Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## help needed for MEG tuning

Expand Messages
• Hello guys, I m new to this group, but it seems that some of you have some experience with the MEG, so that s why I m posting here the details of my
Message 1 of 13 , Apr 19, 2006
Hello guys,

I'm new to this group, but it seems that some of you have some
experience with the MEG, so that's why I'm posting here the details of
my experimentation up to now. I'm also hoping anyone could have some
hints and tips to make my MEG work properly.

Fist, I've been studying the MEG for more than a year now and I've
made my first prototype 4 months ago. I have built the MEG from the
patent. I used an AMCC630 Metglas core with a rare earth neodium
magnet, (N42 grade) the exact same size as we can find in the patent.
Also, I'm testing with two combinaison of load.
1. 3x 33k (1Watt) resistor in serie total 100Kohm each side
2. 3x 33k (like 1) but with an added 460V MOV (BC1400-ND) in serie

As far a I have tested, the Mov is not helping at all. I do consider
the power dissipated in the Mov as lost power.

Also, my inputs are 2 50% square waves generated by a D-latch. These
2 signals then go through 2 sets of push-pull fet combination (n and p
fets). And like JL Naudin's design, I used nFet to "drain" the
current. My fets are IRF520

My best resuslts were COP = 0.74 to COP 0.78.
Theses results were calculated with an input of 32.6 Volt (DC) *
0.1408 Amps = 4.59 Watts for an outpout of average 141 Vrms on linear
resistor => 3.6147 Watts, for a cop of 0.7875.
I consider theses results as average, but the mesurement are precise.
I used a digital Fluke oscilloscope to calculate the RMS voltage on
the output and a good multimeter to calculate the input amps from the
power sources.

The patent seems to say that I will have to put more volts in to get
better results, but I don't see a big difference between 5 volts in or
35 volts in (with a COP perspective)

Also, I played a lot with the frequencies and it seems that my MEG is
optimum with input frequencies of about 30-45kHz. If I go outside of
these frenquencies, I loose a lot in efficiency.

As I'm looking for some insight, I wonder if anyone knows how
JL-Naudin got his input wave exactly like Bearden. What I mean is
that my input and output are not as "clean" as his. I have a lot of
high frequency phenomenon in my input and my output wave his slightly
distorded. I'm beggening to think this is where my problem his, but
I'm not sure how to solve it.

Anyway if anyone has clues, I would apreciate them

Thanks
Ccool
• ... Have you tried lower pulse width with a deadtime in betwwen? Say something like 2 x 40% with 10% OFF. Mark Jordan
Message 2 of 13 , Apr 20, 2006
On 20 Apr 2006 at 2:15, ccool_j wrote:

> Also, my inputs are 2 50% square waves generated by a D-latch. These
> 2 signals then go through 2 sets of push-pull fet combination (n and p
> fets). And like JL Naudin's design, I used nFet to "drain" the
> current. My fets are IRF520

Have you tried lower pulse width with a deadtime in betwwen?
Say something like 2 x 40% with 10% OFF.

Mark Jordan
• No. Never tried.
Message 3 of 13 , Apr 20, 2006
No. Never tried.

On 20 Apr 2006 at 12:43, Kevin Petrones wrote:

>
> Have you gotten one of these things to work?
>
> On 4/20/06, Mark Jordan <enki@...> wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2006 at 2:15, ccool_j wrote:
>
> > Also, my inputs are 2 50% square waves generated by a
> D-latch. These
> > 2 signals then go through 2 sets of push-pull fet
> combination (n and p
> > fets). And like JL Naudin's design, I used nFet to
> "drain" the
> > current. My fets are IRF520
>
> Have you tried lower pulse width with a deadtime in betwwen?
> Say something like 2 x 40% with 10% OFF.
>
>
> Mark Jordan
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "MEG_builders" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MEG_builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
• No, because my meg was started as a project with some high school kids last year... we got it built and just started testing and the school year ended. By then
Message 4 of 13 , Apr 20, 2006
No, because my meg was started as a project with some high school kids last
year... we got it built and just started testing and the school year ended.

By then I had acquired Bearden's book and had read it.... what I read (and
an email from Bearden to the students) caused me to realize just how finicky
the tuning procedure was... his patent team could come up with the effect
and Naudin did, but everyone else, because they aren't taking Bearden
literaly, was having problems... letting their educations get in the way of
the empirical observations necessary to get the results... as I said the meg
is more like an antenna, antenna making is a black art, no one really knows
how or why they work, the proper shapes just do.... or so much power is
applied the antenna shape doesn't matter... the meg is much more subtle at
this stage of the game... it's a receiver, not a transmitter...

So I instead decided to spend time reading and talking to others to find out
what in the physical setup was causing the difficulties... my "research" ,
coupled with more clarification on Bearden's website have convinced me we
are dealing with a new facet of understanding of certain concepts relating
to matter, "electricity" and many things we take for granted we know about,
when we really just have a system that met our needs, not a true
understanding of how or what we are manipulating... i.e. articles in the
popular science press about new ways (string theory, etc.) to explain the
cracks in our arrogance that we know everything there is to know about
gravity, electricity and a good many other things....

I intend on getting back to it, but after I have a better idea what the real
issues are with the construct... and I know for a fact, because Bearden told
us in his email, that it's not the stength of the permanet magnet, but the
core's ability to completely contain the magnet's field that was the
important realationship... by having the magnet field not project beyond the
core the chances of interference by the core's field in the secondaries was
reduced... and assisted the construct to a COP greater that one... the key
is to get the event horizon. to borrow a term, in the two sides of the core
as open as possible to the flow of "energy"... any interference from errant
magnetic fields distorts the opening trying to be created in the event
horizon created by the pulses through the core that the secondries are
supposed to tap...

Sorry if this is meaningless to you, but I've read so many emails from
engineers arguing useless warmed over basic electronic shit, when it's so
obvious they can't see the big picture.... I just sigh...

Brent Selleck

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Jordan" <enki@...>
To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [MEG_builders] help needed for MEG tuning

> On 20 Apr 2006 at 2:15, ccool_j wrote:
>
>> Also, my inputs are 2 50% square waves generated by a D-latch. These
>> 2 signals then go through 2 sets of push-pull fet combination (n and p
>> fets). And like JL Naudin's design, I used nFet to "drain" the
>> current. My fets are IRF520
>
> Have you tried lower pulse width with a deadtime in betwwen?
> Say something like 2 x 40% with 10% OFF.
>
> Mark Jordan
>
>
>
>
> 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
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
• I have nt tried either... As far as I know about the meg, what is important is to get fast switching. Faster you go, the better it should be (as said in the
Message 5 of 13 , Apr 25, 2006
I have'nt tried either...

As far as I know about the meg, what is important is to get fast
switching. Faster you go, the better it should be (as said in the
book "Energy from the vacuum" from Bearden). So, if that's the case,
the fastest and the most "energetic" switching should be happening
when you switch the 2 entries at the same time.

That said, the other reason is more "technical". To test that kind of
entry, I would need to change my electronic design. I will probably
do it some time, but for now, my focus is elsewhere.

Still, I have noted your recommendation and when I'll have time to
test it, I will give you some feedback

Ccool

--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Jordan" <enki@...> wrote:
>
>
> No. Never tried.
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2006 at 12:43, Kevin Petrones wrote:
>
> >
> > Have you gotten one of these things to work?
> >
> > On 4/20/06, Mark Jordan <enki@...> wrote:
> > On 20 Apr 2006 at 2:15, ccool_j wrote:
> >
> > > Also, my inputs are 2 50% square waves generated by a
> > D-latch. These
> > > 2 signals then go through 2 sets of push-pull fet
> > combination (n and p
> > > fets). And like JL Naudin's design, I used nFet to
> > "drain" the
> > > current. My fets are IRF520
> >
> > Have you tried lower pulse width with a deadtime in betwwen?
> > Say something like 2 x 40% with 10% OFF.
> >
> >
> > Mark Jordan
• ... the real ... Bearden told ... but the ... beyond the ... secondaries was ... the key ... the core ... errant ... it s so ... Thank you for your insight on
Message 6 of 13 , Apr 25, 2006
> I intend on getting back to it, but after I have a better idea what
the real
> issues are with the construct... and I know for a fact, because
Bearden told
> us in his email, that it's not the stength of the permanet magnet,
but the
> core's ability to completely contain the magnet's field that was the
> important realationship... by having the magnet field not project
beyond the
> core the chances of interference by the core's field in the
secondaries was
> reduced... and assisted the construct to a COP greater that one...
the key
> is to get the event horizon. to borrow a term, in the two sides of
the core
> as open as possible to the flow of "energy"... any interference from
errant
> magnetic fields distorts the opening trying to be created in the event
> horizon created by the pulses through the core that the secondries are
> supposed to tap...
>
> Sorry if this is meaningless to you, but I've read so many emails from
> engineers arguing useless warmed over basic electronic shit, when
it's so
> obvious they can't see the big picture.... I just sigh...
>
> Brent Selleck
>

Thank you for your insight on the matter.

As you said, one of the important factor is to get the magnetic field
from the magnet all contained in the core. Which is why (as far as I
know) Metglas core should be better. Because of the huge magnetic
permeability of these kind of core. As a matter of fact, once the
magnet was in the core, I was unable to remove it from there (without
damaging the core)

Still, Having read the book, and a few other things, I still think
that some information is missing/misunderstood. As for myself, if I
knew everything (about the meg ;) I would not be asking for some hints.

I have been told that the magic would be happening when the core start
to saturate. Someone else also pointed me out that my magnet could be
too powerful. I seriously doubt that. The magnet has an area of
967.74mm(square) with a field density (Beta) of 1.3 tesla. The core
saturate at a field density of about 1.4 -1.5 tesla (core complete
saturation at 1.54 tesla) also, the area of the core is
1102.5mm(square).

so, when you have no inputs, the core flux is about 1.3Tesla right in
front of the magnet, but elsewhere, it is more:
(1.3 * (967.74 / 1102.5) ) / 2 = 0.57055 Tesla

*** note, the whole thing is divided by two because the flux separate
between the thow "branches" of the core ***

Anyway, to prove this "partial saturation" thesis, I'll need some
better electronics, becaus mine is burning when the back emf from the
input coils create voltage over 100Volts... (wich is about 30 volts in)

I'll try to get something that works at 500 volts and I'll tell you
how it goes. With that kind of electronics, I'll be able to reach the
optimal +70 Volts that Bearden was talking about.

Ccool
• Hi, it s me again, I have some updates and some graphics. Theses graphics show one of my biggest challenge into understanding and making work the MEG. This
Message 7 of 13 , Apr 25, 2006
Hi, it's me again,

I have some updates and some graphics. Theses graphics show one of my
biggest challenge into understanding and making work the MEG.

This one:
http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ccool_j/detail?.dir=cdf7re2&.dnm=7824re2.jpg&.src=ph

is a graph of the voltage at the entry of my Coils. The graph is
"inverted" because when the tension is zero, it means that there is
some current going in. If you refer to JL Nadin's design, I am
reading the tension between the Fets and the input coils. As you can
see in this picture, there is a lot of resonnating freqencies in
there. On the graph, I have chosen a frequency that minimises the
effects. Well at least the "first big peak" of the high frequency in
there. I was wondering if any of you observed phenomenon like these
on their MEG or mine just has too many parasites
(capacitorS/inductors/resistors)

By the way, the reason why the tension goes on the minus side is
because I added a protecting diode to bloc the current and protec my
Fets. But even without this protective diode I still have the
resonnating effect.

Also, on this graph:
http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ccool_j/detail?.dir=cdf7re2&.dnm=5edfre2.jpg&.src=ph

You can see both of my output (tension divided by 6 with a 66kohm
total resistor)

I have been trying to figure out what is causing that "bump" on the
sinus wave. If you look carefully, you can see it is only on the
"upper" side of the graphic. If I push up the frequency, I can
diminish the bump-effect, but my COP is going down very fast... That's
why I was wondering if anyonw had this effect or could explain (or
give a good hint)

This graph is kind of giving me an idea,
http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ccool_j/detail?.dir=cdf7re2&.dnm=d250re2.jpg&.src=ph

It is a graph showing the entry (1) with the output (1). As you can
see, there is a phase between the output and input, which is leading
me to think that the bump and the high frencies mentionned before are

I know this mail is getting long, that's why I won't talk right now
about the other aspect of COP based on average DC current vs RMS
current. (curious peaple can look into the other pictures in this album)

Thank you for reading and commenting. I really like to read you
comments. I've read a lot of previous message now, it is very
instructing.

Ccool
• You point out one the more interesting aspects to all of this... the ability to measure what s really going on... I sell robotic lawn mowers that use a
Message 8 of 13 , Apr 26, 2006
You point out one the more interesting aspects to all of this... the ability
to measure what's really going on... I sell robotic lawn mowers that use a
energized wire to creat a magnetic field for the electronics of the mower to
respond to... when I went out to get a magnetometer to measure the fields
the wires are producing I found such equipment difficult to come by... the
probes imprecise... the strength of the background field of the earth a
mitigating factor

The instruments are better now, but measuring a magnetic field, it's
orientation, it's strength and so forth is still pretty imprecise... a true
measure of the field in the core would require an internal probe... right
now we (you, I and all the others trying to reproduce this effect) are
actually guessing... once we enter the realm of guessing we are into the
"black arts"... strangely I feel a kinship with Edison when I consider the
challenges here... Bearden's team has an irreplaced pool of empirical
knowledge we collectively must accumulate...
I believe we are on the road...

Brent

----- Original Message -----
From: "ccool_j" <ccool_j@...>
To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:09 PM
Subject: [MEG_builders] Re: help needed for MEG tuning

>
>> I intend on getting back to it, but after I have a better idea what
> the real
>> issues are with the construct... and I know for a fact, because
> Bearden told
>> us in his email, that it's not the stength of the permanet magnet,
> but the
>> core's ability to completely contain the magnet's field that was the
>> important realationship... by having the magnet field not project
> beyond the
>> core the chances of interference by the core's field in the
> secondaries was
>> reduced... and assisted the construct to a COP greater that one...
> the key
>> is to get the event horizon. to borrow a term, in the two sides of
> the core
>> as open as possible to the flow of "energy"... any interference from
> errant
>> magnetic fields distorts the opening trying to be created in the event
>> horizon created by the pulses through the core that the secondries are
>> supposed to tap...
>>
>> Sorry if this is meaningless to you, but I've read so many emails from
>> engineers arguing useless warmed over basic electronic shit, when
> it's so
>> obvious they can't see the big picture.... I just sigh...
>>
>> Brent Selleck
>>
>
> Thank you for your insight on the matter.
>
> As you said, one of the important factor is to get the magnetic field
> from the magnet all contained in the core. Which is why (as far as I
> know) Metglas core should be better. Because of the huge magnetic
> permeability of these kind of core. As a matter of fact, once the
> magnet was in the core, I was unable to remove it from there (without
> damaging the core)
>
> Still, Having read the book, and a few other things, I still think
> that some information is missing/misunderstood. As for myself, if I
> knew everything (about the meg ;) I would not be asking for some hints.
>
> I have been told that the magic would be happening when the core start
> to saturate. Someone else also pointed me out that my magnet could be
> too powerful. I seriously doubt that. The magnet has an area of
> 967.74mm(square) with a field density (Beta) of 1.3 tesla. The core
> saturate at a field density of about 1.4 -1.5 tesla (core complete
> saturation at 1.54 tesla) also, the area of the core is
> 1102.5mm(square).
>
> so, when you have no inputs, the core flux is about 1.3Tesla right in
> front of the magnet, but elsewhere, it is more:
> (1.3 * (967.74 / 1102.5) ) / 2 = 0.57055 Tesla
>
> *** note, the whole thing is divided by two because the flux separate
> between the thow "branches" of the core ***
>
> Anyway, to prove this "partial saturation" thesis, I'll need some
> better electronics, becaus mine is burning when the back emf from the
> input coils create voltage over 100Volts... (wich is about 30 volts in)
>
> I'll try to get something that works at 500 volts and I'll tell you
> how it goes. With that kind of electronics, I'll be able to reach the
> optimal +70 Volts that Bearden was talking about.
>
> Ccool
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
• ... As the core goes into saturation, the field will be less contained in it, so if good things happen when saturation occurs, it refutes the idea that high
Message 9 of 13 , Apr 29, 2006
--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "ccool_j" <ccool_j@...> wrote:
>...
> As you said, one of the important factor is to get the magnetic field
> from the magnet all contained in the core. Which is why (as far as I
> know) Metglas core should be better. Because of the huge magnetic
> permeability of these kind of core...
> I have been told that the magic would be happening when the core start
> to saturate...
> Anyway, to prove this "partial saturation" thesis, I'll need some
> better electronics, becaus mine is burning when the back emf from the
> input coils create voltage over 100Volts... (wich is about 30 volts in)
>
> I'll try to get something that works at 500 volts and I'll tell you
> how it goes. With that kind of electronics, I'll be able to reach the
> optimal +70 Volts that Bearden was talking about.
>
> Ccool
>
As the core goes into saturation, the field will be less contained in
it, so if good things happen when saturation occurs, it refutes the
idea that high permiability and low field fringing is needed. Also,
note that there are several formulations of metglas materials.
"Distributed gap" is another way of saying reduced permiability.

You can get the saturation you want without higher voltages, just
reduce the frequency. The magnetic field depends on the curent not the
voltage, so increasing the time and leaving the voltage constant
increases the current thru the inductor. If the EMF on trun off
(flyback) is too high, it is because of lack of load on the secondary
which should be tightly coupled to the core (atleast if it is to have
low fringing fields)
• In looking at your output waveforms, it appears that your MEG is still a Biased transformer . Note the skewed output waveform. Try changing the input
Message 10 of 13 , Jun 3, 2006
In looking at your output waveforms, it appears that your MEG is still a "Biased
transformer". Note the skewed output waveform. Try changing the input frequency/
voltage so that the output is a perfect sinewave. (believe me, that's the trick!) Only then is
the output a result of only switching the flux of your magnet. Right now, the primary is
producing external flux and that flux is intercepting the secondaries. The MEG has become
a transformer (like the rest of us) with a COP<1

> Hi, it's me again,
>
> I have some updates and some graphics. Theses graphics show one of my
> biggest challenge into understanding and making work the MEG.
>
> This one:
> http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ccool_j/
detail?.dir=cdf7re2&.dnm=7824re2.jpg&.src=ph
>
> is a graph of the voltage at the entry of my Coils. The graph is
> "inverted" because when the tension is zero, it means that there is
> some current going in. If you refer to JL Nadin's design, I am
> reading the tension between the Fets and the input coils. As you can
> see in this picture, there is a lot of resonnating freqencies in
> there. On the graph, I have chosen a frequency that minimises the
> effects. Well at least the "first big peak" of the high frequency in
> there. I was wondering if any of you observed phenomenon like these
> on their MEG or mine just has too many parasites
> (capacitorS/inductors/resistors)
>
> By the way, the reason why the tension goes on the minus side is
> because I added a protecting diode to bloc the current and protec my
> Fets. But even without this protective diode I still have the
> resonnating effect.
>
> Also, on this graph:
> http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ccool_j/
detail?.dir=cdf7re2&.dnm=5edfre2.jpg&.src=ph
>
> You can see both of my output (tension divided by 6 with a 66kohm
> total resistor)
>
> I have been trying to figure out what is causing that "bump" on the
> sinus wave. If you look carefully, you can see it is only on the
> "upper" side of the graphic. If I push up the frequency, I can
> diminish the bump-effect, but my COP is going down very fast... That's
> why I was wondering if anyonw had this effect or could explain (or
> give a good hint)
>
> This graph is kind of giving me an idea,
> http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ccool_j/
detail?.dir=cdf7re2&.dnm=d250re2.jpg&.src=ph
>
> It is a graph showing the entry (1) with the output (1). As you can
> see, there is a phase between the output and input, which is leading
> me to think that the bump and the high frencies mentionned before are
>
> I know this mail is getting long, that's why I won't talk right now
> about the other aspect of COP based on average DC current vs RMS
> current. (curious peaple can look into the other pictures in this album)
>
> Thank you for reading and commenting. I really like to read you
> comments. I've read a lot of previous message now, it is very
> instructing.
>
> Ccool
>
• On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 05:56:48 -0000 Norm Fletcher wrote ... I have 2 comments, for which I hope to see a reply: Since the core is
Message 11 of 13 , Jun 5, 2006
On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 05:56:48 -0000
"Norm Fletcher" <fletchmo47@...> wrote
> In looking at your output waveforms, it appears that your MEG is still a
> "Biased transformer". Note the skewed output waveform. Try changing the
> input frequency/voltage so that the output is a perfect sinewave.
> (believe me, that's the trick!) Only then is the output a result of only
> switching the flux of your magnet. Right now, the primary is
> producing external flux and that flux is intercepting the secondaries. The
> MEG has become a transformer (like the rest of us) with a COP<1

I have 2 comments, for which I hope to see a reply:
Since the core is not continuously saturated, the primary will always couple highly to the secondary on it's leg. From previous posts indicating that keeping the field created by the primary in the core is critical, it would follow that this coupling would be large. As the thickness to width (c/b) of the secondary increases, the coupling of the secondary to the core decreases. At some point the coupling to the primary could be loose enough to clearly observe the self resonance of this core. You can see this clearly in old TV fly-back transformers. Could this secondary resonance be what you are tuning for?

--
_______________________________________________

Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages

http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
• ... secondary on it s leg. You can see this clearly in old TV fly-back transformers. Could this secondary resonance be what you are tuning for? OK Let me see
Message 12 of 13 , Jul 18, 2006
--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne Robey" <robeyw@...> wrote:
>
> Since the core is not continuously saturated, the primary will always couple highly to the
secondary on it's leg.

You can see this clearly in old TV fly-back transformers. Could this secondary resonance
be what you are tuning for?

OK
Let me see if I can make clear what I've been trying to point out. You make an excellent
point in the first statement "Since the core is not continuously saturated, the primary will
always couple highly to the secondary on it's leg".
It's just that we don't want ANY coupling. Before you think I just don't understand
transformers I'd like to point out that a perfectly successful MEG is NOT a transformer. It is
a dual closed flux pathway with 2 flux switches.
Consider a MEG core with output coils and magnet as we see on the patent. Now, instead
of input coils, we cut an air gap in the core and put in that gap a "magic" material that
would act as a switch for the flux. The 'magic' stuff would react to a low power electronic
input by radically changing it's permeability from very permeable to perhaps the
permeability of air. It would do this without introducing flux into the core. The only flux in
the core would be the magnet's.
The primary coils described in the MEG patent, IF wound properly, IF excited with a
correctly shaped waveform, IF firing at exactly the right frequency, will, in theory, give us
an over-unity condition. The problem arises in the delicate balance of necessary "IF"
conditions that must be met for a successful experiment. What I'm suggesting is that we
knock out some of these "IFs" by dropping the input coils as they are described in the
patent and work on some kind of flux switch for the core instead. This could be a new,
specially designed coil, or an exotic array of metals or something else. What Dr. Bearden
has said all along is that we need to stop thinking along the lines of traditional
transformer building. Anyway, that's what I've been working on.

Norm
• Very well said.... and I await your results eagerly... ... From: Norm Fletcher To: Sent: Tuesday,
Message 13 of 13 , Jul 19, 2006
Very well said.... and I await your results eagerly...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Norm Fletcher" <fletchmo47@...>
To: <MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:48 PM
Subject: [MEG_builders] Re: help needed for MEG tuning

> --- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne Robey" <robeyw@...> wrote:
>>
>> Since the core is not continuously saturated, the primary will always
>> couple highly to the
> secondary on it's leg.
>
> You can see this clearly in old TV fly-back transformers. Could this
> secondary resonance
> be what you are tuning for?
>
> OK
> Let me see if I can make clear what I've been trying to point out. You
> make an excellent
> point in the first statement "Since the core is not continuously
> saturated, the primary will
> always couple highly to the secondary on it's leg".
> It's just that we don't want ANY coupling. Before you think I just don't
> understand
> transformers I'd like to point out that a perfectly successful MEG is NOT
> a transformer. It is
> a dual closed flux pathway with 2 flux switches.
> Consider a MEG core with output coils and magnet as we see on the
> patent. Now, instead
> of input coils, we cut an air gap in the core and put in that gap a
> "magic" material that
> would act as a switch for the flux. The 'magic' stuff would react to a low
> power electronic
> input by radically changing it's permeability from very permeable to
> perhaps the
> permeability of air. It would do this without introducing flux into the
> core. The only flux in
> the core would be the magnet's.
> The primary coils described in the MEG patent, IF wound properly, IF
> excited with a
> correctly shaped waveform, IF firing at exactly the right frequency, will,
> in theory, give us
> an over-unity condition. The problem arises in the delicate balance of
> necessary "IF"
> conditions that must be met for a successful experiment. What I'm
> suggesting is that we
> knock out some of these "IFs" by dropping the input coils as they are
> described in the
> patent and work on some kind of flux switch for the core instead. This
> could be a new,
> specially designed coil, or an exotic array of metals or something else.
> What Dr. Bearden
> has said all along is that we need to stop thinking along the lines of
> transformer building. Anyway, that's what I've been working on.
>
> Norm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.