Re: problem with the MEG as described in the patent
- ***** 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.
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?
On this one there are now cross flux magnetic gates.
I am wondering if the material used for these flux magnetic gates is available to attempt this replication?
--- 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.
--- In MEG_builders@yahoogroups.com, "leskraut" <leskraut@...> wrote:
MY REPLIES ARE EMBEDDED IN ALL CAP TEXT WITHIN YOUR ORIGINAL MESSAGE BELOW.
> 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.
> 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.
> On this one there are now cross flux magnetic gates.
> 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.
- 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.