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

my last experiments with my MEG

Expand Messages
  • Pascal_di_SCALA
    Hello everybody I recall everybody that the MEG I work with is the same as J.L. Naudin 3.1 one: http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm All my mast year
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 16, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello everybody

      I recall everybody that the MEG I work with is the same as J.L.
      Naudin 3.1 one:

      All my mast year experimentations here:

      There is only two differencies with Naudin'one: magnet and power
      supply is not the same. In effect my magnet was a stack of 10 disc
      rare earth element magnets, 5mm diameter. And my power supply is a
      fix 30V output, 1A max. Specifications are those of Naudin.

      All my tests were negative, power calculations were very poor, with
      COP less than 0.5, no overunity. A big problem was that I had not
      sinusoidal signals for currents and voltages at all. And when my
      load was a MOV, there was a phase angle and calculations have proven
      that power out was little.

      I have bought a new magnet and made new experiments. My magnet has
      been specifically designed to fit the MEG C core (very expensive
      magnet), in rare earth elements. Density flux is 1.2 Tesla, less
      than saturation core in theory.

      I have taken in account the fact that as described in Bearden
      papers, input coils must be feed with currents signals that produce
      magnetic fields that contrary the one of magnet. In effect, one of
      my input coil was not correctly oriented. I corrected this.

      All experiments I made these last days are negative again.
      I mesured input signals in the primary coils, I signals are not what
      they should be. They should be square signals, 30V and 0V, when one
      primary coil is fed, the other one must not be.
      My control board is exactly the same thant JL Naudin's one, my
      primary coils are wounded with the same number of turns, and the
      same wire that he specified, but my input signals are not the same
      that his.

      I saw that input signals were excatly what I waited for when
      changing operating frequency (frequencies beetween 1700Hz and
      5000Hz); but completely deformed at JL Naudin's control board
      operatingfrequencies (between 17 000 Hz and 50 000 Hz). I mesured
      plate 30V and some pics to -80V at higher frequencies, not enough to
      have a plate (and it's not 0V).

      Induced back currents in primary coils (when FET basculates) is the
      cause of these perturbations. I have tried too solutions.
      First one, a diode in parallel with my primary coils (in the
      opposite way). But too many currents was flowing through, and this
      lead to an excess input consumption. I have added a resistor with my
      diode, but when the resistor was some kOhm, it was too much in
      comparison with primary coil impedance at operating frequency, so
      induced back currents were not going through the diode but through
      the coil, and a too small resistor led to a high power consumption.
      The input signal was correct with a diode.

      Second solution: a capacitor in parallel with my primary coil
      instead of a diode; few nF (ranging from 10 to 30 nF). This
      stabilised my negative pics at higher frequencies and my input
      signal was then acceptable: plate 30V and half sin from 30V to -60V.
      I used this montage.

      With this correct input signals, my output was different: always
      sinusoidal output, for a resistive load or a MOV load.
      So the reason why last year I never mesured sinusoidal waves is that
      control board is not properly designed for operating frequencies
      from 17KHz to 50KHz; but Naudin says he measured his sin waves at
      20KHz approx. with his control board. How has he done, it's not

      With my correct input signals, my correct primary coil orientation
      so magnetic field of the coil contrary magnet field, and my new
      powerfull magnet all was set up to be correct but ... negative again.

      All experiments (more than 30 experiments) lead to that conclusion:
      1) With a resistive load, current and voltage are sinusoidal wave in
      phase. Power output is a quarter power input on each secondary,
      which gives output power half of the input. Power calculations are
      easywith such phased waves.

      Pout = Umax²/(2*R) = Ueff²/R
      Pout= Umax*Imax*cos(phase)/2 = Ueff*Ieff*cos(phase) with cos(phase)=1
      These formulaes give the same output power each times (with little
      decimal difference).

      My resistive load is 120kohm(0,5Watt) and 12ohm (10Watt) series
      resistors, the second is used to measure current.
      chA and chB are probes on oscilloscope:
      (very bad transformer)

      Voltages are not too high: 600 to 800 V pic to pic.

      2)With a MOV load (I tried with one 420V MOV, 2 420V MOV, 3 420V MOV
      and 4 420V MOV in series, to that was the same as varying MOV from
      420 to 1680V) all signals are sinusoidal, but there is a phase angle.
      If I insert a 120 kohm resistor in series with my MOV (and my 12ohm
      resistor used to measure currents), phase angle becomes very little
      (which is logical if you draw a phases in a complex plane: a big
      resistor is a big real impedance and phase angle comes from the
      complex impedance of MOV, whoch is little). But with a 120kohm
      resistor in series, measurements are the same than with no MOV and
      only resistor.

      Phase angle is constant when varying frequency.

      When varying frequency from from 17KHz to 50KHz, power output was
      reducing, and so power input. There is no current pic as claimed on
      JL Naudins website, so no "tuning". The less the frequency is, the
      more current and voltages I have.

      And there is no tuning as claimed by Naudin " the working frequency
      must be tuned so as to get a pure sine wave and the max amplitude at
      the output (>1KV peak-to-peak loaded),".

      Voltages vary from 800V to 1400V pic to pic. There is a resonance
      effect with MOV (MOV have a capacitor value) but the operating
      frequencies used does not reach pic resonance.

      Currents are much more higher than with a pure resistive load, but
      with phase angle, power output is:
      Pout= Umax*Imax*cos(phase)/2 = Ueff*Ieff*cos(phase) with

      and this give Power output varying from 1/10 to 1/4 of power input
      (depending of frequency).
      Again best COP = 0.5 approximately.

      But ther is no power gain.
      So, what I gain in current I lose in phase angle.

      Naudin says "the voltage and current are in phase as shown in my
      scope pictures above,
      - a "conditionned" RLoad (100 Kohms, non inductive carbon, 5Watts)
      or a MOV (Metal Oxide Varistor) is REQUIRED for getting the output
      datas measured above,"

      Again measurements are contradictory to Naudin, where output current
      and voltage are in phase with his conditioned resistor, but with 9W
      neon too. With a neon, I obtain phase angle again.

      This is logical, these non linear components give birth to a phase
      angle. Naudin never give the schema of his load measurements?. He
      gives us oscilloscope pictures, but does not give us what he
      measured on his channel of his oscilloscope. This is very important
      as to understand what I did to have no phase angle with a neon!

      Naudin says "The current has been measured with a 10 ohms ceramic
      and non inductive resistor . the same resistor and the same method
      of measurement has been used for input and also the output"

      So, he measured currents with his 10ohm resistor (I used 12 ohm
      resistor). But for the rest? Has he measured both secondary coils
      linked together, only one secondary with a neon and his resistor in
      series, etc?

      I bought batteries to try wether power supply was a problem, but
      this changed nothing.

      All Naudin claims are contradicted with a replication of his
      experiment. He is the only one I know claiming a MEG success with
      published measurements; but measurements are not reproductible with
      the same device than his. His control board does not fit his input
      signals. His loads do not fit his output signals; nothong is right.
      I waited for one year to have an answer from him, but i had nothing.

      Do you know another successfull overunity MEG construction? The only
      thing I can read here is questions, but I don't read any success.
      Maybe I have made a mistake?

      When reading Bearden's Patent, we can see that no specific load is
      needed (conditionned Rload or MOV), and patent says that secondary
      output coils can be wounded with less turns that input primary
      coils, so to have a very little voltage, and this leads not to a COP
      loss for the MEG, so claims of voltage that must build up have no

      Bearden does not reveal his scheme for his MEG, so we can not say
      wether it works or not, but for Naudin it is possible. Why does not
      he answer direct simple questions? Maybe because this is a big LIE.
      I don't say that MEG is a lie, but Naudin replications may be. If
      not, why doesn't he give us clear answers about his measurements? I
      cantoo take pictures of phased voltages and currents, with high
      current values, and saying you: that's my MEG results!! There is
      But if I give you an exact way to reproduce my experiment and you
      don't find the same thing you can say that I am a lier. But if I
      give you only some partial results, not everything... and a special
      conditioned Rload, and a magic neon, then I can tell you that you
      experiment is not the same than mine, so I am the only one to have

      Simple question to make the points? Who, in this list has had a
      overunity MEG success in his experiments?
    • YoTango
      Hi, I am interested in your results. I looked at your web page, but I do not read French and it looks long and would take too much time to analyze. I would
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 17, 2005
      • 0 Attachment

        I am interested in your results. I looked at your web page, but I do
        not read French and it looks long and would take too much time to
        analyze. I would only want to see an image of one full cycle of the
        voltage & current of all four windings-- both primary and secondary.
        Could you please post a picture of this?

        Also I am curious where and how much you paid for your Metglas
        AMCC-320 core?

        BTW, I wanted caution people about using FEMM on any materials that
        are close to saturation. FEMM has no understanding of saturations.
        When saturation values are programmed into FEMM's database then FEMM
        fails miserably. The FEMM snapshot taken by Naudin is incorrect
        because the magnet saturates the core.

      • BobW
        YT and all ... do ... You can see that French page in English by entering it s URL at http://world.altavista.com/ ... I bought mine at
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 21, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          YT and all

          --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "YoTango" <yotango@y...> wrote:
          > Hi,
          > I am interested in your results. I looked at your web page, but I
          > not read French and it looks long and would take too much time to
          > analyze.

          You can see that French page in English by entering it's URL at

          > Also I am curious where and how much you paid for your Metglas
          > AMCC-320 core?

          I bought mine at

          I think I paid around $90 for it a number of years ago.

        • regnevacs
          Did you try the conditioned resistor?
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 9, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Did you try the conditioned resistor?
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.