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
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!
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
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.04.03, 10:10:18
...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."
QuoteIf 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
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.03, 13:25:41
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
@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. :)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.03, 16:40:47
@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/m
3 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
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.03, 16:40:47
@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
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.
F6FLT
QuoteThey 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
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.04.08, 20:12:05
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?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.04.08, 20:12:05
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)?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.04.08, 20:12:05
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.
3Dmagnetics
QuoteIt 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
QuoteThen 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
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.04.08, 20:12:05
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?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.04.09, 18:00:59
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?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.04.08, 20:12:05
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
Paul
QuoteFair 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
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.04.10, 02:08:29
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.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.04.10, 02:08:29
...
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.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.10, 16:58:21
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
Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022.04.09, 21:26:03
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, 17:09:33
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.
PaulR
QuoteLet'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/
QuoteSometimes, 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
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.04.10, 18:23:00
"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.
Quote from: Paul-R on 2022.04.10, 21:39:38
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.
I'm not sure how many people could understand that paper. Stephen Hawking, possibly, but he's passed on. If there isn't a document which is very much more accessible, then that project may be a dead duck.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.10, 17:25:18
What kind of energy did you power it with?
The energy of auto-suggestion. ;D
You're Good. You're REALLY Good. Although I'd suggest thinking about Ed Leedskalnin's Magnetic Current. It might take less juice to shear the flux on one side. A Magnetic Shear, what an innovation that would be.
Leedskalnin said the transfer of magnetic strength through the inductor is instantaneous. But the expansion from the core isn't.
*****
I finally got my wheel bearing fixed, but the slide area for the caliper now has a nicely machined notch.
PaulR
QuoteThis may be true, but eliminating the impossible is impossible because there are an infinite number of impossibilities to get through.
Not really, this is how I and many others came to understand this technology so it's not impossible just very difficult.
Here's a clue, one insight came from an unlikely place. It was when Steven Marks was talking about energy and all of the things which could occur when a pulse of energy flows down a single length of wire. Most would think it's absurd and they understand all about electricity and wires but there only fooling themselves.
For example, it's easy for me to do something nobody could understand and think impossible. Under the right conditions I sent a high voltage, high energy impulse down a length of wire and it ejected radiant matter. It did not induce other objects or conductors with a magnetic field change but physically ejected very small particles of metal with a large surface charge ie. radiant matter. You and most others including the supposed experts would be completely dumbfounded because this kind of induction does not follow any of the standard rules for induction. The conductor acts more like a charged particle accelerator than a conductor or transformer. Tesla described one effect of radiant matter as a stinging sensation on his face and arms.
Do you see how easy that was?. I just described an experiment I proved which could easily confuse anyone because it would literally be the last thing they were looking for. The thought would never even cross there mind and they would have no idea how or why it was even possible. Thus when we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
The kicker, of course, is that it's relatively easy to try and produce the effect because we have some understanding of what were trying to accomplish. However to see the effect in action and have no understanding of what could be happening is almost impossible to comprehend. As the saying goes, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" Arthur C. Clarke.
Of course the MEG does not use this radiant matter effect and I'm just pointing out how easy it is to misinterpret other effects most don't understand.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022.04.11, 02:29:22
...A Magnetic Shear, what an innovation that would be.
Leedskalnin said the transfer of magnetic strength through the inductor is instantaneous. But the expansion from the core isn't.
...
This would be a great innovation. Unfortunately Leedskalnin has been dead for more than 70 years, and nobody has produced anything from his theory.
I think that those who tried failed because his theory was bogus, not because they were simpletons. As I don't pretend to be smarter than them, I'll look elsewhere.
It seems to me that if we want to "innovate", it is not by looking to the past but to the future, therefore to the unexplored.
I saw a drawing where someone had two radial holes in the torus, and he put some windings through one and back through the other.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.11, 17:29:55
This would be a great innovation. Unfortunately Leedskalnin has been dead for more than 70 years, and nobody has produced anything from his theory.
I think that those who tried failed because his theory was bogus, not because they were simpletons. As I don't pretend to be smarter than them, I'll look elsewhere.
It seems to me that if we want to "innovate", it is not by looking to the past but to the future, therefore to the unexplored.
What's been unexplored?
Even though the magnetic impulse might travel at the speed of light, relative to the medium of the insulated iron wire, it hasn't been disputed that magnetism appears at the non connected end of the coil when it's switched into a branch going to a battery or capacitor.
Tom Bearden taught us about the existence of Heaviside's electrostatic explanation. Further proof that moving static is magnetic is given by my Van deGraaf Cymbol's confirmation of CPH Theory, which uses 1/3 and 2/3 charge sub electron particles with a certain interaction predicting positive charges moving towards each other.
It's well accepted that successful Inventors leave something out of the patent. On the other hand, 'one thing' ("For the Public") can be put into a decoy patent. Such as a patent claiming a transformer. The design and any non claimed elements or facts then become Prior Art.
We're always looking towards, and working for, the future. This includes those of us in prior centuries. Every 'one thing' which has been disclosed, which might fall within our interest, should be investigated, to build understanding.
F6FLT
QuoteThis would be a great innovation. Unfortunately Leedskalnin has been dead for more than 70 years, and nobody has produced anything from his theory.
I would disagree, I found the perpetual motion holder(PMH) I built and tested to be quite interesting and learned a great deal.
For example, one impulse of current is enough to align the magnetic domains so the cross bar is held in place indefinitely. The supposed secret is in the gap, once the U shaped ends are magnetized they magnetize the cross bar in an opposite sense across the gap ie. magnetic induction. It's a form of residual magnetism holding the cross bar in place however there's a little more to it. On one side the N pole remains because there is a S pole across the gap still inducing it. Likewise on the other side the S pole remains because there is a N pole across the gap still inducing it. So it is the mutually induced residual magnetism which drives the force holding the cross bar in place. The two gaps are as follows, N gap S and S gap N.
This is similar to a charged two plate capacitor that also has a gap and doesn't discharge when one plate is grounded. The charge on one plate cannot dissipate to ground because the opposite charges across the gap are attracting each other and holding them in place. The PMH is similar to two charged capacitors in a loop with two gaps where no charge can escape because each gap has induced an opposite polarity across each gap. That is (-)II(+) and (+)II(-).
As well, If we enlarge the gap and separate the capacitor plates then they can be discharged just like the PMH U bar and cross bar being separated and discharged.
I thought it was really interesting that there are so many similarities between electric and magnetic effects. In this case it was mutual induction across a gap holding the opposite conditions and forces in place. There's more to Leedskalnin's work but I haven't had the time to sort it all out.
Regards
AC
Right. And, IIRC, the unit he built and used was a heavy iron strap bent into a 3' horseshoe about 18" across the end. And he had a piece of the strap spanning the ends. (He put in a stream of trigger pulses with an object other than the strap). And there was a big 6" coil on one side. The PM he discussed involved magnet corpuscles circulating around the loop. The fact that they were corpuscles indicates a Heaviside like condition. So I think you should have a two circuit winding to switch a magnet's core. Unless you have a lot of CEMF.
Hominid Sciam vs Hominid Barbaros
By "no one has produced anything from his theory", I mean of course the production of a useful and functional device creating OU or free energy. For the rest everyone knows how to do, starting with conventional engineering.
But if you guys already have free energy, it's a pity that you are unable to give us the recipe.
One thing John Bedini emphasized was the danger in experimenting with a magnet corpuscle floating inside a 'reconditioned' magnet (VTA). Tom Bearden said there are a hundred other ways to do it. But every Jedi Knight has to build his own light saber. Questions?
Bedini did not originate any useful and functional devices that create OU or free energy.
I will come to believe that people with bad intentions or paid by the oil or nuclear industry want to prevent us from moving forward and doing open research, by systematically sending us back to the unproductive past and locking us endlessly in idle theories of charlatans. :) >:(
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.12, 15:26:03
Bedini did not originate any useful and functional devices that create OU or free energy.
I will come to believe that people with bad intentions or paid by the oil or nuclear industry want to prevent us from moving forward and doing open research, by systematically sending us back to the unproductive past and locking us endlessly in idle theories of charlatans. :) >:(
I'm a 'free' energy worker; I work for free.
Looking at the MEG a little more and I think it's entirely doable...
It's similar to a perpetual motion holder(PMH) and could store a certain amount of the input energy across the gap. On field collapse this could then couple with the PM field driving the efficiency to near 100%. Note that in the patent the core gaps are placed directly over the poles of the PM. The goal here is to drive this part of the system to as close to 100% efficiency as possible.
Once the energy in this part of the system is conserved we can then think about other mechanisms to drive the COP>1.
Anyone want to bet a short impulse into the MEG without a magnet yields the same results as the perpetual motion holder(PMH)?. I'm thinking 100%.
On further reflection I like this setup and think a MEG rebuild may be in the works...
Regards
AC
That's great, AC. I've heard that a shoulder gap produces a non linear inductance.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.12, 15:26:03
Bedini did not originate any useful and functional devices that create OU or free energy.
I will come to believe that people with bad intentions or paid by the oil or nuclear industry want to prevent us from moving forward and doing open research, by systematically sending us back to the unproductive past and locking us endlessly in idle theories of charlatans. :) >:(
I've read that over a million private Inventors are now using nano fog hho for their generators. I found an aspirator jar.
Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022.04.12, 19:39:14
I've read that over a million private Inventors are now using nano fog hho for their generators. I found an aspirator jar.
First, even if it were true, which remains to be proven, it is not a proof of OU. I have heard that the earth is flat. That doesn't make it true.
Secondly, the user of an invention is not an inventor. The logic of your statement is, to say the least, bizarre.
Of what is claimed to be "over unity" or "free energy", we see either devices that don't work at all, or devices that work in a way that is perfectly explained by the laws of physics, the OU being insinuated or claimed when there is no evidence of it, notably no experimental evidence. The HHO is of this second type, as is the MEG.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.13, 09:11:57
The HHO is of this second type, as is the MEG.
I suspect that HHO increases the combustion efficiency from the usual very low figure. But how do you reckon the MEG gives a result, if it does?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.13, 09:11:57
First, even if it were true, which remains to be proven, it is not a proof of OU. I have heard that the earth is flat. That doesn't make it true.
Secondly, the user of an invention is not an inventor. The logic of your statement is, to say the least, bizarre.
Of what is claimed to be "over unity" or "free energy", we see either devices that don't work at all, or devices that work in a way that is perfectly explained by the laws of physics, the OU being insinuated or claimed when there is no evidence of it, notably no experimental evidence. The HHO is of this second type, as is the MEG.
There's a lot of evidence that a water drop explosion releases 200 times as much energy as the ignition spark. Randal Mills has reported 15 MW output when injecting colloidal silver into the droplets. Why so cantankerous?
Anyone who has the skill to build a revolutionary system, then make it work, has to be an Inventor. Even if it's someone else's discovery. Of course, those who aren't Inventors will instead demand that someone just hand them a working device. Then complain that it's not 'free'.
Dr. Paul Brown has a decoy patent. I was living in his town when he made his big discovery with Cessium. His can melted a 2" x 1/4" bus bar. Then he sold out and they moved his company to Seattle. Historically, Brown had a small foil tube of pure Strontium90 metal. Even though it put out 39 Watts, he said only two people in a hundred realise the radioactive energy is less than 5% of the output. (Standard OU boilerplate.). The transformer wiring is authentic. He said he found a new way. to get the kinetic energy into a wire.
If you can build a Fusor and stand coils like that around it,
That proves you're an Inventor.
And I just finished my new Ed Leedskalnin Test Circuit.
(For a different thread linking back to the MEG.
Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022.04.14, 20:54:03
If you can build a Fusor and stand coils like that around it,
That proves you're an Inventor.
...
Doing anything is not proof of invention.
"An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process."
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.22, 09:38:54
Doing anything is not proof of invention.
"An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process."
Under Legalese, an Inventor is someone who makes or designs something useful which hasn't been patented or placed into the Public Domain. Anyone who comes up with a working variation of the MEG. As an example. Or a Fusor with an output socket.
Dr. Paul Brown, a brilliant Nuclear Phisicist, Scientist and Inventor, said he found a new way to get electrons into a wire. What he apparently did was tap the duality of an electron's wave/particle manifestation, relative to the seething mass of electrons in and around his chunck of Cessium. He built a receiving coil antenna in the form of a ring of transformers to allow the wave function to transfer into the primary windings, with a tuning cap providing a desired output frequency. The secondary windings are how output is taken from the passive resonance surrounding the isotope.
I've been around for a while, building my understanding. I remember a forum discussion about the 'technical' beginning of the new Mellinnium. And I'm also technically an Inventor, with a patent listed under my name (4,260,933 - Optical Generator). (I'm selling those ResMods). I'm going to try Dr. Brown's transformers around the outside of my Fusion Spark. It's known in the Prior Art that an arc will support six lengthwise nodes around it's perimeter. So that's how many transformers I'll try.
About the MEG, I got a couple of square florescent tubes, about the size of a quarter and a good 1/8" thick. Plasma normally blocks magnetism, but I doubt there would be much of that with such a wide pole gap. So I'll see if I can polarize the plasma, to provide permittivity through the gap. Using an on switch rather than trying to make an off switch.
*****
edit: Quoting Aaron Murakami : "Don't you start thinking about his patent; he's just trying to relive the glory days when he Had a patent. And it's just one more tube with a spark in it."
Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022.04.22, 16:53:18
Under Legalese, an Inventor is someone who makes or designs something useful which hasn't been patented or placed into the Public Domain. Anyone who comes up with a working variation of the MEG. As an example. Or a Fusor with an output socket.
Dr. Paul Brown, a brilliant Nuclear Phisicist...
I agree, but it should be added that the legal definition does not imply that the legal inventor is a real inventor, since a working machine is never required to obtain a patent.
What we are interested in are real machines that work. If patents were the proof that the mention "inventor", with his name, corresponded to a real inventor, then we would have free energy since a long time, considering the very large number of patents that claim to provide it.
So rather than talking about people who say to have something that works, presenting us with either something that works, including schematics, measurement method and data, or with refutable theories, thus accompanied by their logical or mathematical formalism, would be much more useful.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.23, 07:41:01
I agree, but it should be added that the legal definition does not imply that the legal inventor is a real inventor, since a working machine is never required to obtain a patent.
What we are interested in are real machines that work. If patents were the proof that the mention "inventor", with his name, corresponded to a real inventor, then we would have free energy since a long time, considering the very large number of patents that claim to provide it.
So rather than talking about people who say to have something that works, presenting us with either something that works, including schematics, measurement method and data, or with refutable theories, thus accompanied by their logical or mathematical formalism, would be much more useful.
All this is straight thinking. And I did invent something which works. It's called a Capacity Changer, using a VdG and a cymbal from a drum set. Also, I posted a picture showing my self charging battery setup, but no one said anything.
Making something that works is very easy, it is within the reach of everyone in all fields.
Making something that works by producing more energy than it consumes is very easy for the person who does it. Either he persuades himself, a matter of cognitive bias and/or incompetence to make measurements, or he wants to persuade others when he knows he doesn't have it, a matter of ego or scam.
Making something that works not only for the inventor but also for those who duplicate the inventor's plans, producing more energy than it consumes, has, until proven otherwise, never been done. The inventor would have to be a real inventor, and a real inventor is able to transmit his know-how.
I see your statement supporting point 2, but we need an invention supporting point 3.
F6FLT
QuoteMaking something that works not only for the inventor but also for those who duplicate the inventor's plans, producing more energy than it consumes, has, until proven otherwise, never been done. The inventor would have to be a real inventor, and a real inventor is able to transmit his know-how.
An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You don't know it's "never been done" your just speculating based on your own personal beliefs.
For example, we now have proof UFO's are real, can you explain how they work or there energy source?. Well of course not because it's privileged information held by those who actually understand it. It's on them to decide whether they ever disclose the technology not you. The fact UFO's actually exist is proof enough we still have a lot to learn isn't it?.
It reminds me of the quote, "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?", George Berkeley.
Objectively speaking, it doesn't matter whether we believe in free energy technology or not, or that we even exist. There will always be people who know and understand more than we do and will continue to make more progress. I take comfort in this fact...
Regards
AC
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.04.24, 08:44:06
Making something that works is very easy, it is within the reach of everyone in all fields.
Making something that works by producing more energy than it consumes is very easy for the person who does it. Either he persuades himself, a matter of cognitive bias and/or incompetence to make measurements, or he wants to persuade others when he knows he doesn't have it, a matter of ego or scam.
Making something that works not only for the inventor but also for those who duplicate the inventor's plans, producing more energy than it consumes, has, until proven otherwise, never been done. The inventor would have to be a real inventor, and a real inventor is able to transmit his know-how.
I see your statement supporting point 2, but we need an invention supporting point 3.
My self charging battery holder is shown in my picture of my new Test Circuit. The reason it's part of that picture is I'm working on finding a way to do it without using the pesky little "100,00 Volt" modules. Run them for 15 seconds under load and they'll burn out. (Then it takes five weeks to get some more). The load being a window pane sheet glass capacitor (not shown), feeding noisy crackling through the long spark gap next to the end battery on the top row.
Two parallel 4.5V strings. One string will power one module. That does drain the batteries down pretty quickly. So I use two strings of batteries tied together, with two modules tied at their inputs. Configurated for normal operation, the two modules are glued to the side of the battery pack. I made that case out of yard stick wood, cut with a hack saw and glued together. I clamp the batteries between electrode springs drilled off of old 6V lantern batteries.
The readings from all individual cells remain uniform, even while charging. After making a few 7/8" crazy white sparks, the reading from the battery case can easily drop to 4.2V.
The way it's wired up is the modules'input wires twist together, one for the battteries' black wire, and one for the push button switch on the top left end. The top HV wires from the modules twist together and connect to the nearby spark gap screw. The lower HV wire from the top module has a sharp 90° kink about an inch out. Then it pigtails with the last wire from the bottom module, and on to the input side of the sheet glass capacitor. This capacitor's output powers the other screw of the spark gap.
Without the Inductor, the spark still has a biphasic composition. It has two sources, one with a phase shifting inductive bend ("kink"). This kind of spark energy magnetizes the wood behind the spark gap. (Think of my recently mentioned wood solenoid). The energized wood immediately causes charged particles inside the battery to migrate towards the outer cup electrode, recharging the battery.
The magnetism in the wood persists for quite a while. During one test, the reading reached 1.71V - on each cell - and one battery's pressure seal blew out with a loud hissing. This was after about 24 hours of self charging.
So this thing powers itself to produce the effect, then recharges, without additional input, to a higher level than needed for the next cycle. The recharging may be slow, but that is still Free Energy. If we can strap it at 4.5V, that's enough for the next shot, when needed, plus a steady trickle of self charging potential beyond that.
This is an easy build for observing the increasing potential next to the magnetically conditioned wood. WITH a usable amount of power, every now and then. Next, we can think about where to put a spark gap with a car battery. And I'm working on the self charging from two angles, with and without an expensive Inductor.