.com/WarpDrive/Lab/Shockcharger/02.jpg>

The theory of operation is a two step process:
   Step 1, I energize the solenoid (the two red coils), which sets up an
opposing magnetic field, effectively canceling the magnetic field produced
by the magnet mounted inside the coils. This energy is ALMOST fully
recoverable as Lenz's Law when the current to the solenoids are shutoff,
which occurs during the second step.

   Step 2, the magnet MUST restore its original field by removing completely
the "remnant" field (from Lenz's Law occurring as a result from the first
step). Restoration of the original field is the FREE ENERGY half of the
whole equation, and should result in an overall cooling effect in the space
occupied by the magnet. The restoration of the original field of the magnet
is a NEGENTROPIC process, where the magnet performs a NEGATIVE work
function, hence, "unbending" its own dipoles and flux cutting the output
coils (the two blue coils). The recoverable Lenz' Law effect of what I
originally put into the system plus the pm field restoration supplied by
VACUUM ENERGY should give a working OVER-UNITY device! I'm expecting a COP
value of around 2.

The purpose of the microcontroller is to monitor the various voltages and
currents, and control battery charging and usage. All the software is
running perfectly, which I'm up to about 16KBytes of compiled C-language
code.

Unfortunately, during my tesing of the two output coils shown as the two
blue coils this morning, I discovered both coils are electrically shorted to
the Metglas c-cores. My FREE ENERGY output is effectively being shunted
away!  - MAJOR BUMMER!!!  I will have cut away the two blue coils, carefully
put down a heavy electrically insulating layer, then rewrap my coils. This
will cause a 1 week delay!   :-(

Bill

--
William S. Alek
   INTALEK, INC.                     PHONE/FAX: 219.924.2742
   3506-43rd. Place                      EMAIL: <mailto:wsalek@...>
   Highland, IN  46322-3129  USA     HOME PAGE: <http://www.intalek.com/

Hi All,

Here are some more magnetic considerations.

Regards
Cyril

Cyril,

Interesting paper! Precession resonance may be the crutial key to this
excess energy effect. This resonance effect may ONLY occur when an impulse
function is applied to the spinning dipoles, and persist for the entirety of
the impulse period.

Very good!

Bill

--
William S. Alek
   INTALEK, INC.                     PHONE/FAX: 219.924.2742
   3506-43rd. Place                      EMAIL: <mailto:wsalek@...>
   Highland, IN  46322-3129  USA     HOME PAGE: <http://www.intalek.com/

All,

I have just finished reading Bearden's two papers in Modern Nonlinear Optics -
one on extracting
EM from the vacuum and the other on the MEG.  I found them very interesting and
believe they
hold clues as to the operation of the MEG, however due to my lack of a
traditional background in
physics and not being an EE I will have to struggle with it for awhile.  I was
wondering if
anyone else in the group has read them and would be interesting in discussing
the ideas in them.

The full title (for those interested) is:

Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 2, Second Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics,
Vol. 119, edited
by Myron W. Evans, Series Editors I. Prigogine and Stuart A. Rice.

Tom's papers are in the second volume.


Also, I was looking over my correspondence with Tom and noticed that in one of
the letters he
specifically indicated that the MEG uses the Aharonov-Bohm effect NOT
flux-switching.  He also
said that there is a very simple output test (proprietary) that clearly shows
the difference
between the MEG process and any or path switching process (e.g. Flynn's work). 
No doubt some of
you have already realized this, but I think it drives home the importance of
understanding the
Aharonov-Bohm effect in order to understand the MEG.

I hope all of you had a good holiday!


Best,

Dave N.

Hi Dave, I found the volumes at the Physical Sciences Library
at U.C. Davis, will travel there this afternoon and read them,
then try to give an EE's understanding of them.  Thanks for
the note.

[snipped]
--- In MEG_builders@y..., "Dave N." <dnarby@s...> wrote:
> All,
>
> I have just finished reading Bearden's two papers in Modern
Nonlinear Optics - one on extracting
> EM from the vacuum and the other on the MEG.  I was wondering if
> anyone else in the group has read them and would be interesting in
discussing the ideas in them.
>
> The full title (for those interested) is:
>
> Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 2, Second Edition, Advances in
Chemical Physics, Vol. 119, edited
> by Myron W. Evans, Series Editors I. Prigogine and Stuart A. Rice.
>
> Tom's papers are in the second volume.
>
>
> Dave N.

I found the "Modern Nonlinear Optics" volumes, and copied
Bearden's two papers.  I spent about 4 hours, when I had to quit
for bed, carefully reading "Energy from the Active Vacuum:  The
Motionless Electromagnetic Generator".  This is an expanded
version of his paper, available at many web-sites, "The Motionless
Electromagnetic Generator:  Extracting Energy from a permanent
magnet with energy-replenishing from the active vacuum".
   This version includes more theoretical details, and combines
several of his other papers into one paper.  He doesn't reveal
the physical secrets of MEG construction, but does discuss the
fundamentals: how charge interacts with the magnetic vector
potential; the requirement for a time-varying magnetic vector
potential; how the core-flux and the B-field from the charge-
magnetic-vector-potential interaction combine positively; the
flux through the permanent magnet increases periodically.
    From an EE point of view, there isn't any revelation of physical
construction secrets, but I infer the following:  the permanent
magnet must have permeability and low eddy-current loss at the
operating frequency; the driver circuit probably charges the coils
and holds the current in them (a transformation of energy from one
state to another without much loss), allowing the flux in the core
to increase and also increasing the flux from the permanent magnet.
He also states that the power out of the MEG can be increased until
core-saturation occurs, and expects kilowatt-level output from it.
From the oscilloscope pictures of the prototype MEG output, the load
used was a linear resistor.  Probably COP can improve with a non-
linear load.
   I'm just guessing, but probably reluctance must be low through
  the magnetic circuits.
     At the end of the paper, he briefly discusses J.L. Naudin's MEG
v.2.0, which used a ferrite core, not the nanocrystalline Honeywell
core.   Dr. Bearden does state that the ferrite core can be made to
work over-unity, but can't achieve the higher COP which is made
possible by the Honeywell nanocrystalline construction (He does
mention Honeywell by name).
    I need another few hours to go back and try to glean more from the
paper.
    I will read the other paper, "Extracting and Using Electromagnetic
Energy from the Active Vacuum" and discuss it this weekend.
   The continuing issue I have with Dr. Bearden's papers is his lack
of mathematic rigor in making his models.  Without this, no
prediction can be made of results which prove or disprove the value
of a theory.
    There is a wealth of theoretical information in the three volumes
of this version of "Modern Nonlinear Optics", and it makes good
reading for the serious scientific person.

Hi Bill,

----- Original Message -----
From: William Alek <intalek@...>
To: John Pasik <jpasik@...>; Robert J. Brown <rj@...>
Cc: MEG EMAIL GROUP <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>; Calvin Bahlmann
<iht@...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:25 PM
Subject: [MEG_builders] Precession Resonance


> Cyril,
>
> Interesting paper! Precession resonance may be the crutial key to this
> excess energy effect. This resonance effect may ONLY occur when an impulse
> function is applied to the spinning dipoles, and persist for the entirety
of
> the impulse period.
>
> Very good!

Thanks for the complement.  Bearden in his MEG paper Figure 9 shows the
voltage spike at pulse cut-off to be larger than that at cut-on.  This is
not recognised in classical EM so needs some other explanation.
Free-induction-decay of atomic resonance is recognised and could explain
Bearden's observations.

Regards
Cyril

Cyril,

I've been observing excess energy in my device and I presented it at
the Inventer's Conference in Houston a few months ago. Here's my
paper:
   <http://www.intalek.com/WarpDrive/Lab/Shockcharger/Handout1.pdf>

I believe the excess energy is coming from the field around the
magnet, and it occurs when the magnet restores its original field.

Bearden's Fig 9 shows this beautifully! The core is a magnet or pm. I
believe the true operation of the MEG is NOT what everybody may
think, or it has been mis-interpreted! Bearden likes to "snow"
everybody with excess technibabble.

My new design shows a secondary set of windings just like the MEG!
This "excess energy" is collected in the secondary windings.

Now, you could tie this precession resonance, but an associate of
mine suggested that a LOT of energy is required to get this resonance
to actually occur. My interpretation is to get the magnet to do the
work.

Bill

--- In MEG_builders@y..., "Cyril Smith" <cyrilsmith@c...> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William Alek <intalek@i...>
> To: John Pasik <jpasik@u...>; Robert J. Brown <rj@e...>
> Cc: MEG EMAIL GROUP <MEG_builders@y...>; Calvin Bahlmann
> <iht@t...>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:25 PM
> Subject: [MEG_builders] Precession Resonance
>
>
> > Cyril,
> >
> > Interesting paper! Precession resonance may be the crutial key to
this
> > excess energy effect. This resonance effect may ONLY occur when
an impulse
> > function is applied to the spinning dipoles, and persist for the
entirety
> of
> > the impulse period.
> >
> > Very good!
>
> Thanks for the complement.  Bearden in his MEG paper Figure 9 shows
the
> voltage spike at pulse cut-off to be larger than that at cut-on.
This is
> not recognised in classical EM so needs some other explanation.
> Free-induction-decay of atomic resonance is recognised and could
explain
> Bearden's observations.
>
> Regards
> Cyril

Hi Bill,

Interesting paper.  I look forward to hearing that you have achieved COP>1

I don't have experience of ESR but I do have hands on experience of NMR and
NQR.  It is not a case of making the resonance occur, each dipole is already
precessing and will continue to do so for ever.  It is a matter of getting
the precessions in phase.  I think this could take less energy than that
available in the resonance.  A bit like phase locking an oscillator by
injecting a weak signal.

Regards
Cyril

----- Original Message -----
From: intalek2001 <intalek@...>
To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 5:58 PM
Subject: [MEG_builders] Re: Precession Resonance


> Cyril,
>
> I've been observing excess energy in my device and I presented it at
> the Inventer's Conference in Houston a few months ago. Here's my
> paper:
>   <http://www.intalek.com/WarpDrive/Lab/Shockcharger/Handout1.pdf>
>
> I believe the excess energy is coming from the field around the
> magnet, and it occurs when the magnet restores its original field.
>
> Bearden's Fig 9 shows this beautifully! The core is a magnet or pm. I
> believe the true operation of the MEG is NOT what everybody may
> think, or it has been mis-interpreted! Bearden likes to "snow"
> everybody with excess technibabble.
>
> My new design shows a secondary set of windings just like the MEG!
> This "excess energy" is collected in the secondary windings.
>
> Now, you could tie this precession resonance, but an associate of
> mine suggested that a LOT of energy is required to get this resonance
> to actually occur. My interpretation is to get the magnet to do the
> work.
>
> Bill

Taken from the Tom Beardon Website.

"I have personally worked with several overunity machines, one of
which demonstrated COP = 1,500,000.  That one was tested
independently by Walter Rosenthal, a very capable professional test
engineer well-known in the testing community. Walt also tested one of
the machines of the same inventor that was close-looped and
self-powering.

So it isn't just Tom Bearden that states that several inventors have
produced self-powering and COP>1.0 EM power systems."

Does anyone know which overunity device he refers to, ie. COP =
1,500,000? I've not heard that number for the Sweet VTA.

DTB

The INE website had a database of devices.  This might provide the answer.

http://www.padrak.com/ine/db/devices_i.html

Don't know whether the link still works.

Regards
Cyril

----- Original Message -----
From: dtb1000 <dtb1000@...>
To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 8:51 PM
Subject: [MEG_builders] Overunity and COP


> Taken from the Tom Beardon Website.
>
> "I have personally worked with several overunity machines, one of
> which demonstrated COP = 1,500,000.  That one was tested
> independently by Walter Rosenthal, a very capable professional test
> engineer well-known in the testing community. Walt also tested one of
> the machines of the same inventor that was close-looped and
> self-powering.
>
> So it isn't just Tom Bearden that states that several inventors have
> produced self-powering and COP>1.0 EM power systems."
>
> Does anyone know which overunity device he refers to, ie. COP =
> 1,500,000? I've not heard that number for the Sweet VTA.
>
> DTB

--- In MEG_builders@y..., "dtb1000" <dtb1000@y...> wrote:
> Taken from the Tom Beardon Website.
>
> "I have personally worked with several overunity machines, one of
> which demonstrated COP = 1,500,000.  That one was tested
> independently by Walter Rosenthal, a very capable professional test
> engineer well-known in the testing community. Walt also tested one
of
> the machines of the same inventor that was close-looped and
> self-powering.
>
> So it isn't just Tom Bearden that states that several inventors have
> produced self-powering and COP>1.0 EM power systems."
>
> Does anyone know which overunity device he refers to, ie. COP =
> 1,500,000? I've not heard that number for the Sweet VTA.
>
> DTB

   I'm sure he's referring to the VTA.  In his paper, "Extracting and
Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum", a chapter in
"Modern Nonlinear Optics", he has a footnote: 41"Sweet's solid-state
vacuum triode used specially conditioned barium ferrite magnetics
whose H field was in self-oscillation.  The device produced COP =
1.2 x 10pwr6 [1,200,000], outputting some 500 watts for an input of
only 33 mW."
David

I finished reading "Extracting and Using Electromagnetic
Energy from the Active Vacuum", by Dr. Bearden in part 2
of "Modern Nonlinear Optics", 2001.  It again is an
expansion of various papers he has written.  Again, he
does not rigorously use mathematics to prove any of his
points, although to be fair, he has 99 references at the
end of the article, which certainly do so.  I have looked
up a couple of them, and they are main-stream quantum
mechanics, in peer-reviewed journals.  Thus I assume that
he knows what he is discussing, but doesn't give too many
clues about real-world approaches to O.U.  He does briefly
discuss the Kawai motor, the Wankel motor, the Johnson
motor, and most interestingly the following quote about
his own company (page 677 of the volume): "16.  As a 16th
approach, at Magnetics Energy Ltd. we are presently
working on a patent-pending process whereby a permanent
magnet is given a "memory" at will.  By adroitly
manipulating the memory, most of the magnetic flux from
the magnet can be made to prefer and take a desired
magnetic path among several available.  Then the memory
(and preference) is adroitly switched.  Once one controls
what path the flux "prefers" and when it prefers it,
obviously COP > 1.0 is possible. [snipped] Our work has
culminated in the motionless electromagnetic generator
(MEG) which extracts EM energy from the vacuum."
    And that is the final secret.  Flux-switching of the
permanent magnet enables the magnetic vector potential
to become time-varying, giving the boost to O.U.  IMHO
(as some say), this switching is timed to synchronize
with the resonance of the output coil to aid the current
and potential as it is building in the output coil.  Of
course, because the potential is being boosted by other
than core-flux, output-coil resonance plays a lesser role
but is a part of the answer.  This explains Dr. Bearden's
comment in correspondence that the O.U. signature is in-
phase current and voltage, always.  Anything other than
in-phase is not O.U. in action.
   The three-book set of "Modern Nonlinear Optics" contains
many useful, rigorous discussions of various aspects of
quantum-mechanics, all of which at some point have a
bearing on O.U. as well as tomorrow's communication
and anti-gravity technologies.  For a serious student
of the latest quantum-mechanics discussions, I highly
recommend it.
   In a brief discussion with a high-energy physics
professor at U.C., he is well aware of the hundreds of
papers concerning the Aharonov-Bohm effect, but didn't
believe there was anything practical about it !!  He
changed his mind immediately when I discussed some of
the MEG work on-going.  We discussed A-B and potentials,
and he is in agreement with these arguments, lending
additional credibility to this situation.
   Cheers (as some say !!),
   David

P.S.  If I may add one more quote, this from Richard
Feynman, a wonderful professor, Nobel prize winner, etc,
from his book describing Quantum ElectroDynamics:
"I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you
don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your under-
standing it.  It's a problem that physicists have learned
to deal with:  they've learned to realize that whether
they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the
essential question.  Rather, it is whether or not the
theory gives predictions that agree with experiment.
[snipped] The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes
Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense.
And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can
accept Nature as She is - absurd."

Yes, he was referring to the Sweet SQM.

What COULD be happening is some sort of compound or combined
resonance between procession resonance and the Ba nuclei, thus
greatly amplifying the effect.

Bill

--- In MEG_builders@y..., "davidj95650" <djenkins@r...> wrote:
>
>   I'm sure he's referring to the VTA.  In his paper, "Extracting and
> Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum", a chapter in
> "Modern Nonlinear Optics", he has a footnote: 41"Sweet's solid-state
> vacuum triode used specially conditioned barium ferrite magnetics
> whose H field was in self-oscillation.  The device produced COP =
> 1.2 x 10pwr6 [1,200,000], outputting some 500 watts for an input of
> only 33 mW."
> David

I'm trying to make magnets switch paths dynamically.  It
seems to be done statically with ease:  Apply direct current
to the drive coils, observe the leakage flux on one leg
of the core, and when it goes to zero, there's no flux
in that leg.  By the way, leakage flux from a nanocrystalline
core is only a few gauss, about 1/1,000 of the flux flowing
from the permanent magnet.  The uploaded ZIP file (CorTest.zip)
has 4 bitmap pictures (*.bmp is all I can make at this time)
which are taken of a Tektronix oscilloscope detailing the
drive-pulse width to the MOSFET drivers, the current through
the drive coils as measured at a resistor in the SOURCE lead
of the low-side MOSFET, and the changing flux as measured by
a four-turn output coil (Purposely kept so small to not
influence the core flux).  The output coil does not have any
load.  The MOSFET driver is one-half of an  "H-Bridge", a
MOSFET connecting to the supply voltage, and one connecting
to ground.  The drive coils connect between the two of them.
   There is a Schottky diode connected from the high-side
MOSFET to ground which prevents the voltage at that
connection to the coils from going below ground potential.
    The logic driving the MOSFETs keeps the low-side
MOSFET active for a while after the main drive pulse has
occurred, to essentially short the drive coils (In conjunction
with the Schottky diode on the high-side MOSFET), maintaining
the drive current in the coils as the core flux tries to decay.
   This is to observe changes in the circulating current in the
drive coils.  Dr. Bearden has said that O.U. requires a
transformation of energy without dissipating it, and this is a
way to measure the loss of energy after the power-supply
voltage/current has been transformed to flux in the
nanocrystalline core.  As will be apparent in the pictures,
reluctance of the magnetic path plays a big role in energy loss.
   An air gap of 0.06" dissipates the magnetic energy about four
times faster than no gap.
    However, as can be seen in the pictures, the presence of a
non-descript ferrite magnet, and ferrite blocks to couple it to
the core, makes no difference in the observed core-flux behavior
as seen in the output coil voltage.
    My conclusion at this point, is that the type of magnet is
very important, as is magnetic reluctance between the magnet
and core, and probably between core halves.
    I have started a ferrite-cored test setup that allows a Hall-
effect device to be inserted into a small portion of the flux
path to observe the flux directly.  Then by varying the reluctance
in various portions of this setup, the effect on core-flux can be
directly determined.  I'm using ferrite blocks normally used to
attenuate RF energy in flat cables.  My measurements indicate that
they have high permeability and very low loss at the frequencies of
MEG operation.  By assembling them in the shape of the MEG, with
a variety of magnets in the center of this, all core pieces can be
adjusted to eliminate air gaps which greatly increase reluctance.
   A brief explanation of the pictures:
      CorTstP1.bmp shows tests with no magnets.  A test with an air
gap of 0.06" and one with no gap are shown.  The drive and supply
are the same for both tests.  The drive time and supply voltage
were set at a point which caused one side of the core to go to
zero flux when a ferrite magnet was in the center.  Because there
is lower reluctance with no gap, the current ramps up to a much
smaller value.
    The output coil voltage droops slightly as the coil charges
because of the voltage drops that increase across the drive MOSFETs
and the source resistor, which reduces the driving voltage across
the coils.
      CorTstP2.bmp shows the no-magnet, no-gap core, when the drive
time and supply voltage are increased to reach the same final coil
current as the gapped test.  Note that after the drive time, the
coil current decays much more slowly, and that over a much longer
time.  Also, look at Figure 9, which shows that the flux remains
active longer as it discharges to 0.  The time-scale on Figure 9
is 50 uSec/division, whereas that in Figure 3 is 20 uSec/division.
Also, there is no evidence of the moderate-frequency ringing when
there is no gap.
       CorTstP3.bmp and CorTstP4.bmp show similar tests with a
ferrite magnet in the center of the core assembly, with ferrite
disk spacers to make a firm fit into the top and bottom of the
core.

Hi DavidJ,

Great stuff, thanks for sharing it.

----- Original Message -----
From: davidj95650 <djenkins@...>
To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 1:47 AM
Subject: [MEG_builders] Re: Bearden papers, Part 2


>snip...
>He does briefly
> discuss the Kawai motor, the Wankel motor, the Johnson
> motor, and most interestingly the following quote about
> his own company (page 677 of the volume): "16.  As a 16th
> approach, at Magnetics Energy Ltd. we are presently
> working on a patent-pending process whereby a permanent
> magnet is given a "memory" at will.  By adroitly
> manipulating the memory, most of the magnetic flux from
> the magnet can be made to prefer and take a desired
> magnetic path among several available.  Then the memory
> (and preference) is adroitly switched.  Once one controls
> what path the flux "prefers" and when it prefers it,
> obviously COP > 1.0 is possible. [snipped] Our work has
> culminated in the motionless electromagnetic generator
> (MEG) which extracts EM energy from the vacuum."
>    And that is the final secret.  Flux-switching of the
> permanent magnet enables the magnetic vector potential
> to become time-varying,

Ordinary flux switching does this and does not produce OU, as most
experimenters have discovered.  What is significant in the above quote is
that the flux "switching" has a mind of its own, like a toggle switch, so
you get large output flux swing for small input energy.

But in a recent post from Dave N  (quote)
Also, I was looking over my correspondence with Tom and noticed that in one
of the letters he
specifically indicated that the MEG uses the Aharonov-Bohm effect NOT
flux-switching (unquote).

I get the impression that Tom Bearden uses whatever argument suits him!!

Regards
Cyril

Hi All,

I have been playing on an Excel spreadsheet and find I can model PMs using
Hatomic and the IF function.  If the applied H is greater than Hcoercive
then Hatomic is a known large positive value, if the applied H is less than
minus Hcoercive then Hatomic is the known large negative value, else Hatomic
remains at its previous value.  Then B=munought*(Happlied+Hatomic).  This
models a square loop material beautifully.

It is easy to use the magnet dimensions to change from B v.H to flux v. mmf.
Then this model can be put into the magnetic equivalent circuit for solving
in the time domain.  Our normal BH curve shows B flipping at +/-Hcoercive
whereas in a real circuit B can't change instantaneously.  But Hatomic can
change instantaneously so now I can model what happens when magnets flip in
a circuit.

I am interested in putting a small thin magnet in the gap of the C cores in
the MEG, this gap being directly over the pole of the MEG magnet.  Maybe the
magnetization of this small magnet can be made to flip back and forth, thus
preferentially steering the flux from the larger magnet.  Someone on the
MEG_builders list quotes Bearden writing about OU systems:

"As a 16th approach, at Magnetics Energy Ltd. we are presently
working on a patent-pending process whereby a permanent
magnet is given a "memory" at will.  By adroitly
manipulating the memory, most of the magnetic flux from
the magnet can be made to prefer and take a desired
magnetic path among several available.  Then the memory
(and preference) is adroitly switched.  Once one controls
what path the flux "prefers" and when it prefers it,
obviously COP > 1.0 is possible. [snipped] Our work has
culminated in the motionless electromagnetic generator
(MEG) which extracts EM energy from the vacuum."

Regards
Cyril

Cyril,

Again, look at Figure 9 in the Bearden's MEG paper. The core is a pm.
The normal current flow through the coil cancels the field around a
pm (Aharonov-Bohm effect). Excess energy is collected in the coil as
the B field around the pm recovers. This is because I (atomic) in the
pm is constant. The current reciprocates back into the coil, so, a
higher normal current flow is observed. When the normal flow is
shutoff, you add Lenz's Law + B recovery induced in coil. The B
recovery component is the NEGATIVE pm work function, and is
considered "excess" energy, or an excess magnetic force.

Bill

Cyril,

This is extremely preliminary, but I seem to be observing something
EXTREMELY odd in my MEG-like device. The current coming out of the
secondary coils appears to be flowing BACKWARDS??? Does this sound
right???

It seems like no matter what I do, the current seems to be flowing
backwards - this is STRANGEST thing I ever observed.

Again, this very very preliminary. Any comment?

Bill

Pardon my ignorance, but by "flowing BACKWARDS", do we mean

1) a simple (?) reverse polarity with electrons flowing opposite the
direction you anticipate,

2) or something else, possibly ion flow,
("It's the ions, not the electrons." - T.H. Moray, per
http://www.nuenergy.org/basic.htm - I think the quote is actually in
a graphic on the page, so (google/other) searches aren't likely to
find that one.)

3) or ?

With regard to (1), some explanation of effect of Lenz law seemed to
state that a secondary magnetic field would be induced by the current
flow induced in secondary coil by the primary magnetic field (in a
transformer), which would presumably attempt to create a reverse
current flow - I assumed such would not normally be observable as its
effect must be canceled/overridden by the primary forces at work... I
just mention it, as it did seem to suggest possibility of (electron?)
flow/force "backwards" to the normal.  (It would also seem a logical
extension that the secondary mag field would induce a third and so
on, but after the second I guess the third and subsequent would
simply combine with the previous flows going their own way???)

--- In MEG_builders@y..., "intalek2001" <intalek@i...> wrote:
> Cyril,
>
> This is extremely preliminary, but I seem to be observing something
> EXTREMELY odd in my MEG-like device. The current coming out of the
> secondary coils appears to be flowing BACKWARDS??? Does this sound
> right???
>
> It seems like no matter what I do, the current seems to be flowing
> backwards - this is STRANGEST thing I ever observed.
>
> Again, this very very preliminary. Any comment?
>
> Bill

Bill,

----- Original Message -----
From: intalek2001 <intalek@...>
To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:28 PM
Subject: [MEG_builders] Re: Bearden papers, Part 2


> Cyril,
>
> Again, look at Figure 9 in the Bearden's MEG paper. The core is a pm.
> The normal current flow through the coil cancels the field around a
> pm (Aharonov-Bohm effect).

That is not what I understand to be the Aharonov-Bohm effect.  What do you
mean by normal?  The applied current can create a field which adds to or
subtracts from the pm field.  Maybe you meant to say "the normal (applied)
current supplemented by an additional current from the Aharonov-Bohm
effect".

> Excess energy is collected in the coil as
> the B field around the pm recovers.

I don't know of any researchers who have observed this (other than Bearden
et al).  And my reading of the A-B effect leads me to believe that the MEG
does not use this.

>This is because I (atomic) in the
> pm is constant. The current reciprocates back into the coil, so, a
> higher normal current flow is observed. When the normal flow is
> shutoff, you add Lenz's Law + B recovery induced in coil. The B
> recovery component is the NEGATIVE pm work function, and is
> considered "excess" energy, or an excess magnetic force.

If someone could reproduce the effect shown in figure 9 and show it to be
due to the A-B effect then I would be most interested.  Usually the
difference between positive and negative voltage spikes is due to the
different switching rise/fall times, nothing to do with A-B.

Regards
Cyril

Hi Bill,

----- Original Message -----
From: intalek2001 <intalek@...>
To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 3:27 AM
Subject: [MEG_builders] Time-Reversed Current?


> Cyril,
>
> This is extremely preliminary, but I seem to be observing something
> EXTREMELY odd in my MEG-like device. The current coming out of the
> secondary coils appears to be flowing BACKWARDS??? Does this sound
> right???
>
> It seems like no matter what I do, the current seems to be flowing
> backwards - this is STRANGEST thing I ever observed.
>
> Again, this very very preliminary. Any comment?

Can you please explain what you mean by backward?  Is the current flowing in
the wrong direction, where the "right" direction has been determined from
first principles of flux, rate of change of flux, winding direction etc.
etc..   The current is AC so it flows in alternate directions, and it is
easy to get a polarity inversion in one of your assumptions.

Having said that, it is possible to have a transformer where the output
polarity is reversed.   I have built one with a magnetic delay line between
the primary limb and the secondary limb.  It still works as a transformer
even when the delay is 180 degrees, and the flux under the secondary is
reversed compared to that of a normal transformer (i.e. reversed in
direction cf the primary limb!).  The flux in the core is discontinuous, yet
it still works.  You won't find that in a transformer design book!!  The 90
degree case is even more interesting.
But that core had lots of single turn windings shorted by capacitors.  I
doubt that your MEG is acting like a delay line.

Regards
Cyril

Hi Learntrade,

----- Original Message -----
From: learntrade <learntrade@...>
To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:28 AM
Subject: [MEG_builders] Re: Time-Reversed Current?


snip....
> With regard to (1), some explanation of effect of Lenz law seemed to
> state that a secondary magnetic field would be induced by the current
> flow induced in secondary coil by the primary magnetic field (in a
> transformer),

The changing magnetic field induces a voltage.  Then if there is a secondary
load this creates current. This current flowing in the secondary coil
creates a back mmf which, together with the primary mmf, determines the
actual magnetic field.  The two mmf's are almost equal and in antiphase
(which would completely cancel any field), but not quite.  The primary mmf
has a phase-quadrature component which is not canceled by the secondary mmf,
and which is responsible for the magnetic field.  So the thought process
where you envision two separate magnetic fields fighting against each other
leads you into the difficulties which you obviously met in the following
statements!

> which would presumably attempt to create a reverse
> current flow - I assumed such would not normally be observable as its
> effect must be canceled/overridden by the primary forces at work... I
> just mention it, as it did seem to suggest possibility of (electron?)
> flow/force "backwards" to the normal.  (It would also seem a logical
> extension that the secondary mag field would induce a third and so
> on, but after the second I guess the third and subsequent would
> simply combine with the previous flows going their own way???)

Regards
Cyril

Cyril,

I managed to get a quite a bit testing with my new coils. It turns
out I'm not observing something like a "time-reversed current". The
design I tested a few days ago sent an impulse into the secondary
coils. The signal would go sharply negative with respect to the high
side. The power MOSFET would get very hot after a while. So, I ended
up rearranging my parts from a series circuit to a parallel circuit.
Now, all the parts are running normal.

Bill

Stan, Cyril, et al,

I observed FREE ENERGY for the first time today in my solid-state MEG-
like device. When I switched in my secondary coils, the output
battery voltage INCREASED, clearly violating Ohm's Law and the 2nd
Law of Thermodynamics! How I LOVE breaking the law.

Since I'm moving in the right direction with my research, my
objective now is to improve the efficiency.

Stay tuned!

Bill

Hi All,

I have calculated the energy in the precession motion of the electrons
responsible for the PM field.  I get the energy density as
0.866*B^2/munought.  That is square root 3 times the energy density of the
magnetic field in air.  Who says ESR is a weak effect?  Now all we have to
do is get some of those electrons to precess in phase, then we have a
mechanism for AC magnetic coupling from the quantum engine of space.  Trying
to use the DC magnetic field for free energy is a bit like trying to pull
yourself up against gravity by your bootlaces.  Using the AC field offers
much better prospects for success.

The precession also applies to soft magnetic materials.  It should be
possible to use a PM to provide the B field in the soft material, then apply
an impulse to control the precessions.  A DC 1mT B field should get
precession at 22.8MHz, which is respectably low enough to do something with.
Maybe the very thin tape wound cores will have advantage here, not only with
respect to hysteresis losses but also with respect to getting the
precessions under control.  We want a MEG like circuit where the secondaries
are not wound around the core, but extract a cross field from the core.
Imagine the precessing dipoles in the core as being like a rotating PM in
air, we want secondary coils wound like those of a classical PM electric
motor.

Regards
Cyril

--- In MEG_builders@y..., "intalek2001" <intalek@i...> wrote:

> Stan, Cyril, et al,
>
> I observed FREE ENERGY for the first time today in my solid-state
MEG-
> like device. When I switched in my secondary coils, the output
> battery voltage INCREASED, clearly violating Ohm's Law and the 2nd
> Law of Thermodynamics! How I LOVE breaking the law.
>
> Since I'm moving in the right direction with my research, my
> objective now is to improve the efficiency.

Bill,

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
    Congratulations on your apparent success with your "MEG"
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

I hope that your continuing experiments ... which hopefully will soon
include a self running MEG ... are fruitful!  I probably like many
others at the site am waiting on the edge of my seat for further
reports from you on your successful meg ... and hopefully a simple
schem, a simple mechanical drawing of the core assy and of course
some data like timing requirements, etc. but I will be patient as I
can imagine how busy you must be right now.  :-)

GOOD LUCK and KEEP ON TRUCKIN'!

Stan

Bill,

Congratulations!

Michael Couch
mc@...