conditioned resistor reports to this news group. So I've done a whole

new set of experiments and replaced the plots on my web sight.

Although the probe wasn't calibrated, the last 2 posts are correct in

reporting the relationships between a linear and a non-linear

resistor. The reason for posting this data in the past weeks is to

show that in a conditioned resistor the only way to calculate power

is by measuring Vrms and Irms, resistance never comes into the

equation. In Shawn Bishops paper he calculates power from voltage and

a falsly assumed resistance of 100K.

To get those new plots go to:

http://www.geocities.com/carbonprobe/

Here is the data for those plots:

1.253M REGULAR RESISTOR (As measured by Ohm-meter)

Power

Vrms Irms (I*V) R (V/I)

297 0.23mA .068W 1.29M

636 0.5mA .318W 1.27M

901 0.73mA .657W 1.23M

1167 0.96mA 1.12W 1.22M

V and I are in phase

1.26M CONDITIONED RESISTOR (As measured by Ohm-meter)

Res

Power Res (with PF)

Vrms Irms (I*V*.84) (V/I) (V*V/P)

240 .35mA .07W .686M .817M

552 .88mA .41W .626M .741M

848 1.38mA .98W .616M .734M

1149 1.87mA 1.8W .614M .733M

1414 2.28mA 2.7W .620M .740M

I and V are out of phase 32.8 degrees for a Power Factor of 0.84

--- In MEG_builders@y..., "Shawn Bishop" <dragoneer58@h...> wrote:

> Fantastic. Some data to do a test with.

>

> Power = V_rms*I_rms = 1.455E-3 * 738.8 = 1.08 W, but also,

> Power = V_rms^2/R = (738.8)^2/630E3 = 0.866 W (19% low), and also,

> Power = R * I_rms^2 = (1.455E-3)^2 * 630E3 = 1.33 W (19% high)

>

> So, what have we here? We have three mutually inconsistent power

> results. But, wait. You say, "And if you calculate V/I you get

> 507KOhms which seems in the ballpark given the ambiguities of high

> voltage measurements."

>

> Well, what's the percentage difference of your claim of 630K

compared

> to 507K?

>

> % difference = 100 * (630 - 507)/ 630 = 19.5%

Yes, a 19% error because my HV probe wasn't calibrated as I already

described.

> Let's do the test again with these numbers:

>

> Power = V_rms*I_rms = 1.975E-3 * 668 = 1.319 W, also,

> Power V_rms^2/R = (668)^2/630E3 = 0.708 W (54% low), and also,

> Power = R * I_rms^2 = (1.955E-3)^2 * 630E3 = 2.457 W (54% high)

>

> And again, the percent difference between what you think you have

as a

> resistance (630K) versus the 338K you measured is: 338/630 = 54%

Here is where you are making a mistake. The resistance as measured on

an ohm meter of that conditioned resistor is 630K. You are wrongly

using this value to calculate the power across it. And since the

resistance decreases as the voltage increases in a conditioned

resistor, you cannot use 630K in your power measurement. You can only

use I and V to calculate power.

> > SO the conditioned resistor is sucking more current just like

Naudin

> > says.

>

> Not the case at all. You made direct measurements of current

>through

Yes the conditioned resistor is sucking more energy compared with the

regular resistor of the same static resistance, it's clear to see,

just look at my measurements. Both have a 19% calibration error. And

the calibration error doesn't effect the difference between the

regular resistors measurement and the conditioned resistor's

measurement.

> the resistor (with your 68 Ohm shunt) and a direct measurement

across

> the load resistor, took their ratios, and outright stated what the

> measured resistances were (507 and 338 Kohm). Then you proceeded to

> ignore this experimental measurement and instead went with what you

> mistakenly assumed the load resistance to be (630K).

THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU ALL ALONG. In your paper

you are using a falsely assumed 100K resistance to make your power

measurements. And what is being used is a 100K conditioned resistor,

meaning it was 100K before it was conditioned. If you measure a 100K

conditioned resistor after it has been conditioned it reads about

1.3Meg. You can't use 100K or 1.3Meg in the power calculation you can

only measure power by measuring V and I. I am posting all my

conditioned resistor experiments to explain this point.

> And it's clear using the 3 various power equations that the ONLY way

> all three can be reconciled is by realizing that the assumed value

for

> the resistance is incorrect....

EXACTLY, My point again. Now we are getting somewhere. The assumed

value for the resistance that you are talking about is like your own

assumption of the 100K resistor that you talk about in your paper,

and there fore by your own reasoning it is incorrect. It's incorrect

because it's a conditioned resistor.

>

> You made a perfectly valid measurement of the load resistances in

each

> of these two tests and then didn't use them. Why?

>

> Shawn Bishop

Because it's redundant, if you already know power from V and I, why

calculate resistance from power to calculate power again, you just

end up with the same exact value.

--- In MEG_builders@y..., "Phil Karn" <anonanon7@y...> wrote:

> --- 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.

Glad we agree on something

> 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?

His current wave forms show some spikes, go to his site and examine

the pictures again. Look at Megv3.0 - test run #3, his current is

being shown on an analog scope and has spikes, Mine look the same.

Also look at the spikes on Meg v3.0 test run #2, more spikes on

current and mine look the same. The reason they are close to nice

sine waves is because his Meg is at or close to resonance and the

current is large, at lower currents the waveform tends to distort.

The furthur away you get from resonance the more distorted the output

waveforms look in the Meg. The waveforms that I am getting using my

conditioned resistor are the same as Naudin's pictures of his setup

using conditioned resistors. Nice clean Voltage sine wave and spiky

current sinewave. Look at the MEG patent wave forms, mine look like

those also.

> 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.

It doesn't prove that it was an ordinary resistor. I've seen phase

differences between V and I in my conditioned resistors from 0 to

around 30 degrees, and this equates to only a small power factor

change.

> 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

Theories are just theories wrong or right, who cares. What matters is

test results, don't concentrate on meaningless things. Why don't you

build a MEG and prove that Naudin is wrong, I'd like to see that.

If I were you I would do more research on Naudin's meg and other meg

literature.