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

Re: problem with the MEG as described in the patent

Expand Messages
  • Norm Fletcher
    ... First the Metglas is only efficient (low hysteresis loss) ... operated at a ... using a TV fly back core and not a thin (approaching single layer) control
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 28 5:28 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne Robey" <robeyw@...> wrote:
      First the Metglas is only efficient (low hysteresis loss)
      > at low (power line) frequencies, yet the MEG is traditionally
      operated at a
      > much higher frequency. jnaudin posted his best results when he was
      using a TV fly back core and not a thin (approaching single layer)
      control winding. He claims that his conditioned resistor or other
      suitable non linear load is essential. I am led to wonder if there are
      2 different things going on here.
      >

      The Powerlite C core that is used in the MEG has a loss of between
      15mW to 500 mW/ cubic cM depending on the flux density at 20kHz.
      http://www.metglas.com/products/page5_1_6_2_2.htm
      Not bad for the traditional MEG frequency (45kHz oscillator, one pulse
      for each half cycle out= about 22.5kHz operating frequency) 20 Khz is
      traditional also for the operation of a typical pwm inverter or switch
      mode power supply. I believe you are absolutely right in wondering if
      there are 2 different things going on.

      Try thinking only of increasing the permeablity of a section of the
      MEG core at the place where the input coils are on the present model.
      We would need to be able to do this with similar input circuitry.
      Suppose we could do this with no external flux being generated in the
      system. We would then be dealing only with the flux of the magnet. It
      would shuttle to the opposite side of the MEG and our well explained
      theory would be reality. There would be no need for specially
      conditioned resistors, or of not-so-convincing oscilloscope power
      analysis. The only power out would be from the shuttled flux of the
      magnet. And the faster we could shuttle the flux, the greater the
      output power would be.

      So, back to this writer's initial thesis: I believe he MEG WILL work
      if we can use metalurgy or some other exotic property of materials
      magic to change the permeability of the core without introducting
      external flux. I really believe it goes beyond a close winding or
      other traditional transformer building technique. It strikes me also
      that frequency tuning would be unnecessary using this yet-to-be
      discovered technique. Well, I can dream, can't I?

      Best to everybody-except you bastards in the oil industry--
      Fletchmo
    • Dave
      Hi guys I agree with the idea that driving a coil to impede the flux path is a difficult task. I have worked with dc brushless motors and the motor stator
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 22, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi guys
        I agree with the idea that driving a coil to impede the flux path is a
        difficult task. I have worked with dc brushless motors and the motor
        stator permeability is a problem for high torque with small motors.
        As I see it the objective of the meg is not to totally stop the flux
        path but to reduce it just prior to reaching core saturation. Any
        change in flux will result in a change in secondary output.
        I do believe that true over unity can be achieved with the new
        materials being invented with a crystalline structure that could shift
        polarity and hinder a flux path with a small current applied.

        Dave
      • leskraut
        ***** PREFACE BY GROUP MODERATOR ******* I am approving this posting with some trepidation that it might spur a round of THEORY discussion. What s the problem
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 5, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          ***** PREFACE BY GROUP MODERATOR *******

          I am approving this posting with some trepidation that it might spur a round of THEORY discussion. What's the problem with that? Simple. This site is about BUILDING MEG type devices and discussing the results of experiments with them NOT ABOUT DISCUSSING THEORY. Since Leskraut is a new member, I'm making an exception for this posting.

          Regards,
          Stan Mayer Co-moderator for MEG_ Builders.

          P.S. Just FYI ... having been a MEG Builder and moderator for this site for many many years and having watched it fail to fulfill its purpose of being a place for people to share the results of their experiments, I AM VERY VERY CLOSE TO SHUTTING THE SITE DOWN.

          May I suggest to those of you who have recently done some MEG experimenting that you report your results now, placing your photos and drawings in the PHOTOS section of this site.

          *********************************************************

          Thank you for letting me join in as a new member.
          I am still reviewing the material posted and have learned a great deal. I have a lot to read yet. But I ran into this comment and wondered if this relates to certain changes I have noticed in the MEG design. Even though Dave made this comment some time ago it certainly seems to have made a mark.

          In this picture there are three visible white square rods top, right and left.
          Any Ideas what they are? and perhaps the purpose?
          http://www.cheniere.org/images/meg/AUT_57061a1.jpg

          On this one there are now cross flux magnetic gates.
          http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg4cf.htm

          I am wondering if the material used for these flux magnetic gates is available to attempt this replication?

          Thanks
          Les


          --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <dv_fixit@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi guys
          > I agree with the idea that driving a coil to impede the flux path is a
          > difficult task. I have worked with dc brushless motors and the motor
          > stator permeability is a problem for high torque with small motors.
          > As I see it the objective of the meg is not to totally stop the flux
          > path but to reduce it just prior to reaching core saturation. Any
          > change in flux will result in a change in secondary output.
          > I do believe that true over unity can be achieved with the new
          > materials being invented with a crystalline structure that could shift
          > polarity and hinder a flux path with a small current applied.
          >
          > Dave
          >
        • mayerstan
          ... LES, MY REPLIES ARE EMBEDDED IN ALL CAP TEXT WITHIN YOUR ORIGINAL MESSAGE BELOW. STAN MAYER ... PLEASE ELABORATE ON CERTAIN CHANGES AS I HAVE SEEN
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 10, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "leskraut" <leskraut@...> wrote:
            LES,
            MY REPLIES ARE EMBEDDED IN ALL CAP TEXT WITHIN YOUR ORIGINAL MESSAGE BELOW.

            STAN MAYER
            <snip>

            > Thank you for letting me join in as a new member.
            > I am still reviewing the material posted and have learned a great deal. I have a lot to read yet. But I ran into this comment and wondered if this relates to certain changes I have noticed in the MEG design.

            PLEASE ELABORATE ON "CERTAIN CHANGES" AS I HAVE SEEN NO MAJOR CHANGES IN BEARDEN'S MEG.

            Even though Dave made this comment some time ago it certainly seems to have made a mark.

            HMMMMMMMM.

            > In this picture there are three visible white square rods top, right and left.
            > Any Ideas what they are? and perhaps the purpose?

            MY GUESS IS THAT THEY ARE BRACES/SUPPPORTS/SHIMS WITH THE SIDE ONES BEING USED TO HOLD THE TWO CEES OF THE CORE TOGETHER.

            > http://www.cheniere.org/images/meg/AUT_57061a1.jpg
            >
            > On this one there are now cross flux magnetic gates.
            > http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg4cf.htm
            >
            > I am wondering if the material used for these flux magnetic gates is available to attempt this replication?

            I DON'T RECALL THE NAUDIN EVER BUILT THE FLUX GATE VERSION OF THE MEG SHOWN IN JNAUDIN.FREE.FR/MEG/MEG4CF.HTM. I BELIEVE THAT THE PICTURE IS BUT A CONCEPT DRAWING BY NAUDIN. ASSUMING THAT NAUDIN NEVER BUILT SUCH A MEG, WELL THEN WE WOULD HAVE NO EASY WAY OF KNOWING WHAT MATERIAL NAUDIN HAD IN MIND. BY THE WAY, NAUDIN IS A MEMBER OF THIS GROUP AND SO HOPEFULLY IF HE BUILT THIS MEG AND/OR HAD SOME SPECIAL MATERIAL IN MIND FOR THE FLUX GATES, HOPEFULLY HE'LL REPLY TO THIS POSTING TO TELL US THE ANSWERS.

            BEST REGARDS,

            STAN MAYER
            >
            > Thanks
            > Les
            <SNIP>
          • Norman
            I haven t posted in a long time because not much has happened with my AMCC1000 core. After meeting Don Smith in 2007, it became a possibility that operation of
            Message 5 of 8 , Dec 20, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              I haven't posted in a long time because not much has happened with my AMCC1000 core. After meeting Don Smith in 2007, it became a possibility that operation of the MEG may very well be a resonance thing. The combination of coil, capacitor and the Metglas core could have a unique frequency that brings about an over unity condition. I noticed that the shape of the output waveform changes with the input frequency, but I never looked at the in/out ratio using various frequencies--I just used the frequency called for in the patent.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.