Sorry. I had again a closer look and now saw, that
the RMS current of the input circuit is around 4.3 Amperes all the
time. First I did not see the groundline of channel 2, cause I am
not so familar with these digital scopes....but now I saw it...
Anyway, it seems the input pulse to the coils is also
an about 50:50 duty cycle square wave, so the input coils
switch the flux back and forth from one leg to the other and stay on
for the whole time.
The 2 input coils are probably put in series and the 4 control
transistors are in a bridge circuit.
Or each input coil is switched seperately into the other polarity, so
that always after the ringing is gone a current of about 4.3 Amperes
Thus the input coil has an impedance of about 7 Ohms at this frequency
of about 15 Khz.
As one can see in the background the wire size of the input coil a bit
it seems the input wire size diameter is at least 1 to 2 mm thick.
Well anyway, it seems somehow the normal transformer counterEMF and
dragback effect is
reduced in this design and the output power is much bigger than the
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "overunity2001" <harti@h...>
> Hi All,
> I had now a closer look to the picture and thanks to the high
> resolution of it, one really can see a lot !
> The input scope picture shows at the upper trace the battery
> There it is seen, that only small voltage spikes occur, otherwise
> is the constant voltage of the 3 in series connected batteries
> is shown.
> As the current is measured at a shunt directly at the battery, we
> also only see pulse currents here.( ringing down quite quickly !)
> The third trace is the calculated input power by the scope !
> So my guess is:
> The 2 input coils are just only shortly energized !
> This was also told by Steven Sullivan to me, when he
> tried to describe his MEG to me.
> As you can see in the input scope shots, the voltage to the coils
> must only be very shortly of the whole period ON , otherwise we
> see a longer duration input current !
> It seems with a pulse all the magnetic flux is transfered from one
> leg to the other and then the magnetic flux is just only slowly
> transfered back to the other side while the input coils are already
> off !
> Maybe it really depends on the sizes of the coils, that are
> wound around the core !
> The input coils have only a very short width, while the output coils
> are pretty wide each !
> So could this be the conclusion, that the counter EMF then also
> affects the output coils much more, so it hinders the flux to flow
> back to the center much more because the counter EMF from the
> driving the bulbs will hinder the flux going back to the center ?
> As the input coils are switched already off during this time, there
> is no induction back to the input circuit, so the only time
> the input circuit has to apply energy is when then flux is
> switched over to the other leg via a short pulse !
> So is the trick the widthness difference of the output coils versus
> the input coils ?
> I wonder, why the flux takes so long to flow back to the center,
> when no input power to the input coils is applied ?
> Hmm, it seems to be an amazing device and Bearden might be right,
> the A-Field difference of the widthness of the coils plays the most
> important role in this MEG.
> Regards, Stefan.