- --- In MEG_builders@y..., "davidj95650" <djenkins@r...> wrote:
> Shawn Bishop's analysis of Naudin's MEG is flawed.

Sorry, but for the reasons I'll describe here, Shawn's analysis is

right on target. MEG is just a transformer with <100% efficiency.

> He fails to explain the use by JLN of a "conditioned" resistor.

Shawn analyzed JLN's scope tracings of both voltage and current at the

output. With his calibration (more below), JLN's sinusoidal tracings

are consistent with a fixed resistance of about 11K ohms. They are not

consistent with a "conditioned" nonlinear resistor.

However, the scale on JLN's current tracings is clearly wrong. As

shown in his schematic, he used an external current measuring shunt

resistance of 10 ohms, but he erroneously programmed his scope to

believe the shunt was only 1 ohm. He stated that the scope was

calibrated to read 1000mA per volt. That's 1 ohm; 10 ohms would give

only 100mA per volt. That led to indicated currents 10 times higher

than their true values. (I conjecture that Shawn got a ratio of 9:1

due to a combination of tolerances in the 10 ohm shunt resistor plus

the difficulty of reading the small scope tracings, but this is a

minor detail.)

When you divide the indicated voltage by the corrected current, you

get an indicated load resistance of 100K as shown in the schematic. It

would seem that in this case, JLN used an "unconditioned" load

resistor.

> In my experience, what JLN has done is to make a voltage-variable

As soon as I read that, I immediately suspected that his claims for

> resistive element.

overunity were based on measurement errors associated with nonlinear

loads and nonsinusoidal AC waveforms, a perennial cause of bogus

overunity claims. But when I looked at the waveforms, the schematic,

and Shawn's analysis, it became clear that Naudin's real mistake was

much simpler: because he misprogrammed his scope, his output current

readings and his output power readings were both 9-10x too high. The

correct readings show that the true efficiency is less than 100%.

> In reviewing other work by JLN, I find that he is meticulous in

I haven't read anything else by Naudin, but he clearly did make a

> his measurements and would not be likely to make such a

> fundamental error.

fundamental measurement error in this case. So your statement is

irrelevant.

> As is usually the case, Mr. Bishop models the MEG as a

And that's exactly what we see. Normal transformer responses.

> transformer, and expects to observe transformer responses.

> Dr. Bearden has repeatedly stated that the MEG is not a

What Dr. Bearden states is also irrelevant. What matters is how the

> transformer, that it is a transducer of vacuum energy.

MEG behaves on the lab bench, and it clearly behaves as an ordinary

transformer operating at less than 100% efficiency.

Does> Mr. Bishop also believe that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is

I can't speak for Bishop, but I can speak for myself. Yes, the 2nd law

> immutable, except for those pesky cases where microscopic

> particles are involved, and for times less than two seconds

> (see Denis Evans, Australian National University) ?

of thermodynamics *is* immutable when properly understood and applied.

You'll find that those "pesky cases" you speak of hardly disprove the

2nd law. The 2nd law is a *statistical* principle, and for statistical

laws to apply you need a statistically significant population of

molecules. Yes, a statistically insignificant collection of a few

molecules can occasionally appear to violate the 2nd law. It's also

true that the occasonal individual occasionally wins big in Vegas even

though the odds are still strongly in favor of the house, and that

most people who go to Vegas end up losing.

--Phil Carbonprobe

Thanks for sharing those numbers. I had felt the conditioning made them a virtual open circuit at low volts. Your data shows a much smaller change in resistance VS voltage than I had expected.

I am planning to use a FET to switch the load in and out so there is no load at all during the swing through 0 volts.

Bob

-----Original Message-----

**From:**carbonprobe [mailto:carbonprobe@...]

**Sent:**Thursday, November 07, 2002 11:47 PM

**To:**MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com

**Subject:**[MEG_builders] More Conditioned resistor measurements

`1.145M Ohm regular resistor measurements`

`Vpp V rms I rms Power Resistance(V/I)`

`190 67 .088mA .005W 761K`

`400 141 .18mA .025W 783K`

`700 247 .31mA .076W 798K`

`1080 382 .49mA .187W 779K`

`2000 707 .88mA .622W 803K`

`2800 990 1.25mA 1.24W 792K`

`I and V wave forms are perfectly in phase`

`frequency = 22.4KHz`

`1.149M Ohm Conditioned resistor measurements`

`Vpp V rms I rms Power X .899 Resistance(V/I)`

`195 69 .132mA .008W 522K`

`400 141 .287mA .036W 493K`

`700 247 .51mA .113W 484K`

`1000 354 .75mA .238W 472K`

`2000 707 1.6mA 1.016W 442K`

`2700 954 2.3mA 1.97W 415K`

`I and V were out of phase by 25.9 degrees which gives a power factor`

`of .899`

`frequency = 22.4Khz`

`Main page:`

`http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEG_builders`

`To post a message to this group, send email to`

`MEG_Builders@yahoogroups.com`

`To contact the moderator of this group, send email to`

`MEG_Builders-owner@yahoogroups.com`

`To unsubscribe from this group, send email to`

`MEG_Builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com`

`Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.`