Naudin's Gegene

[exnihiloest]

Not sure that the output power evaluated from the lamps brightness is exceeding the 1KW input power, isn't it?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/indexen.htm

It's easy to duplicate but I have not an induction cooker and I won't buy one for nothing.

[Paul-R]

Not sure that the output power evaluated from the lamps brightness is exceeding the 1KW input power, isn't it?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/indexen.htm

It's easy to duplicate but I have not an induction cooker and I won't buy one for nothing.

It shouldn't be that difficult to knock up your own induction coil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking

or get one from a scrapped induction hob at a recycling centre. (How many cookers are scrapped
because they are the wrong colour or considered out of date? i.e. they work fine)

Maplins do a unit for £29

[Peterae]

He is not using the bulbs brightness to measure the output power, he has at least 2 bulbs in series and maybe 3, even the halogen bulbs have the wire hidden, but if you look at the copper strips they run the wrong way for parallel so even these are 2 or 3 in series.
So the 240V bulbs would not be full brightness at 305 volts.

So he shows current and voltage, can anyone confirm those meters would read correctly, what frequency do induction coils work at a few hundred KHz?
If the meter were not capable of reading at this high frequency then surely they would under read.

It's great to see Tesla's coil finally put to use.

EDIT
I just realized Naudin went on to test the light level against a mains lit bulb and worked out it is only 91.4%

and then he used a scope and came to 173%
http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene06en.htm

Maybe someone like Poynt may fancy looking at what he's doing in this one to see if 173% is correct or why it may not be.

[exnihiloest]

I don't know where an error could come from, but the lamps brightness seems to contradict the measurement. I remember his (not yet explained) mistake of the kapagen measurement when one day he announced Out>>In and the next day, Out=In for the same setup. So I stay careful.

Nevertheless, Happy New Year 2013 to everyone!

[Please, don't whish a working free energy device for this year. This had been done for 2012 and we are still waiting for it  ]


Update: see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JSvSFugWwI
The author realized a similar test as Naudin. At time 2:49 we see that the output signal is modulated by the mains frequency. If Naudin's device works the same way and he missed that, this could explain a false power measurement. With such a modulation, we would have to divide by two his measured power.

[Farmhand]

I'm suspicious of Naudin, what does he do ? He seems to just present apparent OU but never follows it up.
If he in fact had an OU device, just one out of the many devices he shows, why would he not follow it up
and get independent testing so as to prove the extra energy beyond doubt.

Also he mentions Utikin, who I think is disinfo (just my opinion) I think there is a group of buddy buddy scientific types
doing high class disinfo. The Iranian guy Keshe, Meyl, Naudin, Utikin, Don Smith, the list goes on.
None of them have actually proved any OU. If even one of them has actual OU then it would be ground breaking stuff
and yet they do little to nothing to actually prove anything.

Set the arrangement up and organize a qualified independent test person or two and lets see the result.

I can only assume that given there is no proven OU from Naudin in the past, that this is just another, more of the same.

If people believe this is real then people should be taking steps to replicate it. And show better evidence.

My question is what is the purpose of these people ? Because it's not to prove OU.
If they had OU and wanted to prove it they just would.

I'm not believing it. What happened to all his other "apparent OU" devices, was the OU not good enough ?

Things don't add up to me.

Cheers

[exnihiloest]

I'm suspicious of Naudin, what does he do ? He seems to just present apparent OU but never follows it up.
If he in fact had an OU device, just one out of the many devices he shows, why would he not follow it up
and get independent testing so as to prove the extra energy beyond doubt.
...

I agree 100% with you. He rarely conclude that a device he experimented is not OU, in spite of negative final results and while it is obvious that he abandonned the concept in question. For me he is lying by omission (the best example being the MEG).
His quality is to well document his work and to make rather clean measurements (even if they are sometimes erroneous), what is unusual in this domain.

[Armagdn03]

I'm suspicious of Naudin, what does he do ? He seems to just present apparent OU but never follows it up.
If he in fact had an OU device, just one out of the many devices he shows, why would he not follow it up
and get independent testing so as to prove the extra energy beyond doubt.

Also he mentions Utikin, who I think is disinfo (just my opinion) I think there is a group of buddy buddy scientific types
doing high class disinfo. The Iranian guy Keshe, Meyl, Naudin, Utikin, Don Smith, the list goes on.
None of them have actually proved any OU. If even one of them has actual OU then it would be ground breaking stuff
and yet they do little to nothing to actually prove anything.

Set the arrangement up and organize a qualified independent test person or two and lets see the result.

I can only assume that given there is no proven OU from Naudin in the past, that this is just another, more of the same.

If people believe this is real then people should be taking steps to replicate it. And show better evidence.

My question is what is the purpose of these people ? Because it's not to prove OU.
If they had OU and wanted to prove it they just would.

I'm not believing it. What happened to all his other "apparent OU" devices, was the OU not good enough ?

Things don't add up to me.

Cheers

Don't be so sure!

I used to keep up correspondence with Dr. Stiffler, and worked in several private forums with him. We had several discussions on Joseph Hiddink and his capacity switching device (parametrics). The good doctor had replicated it, and showed the public very little due to the inventor still being alive, and retaining rights (Despite what many say, I always found Dr. Stiffler to be very respectful). From what the good doctor told me, it was VERY successful in what it claimed. Intrigued I improved upon the initial concept by using the plasma in the tube as a third capacitor plate bridging the first two, removing the need for a complicated HV switching system. It worked VERY well as a capacity switching device.

http://www.rexresearch.com/hiddink/hiddink.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDGoyTdiFsQ


Jean Louis Naudin also must have thought this to be a viable system, as it is his only patent to date I can find!!! (modified of course, much like I did), yet absolutely based off of the same concept.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=0xOTAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

I would think filing a patent would count as "following up".

Perhaps there are those out there (who knows maybe they are on this forum) who investigate, prove to themselves, and share concepts without releasing enough to do damage to themselves.

Take care!

[Farmhand]

Hi Armagdn03, I was wondering did Naudin show his experiments and measurements with that patented device on his website ?
Seems to me if he did then he would not have been eligible for a patent. I was referring to follow up of devices he shows on the website
as OU.  And just because a patent says a device can show efficiency over one, doesn't make me believe it,
a properly conducted demonstration of the measurements might though.
I think there are a few patents that claim over 1 performance from memory, the question is who are they granted to,
I have a list of guru types I think are suspect, if a OU patent is granted to one of them I think nothing much of it.

OK then so we should replicate the patent ? If this patented device can be replicated and show over 1 performance then it should rock the world.
If it doesn't show OU what then ? How would it be explained that an OU patent was granted. Don't forget either the patent process is flawed and corrupt or it is not.
Which is it I wonder. Are all patents legitimate or are OU patents suppressed.

To me this is promising but suspicious.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

OK what does the underlined words mean in the section from the patent ?

[Farmhand]

As far as the patent system and OU devices go, I think there is an oxymoron element to it.

eg. If I were a patent examiner and a patent of over 100% performance was put in front of me, without a valid explanation of where the extra energy is coming from
I would want a demonstration and third party verification of the in/out and if I was a patriot to the current system of things or ignorant of it
I would immediately inform the relevant authorities for the possibility of national defence implications.

If the extra energy is explained then i would still want a third party validation and a demonstration, what happened then would
depend on the nature of things.

But I would think that for a device that was claimed to break any existing laws would not be granted unless it was first checked out by the
ones who would look out for the government or national interest. If there are suppressors then one place they would keep a close eye on is the patent apps.

I only had a quick look at that patent, and I don't claim to understand fully the processes involved, or the wording.

What exactly does this patent claim, in layman's terms ? Is it a granted patent to an over 100% efficient device ?

Cheers

P.S. In fact the patent says that the extra energy is from the work of the "observer" removing the plates. I don't think that strictly makes sense,
because an observer would not be just an observer if the observer inputs energy into the system.

Maybe some tricky wording there.

..

[exnihiloest]

...
P.S. In fact the patent says that the extra energy is from the work of the "observer" removing the plates. I don't think that strictly makes sense,
because an observer would not be just an observer if the observer inputs energy into the system.
...

When we change the capacitance of a charged capacitor, it's well known and easily verifiable that the work comes straightforwardly from the mechanical work done against the Coulomb force. What doesn't make sense is not the fact that the energy comes from the work for removing the plate, but that the term "observer" is unappropriate when the observer is also an active participan. Just a question of semantic.
There are plenty of patents of perpetual motions, so I don't think it's a problem. Any hypothetical source of energy can be suggested in the patent for more credibility (nuclear, zpe, heat...), but it's not required. A patent describes a process, not a theory.

[exnihiloest]

New today measurement confirming the previous one: http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene09en.htm

Naudin takes into account the HF modulation by the mains frequency.
I persist to say that the apparent luminosity doesn't correspond to the alleged output power.
There is a suspicious factor 2 involved in the measurement. As the output power is pretended to be about twice the input, it should be easy to loop the device. A simple diode bridge rectifying the signal and followed by a rough 50Hz low-pass filter can rebuild a 50Hz signal similar to this from the mains and that can be connected back to the input. Such a attempt generally permits to reveal the mistake. Until now all claimers of OU failed in looping their device.

[ion]

Naudin would do better to use a insulated water heater tank and measure the rate of rise of temperature or time to boiling by driving the built in heater.

He could then compare this to the same heater driven off the mains, to get a comparative data set.

Driving banks of lamps to some arbitrary brightness level, and adding up the box labelled wattage is not good science.

Getting a rough cut handle on things using tried and true technique is much better (to me) than fancy scope measurements especially when high frequency signals are involved.

[Armagdn03]

The text in the patent you are referring to has to do with mechanical separation of the plates. What is odd, is that a mechanical separation of the plates takes work, and energy is "gained", however when left free, their mechanical tendency is to come back together, creating an oscillation both in voltage and energy if done repeatedly, hence the concept of the charge conserving capacitive spring.

"By separating the plates of the capacitor, you have raised the energy of the entire system. In doing so you have caused a finite amount of charge to move across the load for a given time, giving you your power. The force exerted will be given by the integral of the equation for force between the plates, so that we can see the total force required to pull apart distance X.

What is interesting is that while it requires X force to pull the plates apart, they still have a tendency towards moving back together due to the electric forces. -X energy will be exerted by the system returning the plates to their initial position of 10 farads.

Energy to pull plates apart = X
Energy to return to initial state = -X

Total energy = X+ (-x) = 0

For each investment of mechanical energy in the direction of plate separation, the system returns the energy in the next stroke returning to initial conditions."


What is more interesting about this, is the mechanism for achieving the results is not mechanical. It is has to do with phase transitions and superluminance of the gas being ionized. This is a new game, but to my knowledge, Jean Naudin never posted his findings on his website. What I know of about its functionality comes from experimentation of my own, and many conversations with Dr. Stiffler.

Here is another interesting variation
http://www.google.com/patents/US4074129?pg=PA1&dq=4,074,129&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4T_nULKLNcnzqAH9ioAo&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=4%2C074%2C129&f=false

[exnihiloest]

Other points as energy from a parametric change of electric or magnetic circuits are surely very interesting but this thread being dedicated to Naudin's "gegene", they should be discussed elsewhere or their link with the "gegene" should be given.

[exnihiloest]

Naudin would do better to use a insulated water heater tank and measure the rate of rise of temperature or time to boiling by driving the built in heater.

He could then compare this to the same heater driven off the mains, to get a comparative data set.

This method is needed when the COP is not much and would prevent to loop the device. With a near 200% COP, it seems much easier (and more convincing) to electrically loop the device. Even an as bad efficiency as 60% for the back connexion would be enough to lead to a self-sustaining device.

Driving banks of lamps to some arbitrary brightness level, and adding up the box labelled wattage is not good science.

Getting a rough cut handle on things using tried and true technique is much better (to me) than fancy scope measurements especially when high frequency signals are involved.

I agree.

[Allcanadian]

@Exn

Other points as energy from a parametric change of electric or magnetic circuits are surely very interesting but this thread being dedicated to Naudin's "gegene", they should be discussed elsewhere or their link with the "gegene" should be given.

I would think the discussion is very much on topic for a change and you just lack the understanding to see it. You see the coil used in the Gegene is Tesla Patent #512340 "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS" and in this patent Tesla states---

What I claim as my invention is—
1. A coil for electric apparatus the adjacent convolutions of which form parts of the circuit between which there exists a potential difference sufficient to secure in the coil a capacity capable of neutralizing its self-induction, as hereinbefore described.

2. A coil composed of contiguous or adjacent insulated conductors electrically connected in series and having a potential difference of such value as to give to the coil as a whole, a capacity sufficient to neutralize its self-induction, as set forth.

Quote: "to secure in the coil a capacity capable of neutralizing its self-induction", again ***TO SECURE IN A COIL A CAPACITY CAPABLE OF NEUTRALIZING IT'S SELF-INDUCTION***.

Now if we are speaking of capacitance there is no need to digress to the archaic notion of "plates" or the equally archaic notion that someone should have to move them. Here Tesla has stated that he has found a means to increase the capacitance of a coil to neutralize it's self induction. As well if we are speaking of capacitance then we are speaking of the storing of energy in the form of an electric field -- where is this electric field?. If there is an electric field and it's energy is stored within the coil somewhere then it only makes sense that this energy could act parametrically.

Exn please do not dismiss relevant discussion simply because you do not understand it as it would seem to me the only person actually making an attempt to understand what may be occurring in this circuit is Armagdn03.
Let's look at the facts, how many here have offered any opinion as to how or why this device could actually work? All these critical posts and only one person has the intelligence to actually question how it may work in reality and then you want to change the discussion, lol, Exn you really are a piece of work I will give you that.


AC

[Allcanadian]

@Armagdn03

What is interesting is that while it requires X force to pull the plates apart, they still have a tendency towards moving back together due to the electric forces. -X energy will be exerted by the system returning the plates to their initial position of 10 farads.

Energy to pull plates apart = X
Energy to return to initial state = -X

Total energy = X+ (-x) = 0

That is interesting, now if we had a capacitor in the form of a coil and this coil would store the energy from an unwanted effect as an electric field and discharge this same energy later as a beneficial effect we could improve the efficiency. As well we tend to consider many effects as Action A produces Reaction B however there may be alternatives. A=B applies to closed systems and A must always equal B in a direct sense because we have set the pre-conditions such that this must always be the case.

I use a different equation, Action A produces Reaction B which produces more A due to C. Now if in any given time frame A cannot equal B because there is more A due to C then A-B cannot be equal. What is C?, C is every and any form of energy exterior to the imaginary closed system most people have fabricated in their minds.

AC

[exnihiloest]

@Exn
I would think the discussion is very much on topic for a change and you just lack the understanding to see it.
...
Exn please do not dismiss relevant discussion simply because you do not understand
...

@ac
Your discussion is not relevant. Your speech is vain, it's just noise: you give links without being able to explain how they are related to the gegene, and you don't answer the objections. Same thing in the other thread of the "Replicated self-runner" where you mock Farmhand of refering to wiki, although wiki well explains the nantenna principle in agreement with all academic publications, and although you was unable to explain the technical points why we should not refer to wiki. If I adopted your insulting attitude, I would say: if you want understand the bases, see www.google.com.   

The patent mentionned by Armagdn03 is interesting but not related to the Naudin's gegene, except if you can say how and why the gegene would be a parametric device. It's not because there a coil in a device and the same coil in another device that the two devices are related. It's not because the coil is from Tesla, that the coil will make miracles! The flat double-wire Tesla coil is just an ordinary coil with a constant inductance, its only particularity being an optimized parallel capacity between turns. It perfectly obeys the physics laws until proof of the contrary.
You mix anything with anything, using fuzzy and irrelevant layman's terms. Not a problem, the ignorance can be easily remedied by studying, question of will. The problem appears when an ignorant thinks he is a prof. You should rather ask yourself about your own lacks, for example in electronics, instead of accusing others of misunderstanding. And then explain the discrepancy between the lamps brightness and the power measurement, and why the skilled people in electronics who duplicated the device and who know the state of the art of the electronics measurement don't confirm OU but an efficiency around 80%!

[EMdevices]

I did some reading on induction stoves a while back, and I think most use a square wave with pulse width control.  Therefore, the sharp pulse transitions contain and can excite tank circuits of higher frequency than the pulse repetition rate.  Now, we need to understand that the flat tesla coil is a resonant tank circuit at the correct frequency determined by it's inductance and capacitance per length.  So the induction stove will excite it and will ring.

But it's more fun to build your own exciter if you have electronic experience.  If not I guess you'll have to spend some money on a stove.

Has anybody driven a long tesla coil secondary from an induction stove?

EM

[exnihiloest]

I did some reading on induction stoves a while back, and I think most use a square wave with pulse width control.  Therefore, the sharp pulse transitions contain and can excite tank circuits of higher frequency than the pulse repetition rate.  Now, we need to understand that the flat tesla coil is a resonant tank circuit at the correct frequency determined by it's inductance and capacitance per length.  So the induction stove will excite it and will ring.
...

It will not ring, or only very weakly on very high harmonics. This can be seen on the scope shots, the peak voltage doesn't exceed the voltage expected from the ratio of turns of the emitting and receiving coils, which is about 1. The receiving coil is designed for the same diameter and about the same number of turns as the emitting coil, question of required output voltage and current. That is why the output voltage/current are about the same as in the primary coil.
Considering the low number of turns and consequently also, the low parallel capacity of the coil, the resonant frequency should be much higher than the working frequency which is 20-30 Khz; according to many previous setups using coils, I would say it should resonate at some hundreds Khz, possibly even in the Mhz range. At this frequencies, the energy in the harmonics of a square pulse of 20 to 30 Khz is negligible, even if the IGBTs were designed for high frequencies and so could provide sharp pulses, which is not the case.

[muDped]

What is puzzling about the Induction Cooker
experiment is that there seemed to have been
an expectation of potential energy gain.

The test circuit is essentially a high frequency
(19 KHz ~40 KHz) transformer where the two
windings are of necessity tightly coupled.

That power is made available from the secondary
winding with an efficiency of approximately 85%
is not surprising.  The type of loading is critical
due to the induction cooker protective circuits.

The Wiki article referenced earlier is a very good
explanation of how the induction field is generated
and what its properties are.

Aye, it is very strange that anyone would expect
some sort of overunity from this sort of an
arrangement.  Is "Tesla's Coil" supposed to be the
magical aspect?

[EMdevices]

EX, so if there is no resonance, he is just using it as a transformer, except of course it operates at higher frequency than 50 Hz? Oh well  If there's no resonance it's boring.  

Dumped, we are supposed to bow down and worship when the name "Tesla" anything is mentioned. Didn't you know? lol

[Allcanadian]

@Exn

The patent mentionned by Armagdn03 is interesting but not related to the Naudin's gegene, except if you can say how and why the gegene would be a parametric device.

How do we know the Gegene is not a parametric device if the device's operation is in question?, hence the debate and while you may not agree with it you do have the option of not participating.

It's not because there a coil in a device and the same coil in another device that the two devices are related. It's not because the coil is from Tesla, that the coil will make miracles! The flat double-wire Tesla coil is just an ordinary coil with a constant inductance, its only particularity being an optimized parallel capacity between turns. It perfectly obeys the physics laws until proof of the contrary.

If it is an ordinary coil then why is it not wound like one, why was Tesla granted a patent which must be new or unique in some way if it is ordinary?. Why would Tesla state it may quote "secure in the coil a capacity capable of neutralizing its self-induction". As well I never implied it breaks the laws of physics nor would I.

And then explain the discrepancy between the lamps brightness and the power measurement, and why the skilled people in electronics who duplicated the device and who know the state of the art of the electronics measurement don't confirm OU but an efficiency around 80%!

Obviously we have a discrepancy which may be the reason why we were debating how the device could give readings which we would not normally expect. If we are unwilling to debate how the output could change according to the claim then it isn't actually debate of anything is it?.

AC

[Allcanadian]

@Em

Dumped, we are supposed to bow down and worship when the name "Tesla" anything is mentioned. Didn't you know? lol

I would not go that far however how many here have ever considered integrating a capacitance into the coil itself to neutralize the self-inductance?. My guess is nobody but Tesla thought of it almost 100 years ago which is why he was such a successful inventor, it's hard to argue with success.

AC