PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Benches > Smudge (Moderator: Smudge) > The MEG revisited
2024-05-02, 11:47:13
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: The MEG revisited  (Read 6374 times)
Topic Options img
img  Smudge
The MEG revisited « on: 2017-09-17, 15:20:13 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1861
Among my old papers I came across one entitled "A New Look at the MEG".  This looked at Bearden's MEG from a different perspective.  This uses the switching coils to (a) provide the drive needed to get it going and (b) to act as flux clamps so that additional flux is driven outside the core.  The active part of the core beneath the switching coils has to saturate, and FEMM simulations show that the flux there from the magnet is concentrated over a thin region.  IMO this is a more realistic explanation than Bearden's.   For anyone interested in experimenting here is that paper slightly edited.
Smudge
   
img  T-1000
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #1 on: 2017-10-10, 17:05:52 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 375
Hi there :)

I think it would be appropiate to mention here what I am fiddling around currently with MEG stuff.
I have an idea and refining it at a moment for a practical approach:

As an example, if you have U core and one end have gap while other does not. Then place magnets from both sides more close to the side with the gap. Then have control coil over gap for inducing additional temporary magnet for better magnetic flux path over gap than over closed loop (which would be longer path).
It should be possible to balance magnetic field path going over control coil when it is on and when the control coil uses next to nothing of power. If that condition is reached - in theory it should be possible to flip magnet's magnetic flux path in way we want and have generator coil on the closed longer path. In theory that would make transistor-like amplifying device which would allow us to utilize magnets magnetic field for induction. Or MEG in other words... :)

So I am in middle of this at the moment and some experimentation will follow. Everyone are welcome to try that as well. If you manage to reach that condition, it is OU right there with the magnet as the power source...

Cheers!
   
img  Smudge
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #2 on: 2022-04-03, 11:10:18 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1861
The MEG has been discussed recently on another topic so I have revived this thread to make some observations.  The metglas C cores have lapped and polished mating faces so as to minimise any air gap there.  If you hold two C cores together while measuring the inductance of a coil wound onto one of them you will find a variation of inductance depending on how much hand pressure to apply to pushing the two core halves together, so there is always an air gap effect.  In their intended application as a power transformer core you have to clamp the cores together using a banding strap.  This is like a cable tie but made of steel and it requires a special tool to put the steel strap into tension.  This is to stop the variable air gap effect.  It should be noted that even under these conditions with the faces pushed hard together there is still an air gap effect, you will never get the same situation as having an uncut ring core.

Bearden's MEG does not have the steel banding strap because the output coils are wound onto formers fixed to each C core.  His MEG has a plastic strap over the whole shebang and that cannot put much pressure onto the mating paces.  Note also that the magnet will induce like magnetic poles onto the mating faces, so there will be magnetic force pushing the mating faces apart.  That air gap could be a significant factor in the workings of the MEG, but I have found no evidence that anyone has considered this before.  Note that variations of that air gap will alter the magnitude of the fields from the magnet flowing around each half of the core, so if this variation happens there will be voltage induced into each output coil, we would have a rather complicated form of electric motor converting mechanical movement into electricity.

Each C core will have a mechanical resonance, rather like a tuning fork, but whereas the tuning fork resonance is associated with the tines waggling back and forth the resonance here is due to an acoustic wavefront traveling along the laminations and being reflected from each end face.  It is like an acoustic half wave dipole.  With the right experiment you can find this resonance, I have done it with a metglas core smaller than the one Bearden used.  It is quite tricky to find but it can be done.  The interesting thing is the resonance in Bearden's cores could be near his operating frequency.  Could this explain why he puts in pulses yet gets out something closer to sine waves?

Metglas is magnetostrictive and has a known magnetostriction coefficient.  Variations in the magnetic field along the laminations will cause the length to vary by small amounts.  But only small amounts are needed to get significant voltage induced into the output coils.   As far as I know no one has looked into this effect, it is real and will occur in the MEG.  So here is a possibility that need exploring.

Bearden's working MEG was sent to a university for investigation, and they stripped it apart.  I have played with metglas cores with neo magnets, and when you pull them apart the magnet strips off some of the very thin laminations.  You can't reassemble the device in its original condition.  Maybe that is why that working model never reappeared.

If the acoustic resonance of the cores is responsible for Bearden's results, then it could be that the two C cores should have the same or near resonant frequency.  Is that what happened by sheer luck?  How do different C cores vary in resonant frequency?  Could that be why the experimental results have not been replicated?

If anyone has an abandoned MEG-like experiment it could be interesting to put a mechanical pulse (tap with a hammer) onto one outer end of the core and see what is induced into the output coils (this is with no drive onto the input coils).  I am sure that there will be some induction and that might tell you something about the acoustic resonance of the C core.  It might be possible by trying a tap at each end to discover whether each C core has the same acoustic resonance.

Smudge

   
img  F6FLT
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #3 on: 2022-04-03, 14:25:41 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
Quote from: Smudge on 2022-04-03, 11:10:18
...That air gap could be a significant factor in the workings of the MEG, but I have found no evidence that anyone has considered this before...

U.S. Patent # 6,362,718 was granted on March 26, 2002 to Bearden and colleagues. Since one week, Bearden's patent is in the public domain, so we can do business with the MEG without paying royalties.  ;D
But Magnetic Energy Ltd ( https://www.40billion.com/company/542335585 ), which has been working on it since the first ideas in 1996 (see the video), has still failed and seems still looking for investors.

If Bearden's patent has for me no credibility, and his "theories" are obviously inconsistent, it is pseudo-scientific gibberish without any equation allowing us to model it, on the other hand the switching of the flux of a magnet in a circuit can of course be a cause for the production of current.

On this matter you have just pointed out an interesting subject, the air gap. But you are not the only one, there was a study in 2018 that may interest you, which cited the MEG although coming from "academic" engineering, see the attached file.
Their conclusion:
"The air gap also contributes to making it easier to control the flux of permanent magnets. This is because it is not necessary to give a backward impulse to the input coils to realize a return flow to its original magnetic path. Using advanced ferromagnetic materials with better characteristics will further enhance the efficiency of the device."




---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Itsu
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #4 on: 2022-04-03, 16:15:15 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102

Quote
If anyone has an abandoned MEG-like experiment it could be interesting to put a mechanical pulse (tap with a hammer) onto one outer end of the core and see what is induced into the output coils (this is with no drive onto the input coils).  I am sure that there will be some induction and that might tell you something about the acoustic resonance of the C core.  It might be possible by trying a tap at each end to discover whether each C core has the same acoustic resonance.

Smudge,

i happen to have such a metglas core (AMCC-200) with some coils around it and will use only 1 single coil to measure the tapping response.
No air gap between the half's, no pressure on them either, just touching each other.

Coil measures 242mH @ 1.5 Ohm, for tapping response see the screenshot below and the video here:  https://youtu.be/Q0D5HSQYWiE


Itsu
   
img  Smudge
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #5 on: 2022-04-03, 16:35:42 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1861
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-04-03, 14:25:41
If Bearden's patent has for me no credibility, and his "theories" are obviously inconsistent, it is pseudo-scientific gibberish.....
The measurements published in that original (18 pages from memory) MEG paper are not gibberish.  In fact they made a mistake in using the wrong math on their Tek scope, but if they had done it correctly the COP would have been even greater.  Forget Bearden's gibberish, there were some measurements that showed COP>1.  I am prepared to believe that they did the best they could and did really get those measurements as reported.  But Bearden led them down the garden path and no one has really got anywhere in explaining why either (a) the measurements were wrong or (b) why that system worked as it did.  Has anyone done input frequency sweeps on a MEG and published the results?

Thanks for the paper, the references are useful.  Flynn's parallel path technology is arrived at through other pseudo-scientific gibberish.  I am amazed at how so many people just don't understand magnetism generally.

Smudge
   
img  F6FLT
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #6 on: 2022-04-03, 17:40:47 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
@Smudge

No MEG measurement of COP>1 is credible or attested by any certification body. After 20 years, if it was, very involved people like those of Magnetic Energy Ltd would already produce a commercial solution.

To be honest, when you read Bearden, his "theories" are really nonsense, a flood of words one after the other without any operational sense, no math, no equations, "not even false", this is not science. You who regularly manipulate equations, with original and very coherent ideas, better than his, I am surprised that you defend him.

However the flux switching is interesting, it is probably the reason of our common interest, and why I answered here. But the principle is not new. In the end, Bearden is a useless plagiarist, see for example this patent, a "MEG" from 1964 : https://patents.google.com/patent/US3368141A/en

For me, the research on flux switching would be more open, and possibly fruitful, if it was free from Bearden. "The MEG revisited" is a good title for flux switching, but then completely revisited.  :)



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Smudge
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #7 on: 2022-04-04, 15:26:32 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1861
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-04-03, 17:40:47
@Smudge

No MEG measurement of COP>1 is credible or attested by any certification body. After 20 years, if it was, very involved people like those of Magnetic Energy Ltd would already produce a commercial solution.

To be honest, when you read Bearden..... I am surprised that you defend him.
I don't think Bearden actually did the measurements, but somebody did and the results are given including images taken directly off the Tek 'scope.  From those images you can check that most of what is claimed is correct.   I think there is the possibility that the measurements were correct but not independently verified because the device has since been vandalized by taking it apart which damages it.  And no one, not even Magnetic Energy, have been able to make another one that works.  Of course without having the original to test this is all speculation, but the world is in such need of a new energy source that it is worth following this up.

Why has no one been able to make another one that works?  I think that could be because no one knows the working principle, hence there could be some minor features that really affect the workings but are overlooked.  Like how is the magnet slid into position without damaging the core?  My experience is that it easily strips off some flakes of the very thin metglas tape.  Did they use some lubrication to help slide the magnet into place?  Did they use some plastic film between the magnet faces and the core?  If so did a flake of metglas tape get embedded in the plastic?  Did a flake get embedded between the mating faces of the C cores?  What was the plastic cable tie that held the whole thing together and how much tension was this in?  As you can see a number of things could be there as unknown but important features.

Taking the two features (a) that only the inner laminations get saturated leaving the outer regions to carry the alternating flux and (b) there is acoustic resonance driven by magnetostriction, there is the possibility that the Villari effect could come into play.  In the pdf document attached I give a brief summary of that possibility (this really needs a full paper but this brief will have to do for now).  The chart shows the effect of tensile stresses on the MH curve (actually the BH curve because M is given in Tesla) of some material that I can't remember (I wrote this in 2007) but might be the material that Naudin used.  Any area on a BH chart represents energy density (J/m3 if B is in T and H in A/m).  I show the area that would be traversed CW for the energy per cycle needed to account for the 10W in Naudin's measurements, and you can see that it involves only small variations in B and H.  This indicates that this effect could well be in play but has anyone considered this?  Being an effect directly related to the core material, could it produce COP>1?  I think it is a possibility because, as you know, I am a great believer that the atomic magnetic dipoles (electron orbits or spins) responsible for the magnetism can be made to give up energy acting like quantum dynamos.

Smudge           
   
img  partzman
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #8 on: 2022-04-04, 17:44:38 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1671
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-04-03, 17:40:47
@Smudge

No MEG measurement of COP>1 is credible or attested by any certification body. After 20 years, if it was, very involved people like those of Magnetic Energy Ltd would already produce a commercial solution.

To be honest, when you read Bearden, his "theories" are really nonsense, a flood of words one after the other without any operational sense, no math, no equations, "not even false", this is not science. You who regularly manipulate equations, with original and very coherent ideas, better than his, I am surprised that you defend him.

However the flux switching is interesting, it is probably the reason of our common interest, and why I answered here. But the principle is not new. In the end, Bearden is a useless plagiarist, see for example this patent, a "MEG" from 1964 : https://patents.google.com/patent/US3368141A/en

For me, the research on flux switching would be more open, and possibly fruitful, if it was free from Bearden. "The MEG revisited" is a good title for flux switching, but then completely revisited.  :)

Actually, I did experience COP>1 with a MEG configuration but with MOV's as the load.  See-

http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megnot01.htm

This was done many years ago and the measurements were taken using a 3-phase PM3000 Universal Power Analyzer and well within the frequency range of the instrument.  The COPs were higher with the PM inserted in the Metglas cores as I recall.

I gave up on the project because I could not see how to capitalize on the gains with MOVs!

Regards,
Pm
   
img  F6FLT
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #9 on: 2022-04-07, 08:49:17 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
They have read that some have claimed to have measured a COP>1 once, or would have measured a COP>1 without measurement error or falsification, and they believe it. They don't have any duplication that proves it beyond any doubt, but they want to believe it.

Why is failure in free energy guaranteed by most of its actors themselves?

It's very simple: they believe we already have it!

So why look for it?

Just circle around those who would have it but have always had their subscription to an energy provider, like Naudin or Bearden, and wait for the miracle.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #10 on: 2022-04-08, 21:12:05 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2633
F6FLT
Quote
They have read that some have claimed to have measured a COP>1 once, or would have measured a COP>1 without measurement error or falsification, and they believe it. They don't have any duplication that proves it beyond any doubt, but they want to believe it.
Why is failure in free energy guaranteed by most of its actors themselves?
It's very simple: they believe we already have it! So why look for it?

It's debatable, I saw a COP>100 device working on my bench. I mean it was literally working on my bench a few feet away producing over a kilowatt of energy no intelligent person could deny.

So it wasn't a matter of belief other than coming to the conclusion someone like you shouldn't have this kind of technology, no offense. It was radiating all kinds of high frequency EM energy, wiping out all nearby electronics and basically out of control. I didn't know what to think of it at first so I sat on it for a year or so moving on to other projects. Watching the news and speaking with people like you ultimately convinced me there is no way I should ever disclose this kind of technology.

Although I understand the viewpoint, supposedly save the world, fame and fortune however it's not your choice to make it's the inventors. In fact I know a few people who have built and seen similar technology who feel the same way. Apparently once a person is intelligent enough to build this kind of technology they also realize they should never disclose it to the masses. Most inventors also had bad experiences with people becoming blind with greed and turning into psychopaths when they realized the technology could work.

In fact I read a story of how one nutjob tried to steal this technology from an inventor multiple times then held the inventor at gunpoint and threatened to blow his head off unless he disclosed how it works. After he was arrested he claimed he was doing it for mankind and not himself out of greed. So caution is advisable to those working on this stuff.

In my mind it's just another technology, a machine, no more no less. However it could also have severe consequences and disrupt the global balance of power creating chaos. So there's that...

AC





 


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  Paul-R
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #11 on: 2022-04-08, 22:53:21 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1578
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-04-08, 21:12:05
F6FLT
It's debatable, I saw a COP>100 device working on my bench. I mean it was literally working on my bench a few feet away producing over a kilowatt of energy no intelligent person could deny....

... In my mind it's just another technology, a machine, no more no less. However it could also have severe consequences and disrupt the global balance of power creating chaos. So there's that...


These arguments could be applied to very cheap fuel. They could be applied to any disruptive tech and so, I ask why don't you present it to us?
« Last Edit: 2022-04-09, 10:27:49 by Paul-R »
   
img  3D Magnetics
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #12 on: 2022-04-09, 02:55:19 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 328
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-04-08, 21:12:05
F6FLT
It's debatable, I saw a COP>100 device working on my bench. I mean it was literally working on my bench a few feet away producing over a kilowatt of energy no intelligent person could deny.

So it wasn't a matter of belief other than coming to the conclusion someone like you shouldn't have this kind of technology, no offense. It was radiating all kinds of high frequency EM energy, wiping out all nearby electronics and basically out of control. I didn't know what to think of it at first so I sat on it for a year or so moving on to other projects. Watching the news and speaking with people like you ultimately convinced me there is no way I should ever disclose this kind of technology.

Although I understand the viewpoint, supposedly save the world, fame and fortune however it's not your choice to make it's the inventors. In fact I know a few people who have built and seen similar technology who feel the same way. Apparently once a person is intelligent enough to build this kind of technology they also realize they should never disclose it to the masses. Most inventors also had bad experiences with people becoming blind with greed and turning into psychopaths when they realized the technology could work.

In fact I read a story of how one nutjob tried to steal this technology from an inventor multiple times then held the inventor at gunpoint and threatened to blow his head off unless he disclosed how it works. After he was arrested he claimed he was doing it for mankind and not himself out of greed. So caution is advisable to those working on this stuff.

In my mind it's just another technology, a machine, no more no less. However it could also have severe consequences and disrupt the global balance of power creating chaos. So there's that...

AC

It is then a fair question to ask? What your aim is to be here  (helping)?
   
img  Paul-R
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #13 on: 2022-04-09, 10:33:41 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1578
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-04-08, 21:12:05

In fact I read a story of how one nutjob tried to steal this technology from an inventor multiple times then held the inventor at gunpoint and threatened to blow his head off unless he disclosed how it works. After he was arrested he claimed he was doing it for mankind and not himself out of greed. So caution is advisable to those working on this stuff.


Then open source the technology.

If, as you suggest, there are dangers, then laws can be created to create a safeguard, as is the case with the nuclear industry.

But, as I see it, AC, your position makes no sense.
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #14 on: 2022-04-09, 19:00:59 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2633
3Dmagnetics
Quote
It is then a fair question to ask? What your aim is to be here  (helping)?

My goal has changed over time and now I'm trying to help others understand a few key concepts which helped guide me along the way.

1)Energy is motion, since energy cannot be created or destroyed neither can motion. Thus everything everywhere must be in perpetual motion which represents energy. There is no magic here nor is there a free lunch, everything is already in motion and we can use it to perform useful work.
2)We cannot create or destroy energy only transform it thus understanding transformation/conversion is the way forward.

I'm not saying anyone should not pursue this technology I'm saying you need to be careful because you have no idea what your dealing with. Remember SM's story about the imploding TV pulling nails out of the wall from 30 feet away killing a little girl?. Or Wilhelm Reich messing about with technology which could scramble a persons DNA or modify the weather?. Based on what I have seen first hand I'm going to take a wild guess and suppose that there are groups out there watching this technology to protect us from ourselves. As an Engineer I agree with them, someone has to be the responsible adult in the room.

Paul-R
Quote
Then open source the technology.
If, as you suggest, there are dangers, then laws can be created to create a safeguard, as is the case with the nuclear industry.
But, as I see it, AC, your position makes no sense.

It makes no sense because you don't understand the technology or what it's capable of doing. Were basically speaking of messing with the foundation of matter and the atom at that level. A better question would be what isn't possible if we could take control over matter and energy. Why it's the wild west part two but now every cowboy has a 20,000 mph horse and a 50 cal particle weapon. Again, someone has to be the responsible adult in the room and all you have to do is watch the news to understand where mankind is at intellectually.

Regards
AC



 


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #15 on: 2022-04-09, 22:26:03 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-04-08, 21:12:05
F6FLT
It's debatable, I saw a COP>100 device working on my bench. I mean it was literally working on my bench a few feet away producing over a kilowatt of energy no intelligent person could deny.

So it wasn't a matter of belief other than coming to the conclusion someone like you shouldn't have this kind of technology, no offense. It was radiating all kinds of high frequency EM energy, wiping out all nearby electronics and basically out of control. I didn't know what to think of it at first so I sat on it for a year or so moving on to other projects. Watching the news and speaking with people like you ultimately convinced me there is no way I should ever disclose this kind of technology.

AC

What kind of energy did you power it with?
   
img  Paul-R
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #16 on: 2022-04-09, 23:06:35 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1578
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-04-09, 19:00:59

Paul-R
It makes no sense because you don't understand the technology or what it's capable of doing. Were basically speaking of messing with the foundation of matter and the atom at that level...


Fair enouigh. But, then, why are you using a thread on the MEG to bring it up?
   
img  JimBoot
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #17 on: 2022-04-09, 23:35:34 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1715
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-04-08, 21:12:05
F6FLT
It's debatable, I saw a COP>100 device working on my bench. I mean it was literally working on my bench a few feet away producing over a kilowatt of energy no intelligent person could deny.


  C.C
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #18 on: 2022-04-10, 03:08:29 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2633
Paul
Quote
Fair enouigh. But, then, why are you using a thread on the MEG to bring it up?

Looking back I believe it started with F6FLT implying perpetual motion is impossible and the MEG cannot work. Then I responded by saying perpetual motion is the normal state and one of the devices I have seen which actually relates to the MEG did work and here we are.

Looking at the MEG I can see how it could work under the right conditions. However it would depend on the power supply configuration, voltage, current, input signal and timing.

AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  Paul-R
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #19 on: 2022-04-10, 13:54:51 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1578
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-04-10, 03:08:29

Looking at the MEG I can see how it could work under the right conditions. However it would depend on the power supply configuration, voltage, current, input signal and timing.


Let's give it a go, AC. Give us some theory and recommendations and let's see what we can do.
   
img  F6FLT
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #20 on: 2022-04-10, 17:58:21 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-04-10, 03:08:29
...
Looking back I believe it started with F6FLT implying perpetual motion is impossible and the MEG cannot work. Then I responded by saying perpetual motion is the normal state and one of the devices I have seen which actually relates to the MEG did work and here we are.
...

I thought I had answered that, and I can't find my message. Maybe somewhere else?
Clearly, this is a sophistical semantic drift. "Perpetual motion" as it is understood here is not the perpetual motion of the dynamics of the universe, e.g. the electronic motions in atoms, but the possibility of deriving useful energy from that motion, while it continues to move.

What we expect from the people who claim that this movement exists, is that they provide us with a diagram and an assembly manual, as well as their measurement protocols and measurements, as engineers do, whose work is easily duplicated.

Unfortunately, those who talk to us about perpetual motion are like those who talk to us about the Pink Unicorn. As long as they are not able to convince the skeptics, the Pink Unicorn is only in their heads. Skeptics believe in electromagnetic waves or atoms which they have never seen, so believing in perpetual motion would certainly not bother them, they just need to be provided with experimental evidence and logical reasoning associated with this evidence.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  GreyWolfn1a
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #21 on: 2022-04-10, 18:09:33 »

Group: Restricted
Hero Member
*

Posts: 1460
Enjoy your trek through life but leave no tracks
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-04-10, 17:58:21
I thought I had answered that, and I can't find my message. Maybe somewhere else?
Clearly, this is a sophistical semantic drift. "Perpetual motion" as it is understood here is not the perpetual motion of the dynamics of the universe, e.g. the electronic motions in atoms, but the possibility of deriving useful energy from that motion, while it continues to move.

What we expect from the people who claim that this movement exists, is that they provide us with a diagram and an assembly manual, as well as their measurement protocols and measurements, as engineers do, whose work is easily duplicated.

Unfortunately, those who talk to us about perpetual motion are like those who talk to us about the Pink Unicorn. As long as they are not able to convince the skeptics, the Pink Unicorn is only in their heads. Skeptics believe in electromagnetic waves or atoms which they have never seen, so believing in perpetual motion would certainly not bother them, they just need to be provided with experimental evidence and logical reasoning associated with this evidence.
PS are you feeling a bit pissed ? if i were you don't quit your day time job to be come a stand up comic, your jokes aren't realy  funny may be a politician ! :D


---------------------------
Be aware I'm moderated because I complained about persistent trolls to Chet, folowing me round and got same treatment as perpetrators..This is the third time, You aint doing this again.
   
img  F6FLT
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #22 on: 2022-04-10, 18:25:18 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022-04-09, 22:26:03
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-04-08, 21:12:05
F6FLT
It's debatable, I saw a COP>100 device working on my bench. I mean it was literally working on my bench a few feet away producing over a kilowatt of energy no intelligent person could deny.
What kind of energy did you power it with?

The energy of auto-suggestion.  ;D

Quote from: AlienGrey on 2022-04-10, 18:09:33
PS are you feeling a bit pissed ? if i were you don't quit your day time job to be come a stand up comic, your jokes aren't realy  funny may be a politician ! :D

I'm really saddened that you didn't like my "jokes", I think it's going to ruin my appetite and won't be having any more chocolate mousse tonight.
But maybe you'll change your mind tomorrow, the time you understand them.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #23 on: 2022-04-10, 19:23:00 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2633
PaulR
Quote
Let's give it a go, AC. Give us some theory and recommendations and let's see what we can do.

The information below is taken from The MEG paper : Extracting Energy from a Permanent Magnet with Energy-Replenishing from the Active Vacuum, a PDF document ( 69 pages 1,29 MB), by T.E. Bearden

Here we can see a few key points...
1)The device isn't designed to act like a normal transformer, we know that won't work. It's designed to act like a "negative resistor" where the load periodically becomes another source.

The main issue I see with this point is that most people aren't thinking rationally or deductively about it. When I see a statement like this I think...
What's a normal transformer?, how does it work?, how could it work in a different way?, what am I missing?, what's a negative resistor?, how does it work?, how could it work differently?, what am I missing?, how can the load become a source?, what is a load and what is a source?, what's the difference between them?, how are they similar?, what does periodically mean?, what am I missing?.

I always leave room for doubt, follow through so I can learn something new and always presume I missed something. I never presume I'm fully informed about anything and there's always more to learn. We need the mindset of a detective looking for evidence or information.

2)In Figure 15. Typical embodiment system and application in the patent we see a diagram.

In the patent we see two groups of two output coils on the circular core with a permanent magnet in the center. We also see a small input coil between one group of output coils being fed a square wave. Do you see the problem?, the patent looks different than Figure 16. Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (laboratory experiment), the apparatus and the coils and configuration have changed. Why did it change?, how did it change?, for what reason?, which is correct?, do both work or not?.

3)In Figure 15 we can also see a feedback control and open loop switch. We see this in many patents and it could be seen as a starter switch. We ping the coil with a pulse from the source then switch over to feedback operation. We could speculate this section is similar to a self-oscillating boost converter or joule thief circuit. Where have we seen this before?.

4)Why a magnet, why place it in the center?. Almost everyone presumes this is where the extra energy must come from but this is a false assumption. One would think it's more of a hindrance considering the fact it must partially saturate the core so why a magnet and why in the center?. I find it really strange that nobody has seemed to figure out what it's actual purpose is within the system. As well, we see this all over the place in many patents back to the early 1900's, the Hendershot device comes to mind.

So why a magnet, why place it in the center?. In my experiments I concluded the magnet is used as an energy storage/timing mechanism like a spring. The input coil field opposes the permanent magnetic field and forces it in a given direction storing some energy. When the input ceases the magnetic field then springs back to it's original form releasing said stored energy. Which is problematic because if the purpose of the input coil and magnet are to time a given amount of magnetic energy then we have no mechanism for gain.

So to recap it's not a transformer, the embodiment and action are ambiguous, it seems to act like a self-oscillating boost converter and the permanent magnet is a field timing/storage mechanism. Which leaves most in limbo because there is literally no mechanism left which could possibly produce a gain in energy. Unless, of course, everyone missed something.

At which point a quote comes to mind...
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth", Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

This may help.
https://philosiblog.com/2012/05/22/when-you-have-eliminated-the-impossible-whatever-remains-however-improbable-must-be-the-truth/
Quote
Sometimes, it can be hard to solve a challenging situation even under the best of circumstances. A problem with lots of shiny things to look at can be distracting, and waste a great deal of our time.

While some impossibilities might be obvious, sometimes we can be sucked in by an idea that intrigues us, despite being impossible. Other times, it is only in close examination that the impossibility is revealed.

However, once we clear the clutter by removing all that is impossible, we are left with an easier solution. Gone are the impossibilities, both obvious and subtle. What is left can be gone over more quickly, and evaluated for probability or even likelihood.

Regards
AC


 












---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  Paul-R
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #24 on: 2022-04-10, 22:39:38 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1578
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-04-10, 19:23:00

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth", Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.


This may be true, but eliminating the impossible is impossible because there are an infinite number of impossibilities to get through.

In the meanwhile, I'll get that paper and have a good look at it.
   
Pages: [1] 2 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-02, 11:47:13