Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Outstanding analysis of MEG

Expand Messages
  • Phil Karn
    ... Sorry, but for the reasons I ll describe here, Shawn s analysis is right on target. MEG is just a transformer with
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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
      > resistive element.

      As soon as I read that, I immediately suspected that his claims for
      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
      > his measurements and would not be likely to make such a
      > fundamental error.

      I haven't read anything else by Naudin, but he clearly did make a
      fundamental measurement error in this case. So your statement is
      irrelevant.

      > As is usually the case, Mr. Bishop models the MEG as a
      > transformer, and expects to observe transformer responses.

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

      > Dr. Bearden has repeatedly stated that the MEG is not a
      > transformer, that it is a transducer of vacuum energy.

      What Dr. Bearden states is also irrelevant. What matters is how the
      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
      > immutable, except for those pesky cases where microscopic
      > particles are involved, and for times less than two seconds
      > (see Denis Evans, Australian National University) ?

      I can't speak for Bishop, but I can speak for myself. Yes, the 2nd law
      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
      I ve analyzed Shawn Bishops paper and found a couple of errors. Phil Karn also posted these results on another newsgroup smartmeg until the moderator started
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 31, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I've analyzed Shawn Bishops paper and found a couple of errors. Phil
        Karn also posted these results on another newsgroup 'smartmeg' until
        the moderator started blocking his posts because his arguements were
        getting so irrational and unlogical. below is a response I made to
        the smartmeg news group. I wonder the motivation behind this paper
        since it looks good at quick glance but on careful examination it
        really has no substance. It seems it's intended for people who have
        not studied the MEG intensively, because it could easily sway them to
        a misunderstanding of the device.



        --- In smartmeg@y..., "Phil Karn" <anonanon7@y...> wrote:
        > Shawn Bishop and I found the smoking gun in Naudin's analysis that
        > confirms my suspicion that his output current readings were 10x too
        > high.
        >
        > Quoting from Naudin's analysis at
        >
        > http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/megv21.htm
        >
        > Note from Jean-Louis Naudin : The current has been measured with a
        10
        > ohms ceramic and non inductive resistor ( with a Tektronix THS720P
        > oscilloscope, the probe used is a 1/10 and scope setup for the CH2
        is
        > 1000mA/V [end of quote]

        Actually that is not the end of the quote, if you keep reading on,
        Naudin clearly states "THE SAME RESISTOR AND THE SAME METHOD OF
        MEASUREMENT HAS BEEN USED FOR INPUT AND ALSO THE OUTPUT".
        So if he really did make a 10x mistake, it won't effect anything,
        He's still getting more power out.

        Also, in Shawns paper, Shawn states "By his own quote, we must assume
        that these resistors must each be 100KOhm" and that's were Shawn
        makes the mistake. There's no reference on Naudin's site what
        resistor values he's using for the MEG v3.0 picture. The 100K
        conditioned resistors that Naudin mentions are used on MEG 3.1 as
        specified on the schematic. A conditioned 100K resistor doesn't
        actally have the value of 100K, it's around 1MEG if you measure it on
        an ohm meter. So you can't calculate the current using 100K, you have
        to do it using a linear resistor and a scope.
      • Stan Mayer
        From: Phil Karn To: Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:56 PM Subject: Outstanding analysis of MEG ... Phil
        Message 3 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          From: Phil Karn <anonanon7@...>
          Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:56 PM
          Subject: Outstanding analysis of MEG

           
          > Shawn Bishop has analyzed Naudin's report on his MEG prototype and
          > found that Naudin had made some
          serious errors in measuring the output
          > power of the device.
          >
          > It seems that the MEG is nothing more than an ordinary
          transformer
          > operating at an efficiency of less than 100%. It operates in
          full
          > accordance with existing, accepted physical theory; it is
          most
          > decidedly not the "overunity" device it is claimed to be.
          >
          > Here is Shawn's excellent commentary:
          >
          >
          href="http://www.sfu.ca/~sbishopa/soapbox/soapbox_june_02.htm">http://www.sfu.ca/~sbishopa/soapbox/soapbox_june_02.htm
          >
          > It is also mentioned in the current edition of James Randi's
          >
          commentary:
          >
          >
          href="http://www.randi.org/jr/102502.html">http://www.randi.org/jr/102502.html
          >
          > --Phil
          Phil and all,
           
          I found Bishop's commentary interesting but I did find some serious flaws in it though, almost as though Bishop had decided ahead of time what the outcome of his critique was to be and ignored some rather important things.  It appears to me that he did not try to determine what Naudin's conditioned resistor was, which I myself have created and have found to be definitely not a linear resistor and definitely not 100,000 ohms.  From my experiments the conditioned resistor seems to behave somewhat like a MOV in that it seems to have a very high resistance at low voltages like perhaps 3 megohms and a  low resistance at high voltages, like perhaps 10K ohms. 
           
          What bothers me most about Bishop's paper is that he assumes that the load resistor(s) are indeed 100K ohm linear resistors in spite of the fact that Naudin states otherwise and that he uses this as the basis of his output power computation, which is the crux of his paper.   Per section 5 of his paper, he uses the formula Pout = 500^2/2 x 100,000 which is as near as I can tell a slightly flawed version of the classic power formula P = E^2/R, with his "E" being calculated from the approximately 1,000 Vptop (ptop meaning peak to peak) output voltage reported by Naudin.  In the case of a sinusoidal AC voltage, Eptop is converted to Erms by the formula   Erms = (Eptop/2) * .707.   Note the factor 0.707 rather than the 0.5 used by Bishop, and while this only introduces a small error, it is an error none the less.  Regardless, the power determined by this formula is still in the neighborhood of 1.3 Watts.
           
          Bishop could have gotten around the fact that the value for Rload isn't really known by using the alternate power calculating formula of P = I * E, utilizing the output voltage and current values reported by Naudin.  I have done this and I show the results below. 
           
          Utilizing the data from the graphs of Naudin's MEG 3, I see that Eout is very close to being sinusoidal and is roughly 1,000Vptop.   Similarly Iout is very close to being sinusoidal and is roughly 0.10Aptop.  Conversion of the I and E terms from ptop to rms results in ...
           
          Irms = (Iptop/2) * .707 = (0.100/2) * .707 = (.050) * .707 = 0.0354Arms
          Erms = (Eptop/2) * .707 = (1,000Vptop/2) * 0.707 = 500 * 0.707 = 353.5Vrms
           
          and then substituting these rms values into the P = I * E formula then gives the resulting output power ...
           
          P = I x E = 0.0354 * 353.5 = 12.5 Watts
           
          12.5 Watts!!!   Considerably larger than the 1.25 Watts calculated by the P = E^2/R formula and considerably more than the Pin calculated by Naudin as 3.1W and calculated by Bishop as 2.47W and would seem to indicate OU. 
           
          I urge you all to consider this and likewise I encourage all to blow holes in my calculations, especially you Electrical Engineers as I am just an old technician who has been playing with electricity for 40 years.   I am not saying that I am entirely confident in the data reported by Naudin just that it doesn't appear to me that Bishop has done a very good job of disproving Naudin's results. 
           
          Best,
           
          Stan Mayer
           
        • Phil Karn
          ... You made this same statement on smartmeg and I replied to it there. However, the moderator deleted all my postings a day or so later, so it s possible you
          Message 4 of 16 , Nov 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            >Actually that is not the end of the quote, if you keep reading on,
            >Naudin clearly states "THE SAME RESISTOR AND THE SAME METHOD OF
            >MEASUREMENT HAS BEEN USED FOR INPUT AND ALSO THE OUTPUT".
            >So if he really did make a 10x mistake, it won't effect anything,
            >He's still getting more power out.

            You made this same statement on smartmeg and I replied to it there.
            However, the moderator deleted all my postings a day or so later, so
            it's possible you didn't see it. So I'll repeat it here.

            I am aware of that quote, but it is irrelevant. First, while Naudin's
            schematic clearly shows a 10 ohm current shunt on the output side, no
            such current-measuring shunt is shown on the input side. Second, his
            page includes photos of the meters on his power supply; their readings
            are fully consistent with his stated power input of 3.2W. So while his
            output power measurement is 9-10x too high, his input power
            measurement is correct.

            Now let's discuss the output load impedance. You say:

            >Also, in Shawns paper, Shawn states "By his own quote, we must assume
            >that these resistors must each be 100KOhm" and that's were Shawn
            >makes the mistake. There's no reference on Naudin's site what
            >resistor values he's using for the MEG v3.0 picture. The 100K
            >conditioned resistors that Naudin mentions are used on MEG 3.1 as
            >specified on the schematic. A conditioned 100K resistor doesn't
            >actally have the value of 100K, it's around 1MEG if you measure it on
            >an ohm meter. So you can't calculate the current using 100K, you have
            >to do it using a linear resistor and a scope.

            When Naudin's output current readings are corrected (i.e., divided by
            9 or 10, to correct for the 10 ohm shunt), we get output voltage and
            current readings that are fully consistent with a load resistance of
            100K.

            So it appears that no "conditioned" resistor was used in this
            case. Furthermore, if a load resistance significantly larger than 100K
            *had* been used, that would only *decrease* the true output power even
            further, reducing MEG's efficiency even more!

            I've seen claims that the use of a 10:1 probe to measure the voltage
            drop across the output current shunt compensated for the 10 ohm
            shunt. However, every scope I've seen since at least the mid 1970s
            automatically detects a 10:1 probe and automatically switches its
            vertical calibration.

            But the *real* clincher comes in this statement by Naudin:

            >in most of cases the "apparent" power measured seems greater than the
            >heat dissipated by Joule's effect in the RLoad, most of the power is
            >radiated in EM form [...]

            The MEG operating frequency is given as 20 KHz. That's a RF wavelength
            of 15 kilometers. Does he seriously intend for us to believe that a
            ~2cm resistor is an efficient radiator of electromagnetic energy
            (i.e., an antenna) at a wavelength 750,000 times its own length?

            The simple fact is that you can't fool a resistor with a funny
            waveform or a weird power factor. And until modern digital power
            meters appeared on the scene, that's exactly how many true AC
            wattmeters worked -- they dissipated the input power in a resistive
            load and measured the resulting temperature increase.

            Any competent electronics technician would know all this. And faced
            with the kind of measurement discrepancy described here, he or she
            certainly wouldn't handwave the problem away in such a ludicrous
            fashion. But then Naudin wouldn't have anything very exciting to
            report, would he?

            Phil
          • gewo
            Passant Why You dont´ ask Naudin???????????? ... From: Phil Karn To: Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002
            Message 5 of 16 , Nov 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Passant

              Why You dont´ ask Naudin????????????

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Phil Karn" <anonanon7@...>
              To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:37 AM
              Subject: [MEG_builders] Re: Outstanding analysis of MEG


              >Actually that is not the end of the quote, if you keep reading
              on,
              >Naudin clearly states "THE SAME RESISTOR AND THE SAME METHOD OF
              >MEASUREMENT HAS BEEN USED FOR INPUT AND ALSO THE OUTPUT".
              >So if he really did make a 10x mistake, it won't effect anything,
              >He's still getting more power out.

              You made this same statement on smartmeg and I replied to it
              there.
              However, the moderator deleted all my postings a day or so later,
              so
              it's possible you didn't see it. So I'll repeat it here.

              I am aware of that quote, but it is irrelevant. First, while
              Naudin's
              schematic clearly shows a 10 ohm current shunt on the output side,
              no
              such current-measuring shunt is shown on the input side. Second,
              his
              page includes photos of the meters on his power supply; their
              readings
              are fully consistent with his stated power input of 3.2W. So while
              his
              output power measurement is 9-10x too high, his input power
              measurement is correct.

              Now let's discuss the output load impedance. You say:

              >Also, in Shawns paper, Shawn states "By his own quote, we must
              assume
              >that these resistors must each be 100KOhm" and that's were Shawn
              >makes the mistake. There's no reference on Naudin's site what
              >resistor values he's using for the MEG v3.0 picture. The 100K
              >conditioned resistors that Naudin mentions are used on MEG 3.1 as
              >specified on the schematic. A conditioned 100K resistor doesn't
              >actally have the value of 100K, it's around 1MEG if you measure
              it on
              >an ohm meter. So you can't calculate the current using 100K, you
              have
              >to do it using a linear resistor and a scope.

              When Naudin's output current readings are corrected (i.e., divided
              by
              9 or 10, to correct for the 10 ohm shunt), we get output voltage
              and
              current readings that are fully consistent with a load resistance
              of
              100K.

              So it appears that no "conditioned" resistor was used in this
              case. Furthermore, if a load resistance significantly larger than
              100K
              *had* been used, that would only *decrease* the true output power
              even
              further, reducing MEG's efficiency even more!

              I've seen claims that the use of a 10:1 probe to measure the
              voltage
              drop across the output current shunt compensated for the 10 ohm
              shunt. However, every scope I've seen since at least the mid 1970s
              automatically detects a 10:1 probe and automatically switches its
              vertical calibration.

              But the *real* clincher comes in this statement by Naudin:

              >in most of cases the "apparent" power measured seems greater than
              the
              >heat dissipated by Joule's effect in the RLoad, most of the power
              is
              >radiated in EM form [...]

              The MEG operating frequency is given as 20 KHz. That's a RF
              wavelength
              of 15 kilometers. Does he seriously intend for us to believe that
              a
              ~2cm resistor is an efficient radiator of electromagnetic energy
              (i.e., an antenna) at a wavelength 750,000 times its own length?

              The simple fact is that you can't fool a resistor with a funny
              waveform or a weird power factor. And until modern digital power
              meters appeared on the scene, that's exactly how many true AC
              wattmeters worked -- they dissipated the input power in a
              resistive
              load and measured the resulting temperature increase.

              Any competent electronics technician would know all this. And
              faced
              with the kind of measurement discrepancy described here, he or she
              certainly wouldn't handwave the problem away in such a ludicrous
              fashion. But then Naudin wouldn't have anything very exciting to
              report, would he?

              Phil



              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
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


              ---
              Odchozí zpráva pravdepodobne neobsahuje viry.
              Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz).
              Verze: 6.0.408 / Virová báze: 230 - datum vydání: 24.10.2002
            • Rick Hukkanen
              ... http://www.sfu.ca/~sbishopa/soapbox/soapbox_june_02.htm While Shawn is busy debunking perpetual motion on one hand, part of his argument states the
              Message 6 of 16 , Nov 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Phil Karn <anonanon7@...> wrote:
                > Shawn Bishop has analyzed Naudin's report on his MEG
                > prototype and
                > found that Naudin had made some serious errors in
                > measuring the output
                > power of the device.
                >
                > It seems that the MEG is nothing more than an
                > ordinary transformer
                > operating at an efficiency of less than 100%. It
                > operates in full
                > accordance with existing, accepted physical theory;
                > it is most
                > decidedly not the "overunity" device it is claimed
                > to be.
                >
                > Here is Shawn's excellent commentary:
                >
                >
                http://www.sfu.ca/~sbishopa/soapbox/soapbox_june_02.htm


                While Shawn is busy debunking 'perpetual motion' on
                one hand, part of his argument states the obvious fact
                that 'the magnetic field produced by a permanent
                magnet is constant and unchanging in time'. Well,
                HELLO... This sounds like a 'perpetual' energy flow to
                me -- And it is, if you ignore the Quantum virtual
                vaccuum and the 'Source charge' problem that Mr.
                Bearden is trying to pound into our heads in every
                article he writes. Shawn doesn't even mention Quantum
                mechanics in his argument, so of course, in his model,
                the MEG is just a transformer.

                -Rick


                __________________________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
                http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
              • carbonprobe
                My recent experiments: Verification of the Conditioned resistor, The experiments that I ve been doing prove that conditioned resistors are a reality and
                Message 7 of 16 , Nov 4, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  My recent experiments:
                  Verification of the Conditioned resistor,
                  The experiments that I've been doing prove that conditioned resistors
                  are a reality and perform exactly as Naudin describes. I conditioned
                  2W carbon resistors, 120K and 100K, using the hot wire of a computer
                  monitor, average spark gap was about 5mm. It takes a while to do this
                  as you want to monitor how the resistance changes. I conditioned 2
                  100k resistors so that the final resistance measured with an ohmeter
                  was 630K and 890K. These things really stink as you're conditioning
                  them. I used the 630K resistor and used it to compare it's behavior
                  with a regular 630K resistor(I used a couple of regular resistors to
                  get a perfect value of 630K). I put the 890K conditioned resistor on
                  the right output of the meg and the UNconditioned 630K resistor on
                  the left side. Using a 68 Ohm carbon resistor I measured a current of
                  1.455mA rms. The voltage was 2090Vpp (738.8Vrms). And if you
                  calculate V/I you get 507KOhms which seems in the ballpark given the
                  ambiguities of high voltage measurements. Then I replaced the left
                  side with the Conditioned 630K resistor and got 1.975mA rms and
                  1890Vpp (668Vrms). and this calculated out to be 338KOhms. Current
                  and voltage are in phase the conditioned resistor dissapated 1.3
                  watts and the regular resistor dissapated 1.074 watts. SO the
                  conditioned resistor is sucking more current just like Naudin says.
                  BUT WAIT. It gets better. After the 630K experiment I proceded to
                  used the 120K carbon resistors. The 2 I used were conditioned up to a
                  value of 1.147M and 1.2M. First I used a regular resistor
                  (unconditioned) value of 1.143M on the left output coil and using the
                  same method of measurement got a current of .9877mA rms and a voltage
                  of 2060Vpp (728Vrms). the resistance was calculated to be 737K with
                  these values of V and I. When I used the 1.147M Conditioned resistor
                  the current doubled to 1.82 mA rms and the voltage stayed about the
                  same, 2300Vpp (813V rms). The calculated resistance of the
                  conditioned resistor turned out to be 447K. SO, again, the
                  conditioned resistor sucked out more energy (1.48 watts) than the
                  regular resistor (.719 watts). At high voltages the conditioned
                  resistor has low resistance, At low voltages the conditioned resistor
                  has high resistance.

                  So what else do these experiments tell us? It tells us that you can't
                  just look at current and voltage and calculate resistance and if the
                  resistance turns out to be 100K, you can't assume that you have a
                  regular 100K resistor like Phil Karn states below:
                  > we get output voltage and
                  > current readings that are fully consistent with a load resistance of
                  > 100K.
                  >
                  > So it appears that no "conditioned" resistor was used in this
                  > case.

                  And we know that this statement is untrue by the experimental results
                  I just posted. And you are still fixated on the falshood that Naudin
                  is using a 100K resistor as a load and no where on his web sight for
                  meg versions 2.1 and above does he state that he is using a 100k
                  resistor. HE IS USING A CONDITIONED 100K RESISTOR as he states on
                  his web site.
                  REPEAT AFTER ME.
                  CONDITIONED ONE HUNDRED K RESISTOR. AGAIN. CONDITIONED ONE HUNDRED K
                  RESISTOR. That means that it was 100k at one point in time but now
                  it's a conditioned resistor because he conditioned it.


                  > I am aware of that quote, but it is irrelevant. First, while
                  Naudin's
                  > schematic clearly shows a 10 ohm current shunt on the output side,
                  no
                  > such current-measuring shunt is shown on the input side.

                  The schematic diagram that you are refering to is for Meg version 3.1
                  and no where on his web sight does he show scope traces for this
                  version.

                  > But the *real* clincher comes in this statement by Naudin:
                  >
                  > >in most of cases the "apparent" power measured seems greater than
                  the
                  > >heat dissipated by Joule's effect in the RLoad, most of the power
                  is
                  > >radiated in EM form [...]
                  >
                  > The MEG operating frequency is given as 20 KHz. That's a RF
                  wavelength
                  > of 15 kilometers. Does he seriously intend for us to believe that a
                  > ~2cm resistor is an efficient radiator of electromagnetic energy
                  > (i.e., an antenna) at a wavelength 750,000 times its own length?

                  This doesn't seem like a big clincher to me. The output coils are
                  doing the radiating, since that is where the largest EM field is
                  coming from .Just put a dummy load on a scope probe and witness the
                  induced voltage.

                  The more time I spend on trying to replicate Naudin's meg, the more
                  truths become self evident noting that all the details that he's
                  describing I am producing in the Lab. But to produce his meg and the
                  OU will take time and knowledge. And if it turns out to be a hoax (
                  which is absolutely hilarious), who cares, it's the learning
                  experience that matters.
                • Phil Karn
                  ... I tried. He hasn t replied. Phil
                  Message 8 of 16 , Nov 5, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In MEG_builders@y..., "gewo" <gewo@g...> wrote:
                    > Passant
                    >
                    > Why You dont´ ask Naudin????????????

                    I tried. He hasn't replied.

                    Phil
                  • Robert Bielik
                    ... It does seem a bit off, but not as off as you might think: http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/cfa/index.html Wavelength/antenna length ~ 40 . Yet the CFA
                    Message 9 of 16 , Nov 5, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > The MEG operating frequency is given as 20 KHz. That's a RF wavelength
                      > of 15 kilometers. Does he seriously intend for us to believe that a
                      > ~2cm resistor is an efficient radiator of electromagnetic energy
                      > (i.e., an antenna) at a wavelength 750,000 times its own length?

                      It does seem a bit off, but not as off as you might think:
                      http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/cfa/index.html

                      Wavelength/antenna length ~ 40 . Yet the CFA performs _better_ than your normal quarter-wavelength antenna. Go figure...

                      /R
                    • carbonprobe
                      I did some more measurements and the analysis proves that you can t use the equation V*V/R for a power calculation in the MEG like Shawn Bishop states. You
                      Message 10 of 16 , Nov 7, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I did some more measurements and the analysis proves that you can't
                        use the equation V*V/R for a power calculation in the MEG like Shawn
                        Bishop states. You can't use it because in the MEG the resistance of
                        the conditioned resistors changes with voltage. V*V/R is only good if
                        your resistance is static. Shawn and Phil believe that Naudin is
                        using a 100k resistor for MEG 3.0 but nowhere on the site does Naudin
                        state this, therefor the main point of their arguement is null and
                        void. In Shawn's paper he has a copy of meg schematic v3.1 from
                        Naudin's web site, but Shawn deleted the word 'cond' that appears
                        next to the 100k resistor originally on Naudin's site. So Shawn
                        deliberatly took this out to make the reader believe it is just a
                        100k resistor. How bad can you get.

                        Naudin clearly states that CONDITIONED RESISTORS are being used as a
                        load. I havn't seen any experimental data that proves Naudin's MEG
                        doesn't work. No one has done this yet. I've actually seen more
                        evidence that proves is does work. And in my book, experiment is much
                        more convincing than poorly researched opinions.

                        Below is the latest data comparing a regular resistor of 1.145MOhms
                        as measured on an ohmeter and a conditioned resistor of 1.149MOhms as
                        measured on an ohmeter. The data and 2 graphs below show the
                        conditioned resistor's resistance changing as voltage changes. And it
                        also shows how the conditioned resistor has more power flowing
                        through it than the regular resistor.

                        get graphs here, you may have to right click and save target as...
                        www.geocities.com/carbonprobe/1.pdf
                        www.geocities.com/carbonprobe/2.pdf





                        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
                      • Phil Karn
                        ... results ... Naudin s conditioned resistor is, as you say, quite nonlinear. On this we fully agree. But if it s so nonlinear, how come his current
                        Message 11 of 16 , Nov 8, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In MEG_builders@y..., "carbonprobe" <carbonprobe@y...> wrote:

                          > And we know that this statement is untrue by the experimental
                          results
                          > I just posted. And you are still fixated on the falshood that Naudin
                          > is using a 100K resistor as a load

                          Naudin's "conditioned resistor" is, as you say, quite nonlinear. On
                          this we fully agree.

                          But if it's so nonlinear, how come his current waveforms are nice
                          clean sinusoids? I certainly wouldn't expect to see current that is so
                          nicely proportional to applied voltage, would you?

                          The fact that the current waveform is sinusoidal and in phase with the
                          voltage waveform proves that the load used in that test was an
                          ordinary resistor, not a "conditioned" resistor.

                          As for the supposed EM radiation, go read up on antenna theory and
                          you'll understand just how absurd that theory is. Face it, Naudin
                          pulled this "explanation" out of the air in pure desperation, trying
                          to explain away the obvious fact that his most reliable cross-check on
                          output power told him in no uncertain terms that his measurements were
                          wrong.

                          Phil
                        • Phil Karn
                          ... Sorry, but it s not. This is an extremely common misconception among free energy fans. A magnet is no more a source of perpetual energy than a chair or a
                          Message 12 of 16 , Nov 8, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In MEG_builders@y..., Rick Hukkanen <ricker_h@y...> wrote:

                            > While Shawn is busy debunking 'perpetual motion' on
                            > one hand, part of his argument states the obvious fact
                            > that 'the magnetic field produced by a permanent
                            > magnet is constant and unchanging in time'. Well,
                            > HELLO... This sounds like a 'perpetual' energy flow to
                            > me

                            Sorry, but it's not. This is an extremely common misconception among
                            free energy fans.

                            A magnet is no more a source of 'perpetual' energy than a chair or a
                            coathook. All three can hold up an object by applying a continuous
                            force to it. So what? Force and energy are two entirely different
                            things. Energy is force acting through a distance; unless the magnet
                            (or chair or coathook) moves, no energy is delivered to anything.

                            A magnet *does* store a relatively small amount of energy in its
                            magnetic field; that's how an inductor works. But you can't extract
                            that energy without depleting the magnetic field. It is certainly no
                            "infinite" source of energy.

                            Phil
                          • Phil Karn
                            ... your normal quarter-wavelength antenna. Go figure... Actually, the CFA does *not* perform better. The theory behind it is totally flawed, and its inventors
                            Message 13 of 16 , Nov 11, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In MEG_builders@y..., "Robert Bielik" <robert.bielik@g...> wrote:
                              > Wavelength/antenna length ~ 40 . Yet the CFA performs _better_ than
                              your normal quarter-wavelength antenna. Go figure...

                              Actually, the CFA does *not* perform better. The theory behind it is
                              totally flawed, and its inventors are seriously deluded. See
                              http://home.att.net/~jnrstanley/mainpres1.html (be sure to see the
                              notes at the end).

                              The fact is that almost *any* electrical circuit, no matter how small,
                              will radiate *some* energy at almost any frequency used in the circuit
                              unless great care is taken in its construction. That's why
                              electromagnetic interference can be so hard to cure.

                              But there's a very big difference between an accidental radiator and a
                              device designed to radiate efficiently (i.e., an antenna). Because
                              radio systems operate without wires, the attenuation between
                              transmitter and receiver is very large. Ergo, receivers must be
                              extremely sensitive. So an accidental radiator near a receiver can
                              interfere with it even if only a miniscule fraction of the energy
                              within the radiator is actually radiated.

                              Such is certainly the case with Naudin's load resistor. I'm sure that
                              if you connected a pickup coil to a scope and held the coil near his
                              load resistor, you'd see a signal on the scope. But only a tiny
                              fraction of the energy fed to the resistor is being picked up in this
                              way. The vast majority is still being dissipated as heat in the
                              resistor. There is simply no "missing energy" that would account for
                              the discrepancy between resistor heating and Naudin's measurements.
                              Naudin's claim of EM radiation is simply desperate handwaving on his
                              part as he frantically tries to maintain the illusion that MEG is
                              overunity. It's not.

                              Phil
                            • BobW
                              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
                              Message 14 of 16 , Nov 21, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment

                                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.

                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.