Re: [jlnlabs] (Info) About the MEG replicability...
- Jean, et. al.,Here are some selected excerpts from my correspondence with Bearden pertaining to the MEG and the points Jean has raised:----- Original Message -----From: jnaudin509@...Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:05 AMSubject: [jlnlabs] (Info) About the MEG replicability...Dear MEG Explorers,
I would like to clarify some important points about my MEG replication that I have conducted on Nov 2000.
All the measurements that I have done on the MEG are reals... BUT, the tuning is VERY DIFFICULT. Today, there is always a possibility of a measurement artifact ( not a measurement error ). I have a used high tech equipement fully calibrated ( at the date of the test ), so I think that the measured values are corrects, but, unfortunatelly, I have NEVER succeed in the closed loop...
The frequency MUST BE finely tuned with the P1 ( 22k ) potentiometer. The best duty cycle is 50% ( see the diagram : http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/meg31dg.gif )
I have got the results shown in my web site with only a NON LINEAR LOADS ( a conditionned resistor, a Mov ) or with a simple incandescent light bulb but with a non linear component in serie. This is the conditions required for obtaining the "apparent" COP measured. I use the word "apparent" because I have not yet succeed to close the loop.
As far as I am concerned, a COP >>1 will be fully confirmed only with a closed loop and a self-running device...
Today, I can't say about my MEG replication that :
- the Bearden's MEG works as claimed in his paper,
- I have been able to replicate the output waves presented in his paper and in his patent,
- the "apparent" COP that I have measured is fully in line with the claim
The things which need to be checked by the MEG builders are :
- Does a closed loop MEG is working ?
- Does a self running MEG has been tested by the Bearden's teamwork ?
- Does the MEG is working with a full linear and non inductive Load ?
Main Web site : http://jlnlabs.org
Site France : http://jlnlabs.multimania.comFrom Bearden re: Closing the loop -| None of the overunity researchers seem to know that either; that the very EM
| theory they know and are familiar with, totally excludes any possibility of
| overunity. Period.
| None seem to realize that you CANNOT use just a standard closed current loop
| circuit, and output overunity. Will not happen. That's standard theory,
| and overunity has already been discarded in it from the getgo.|
| So NONE of them ask the very first necessary question: How and where in a
| circuit does a proposed overunity system VIOLATE the standard
| Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz theory? And is there any grounds in the
| literature for that violation?
| Almost all of these fellows have never seen an overunity circuit in their
| life, have no experience with one, have no understanding of the new and
| strange phenomenology that occurs in one, etc. Yet most also confidently
| assume that their knowledge of STANDARD, GARDEN-VARIETY EM is all that is
| required. I've worked with several legitimate overunity systems, working
| with various inventors. These were real, and they all demonstrated the
| conventionally unknown effects I refer to.
| Now notice very carefully that we have only shown the MEG in OPEN-LOOP
| fashion. There's a very good reason for that. In spite of all the
| "experts" who already know it all, who even think they know magnetics (and
| never heard of the Aharonov-Bohm effect), close-looping a real overunity
| machine is the devil to do successfully -- else we would have done it with
| the MEG (and several others I worked with) long ago. I have news for the
| overunity researchers: If you have a unit that puts out 100 watts, and you
| only input 10 watts, you CANNOT just use clamped positive feedback of 10
| watts from the output. Try it, and watch your circuits blow their solid
| state components, or drain the external power supply, etc. Not one of those
| fellows has ever even had an overunity system to try to close-loop and see
| what happens. So they have ZERO close-looping knowledge and experience.
| Anyway, welcome to general relativity. Any overunity system is a priori far
| from equilibrium in the active vacuum exchange, so it exists in a curved
| spacetime from the getgo. Well, ordinary EM theory and ordinary circuit
| theory doesn't tell you anything at all about what happens then, in that
| circuit. There is a real, but highly sophisticated and unusual reason for
| the difficulty in close-looping an overunity system. Bedini and I, after
| years of hard struggle, have FINALLY broken the close-looping mechanism, and
| we have filed a patent on the process. Bedini did it first on the bench,
| and after considerable torment and effort I finally broke the technical
| mechanism involved. Nothing at all can be discussed about that patent
| application or its technical content, until we secure formal regular patent
| application and also Foreign patent application filing.His response to my rather ignorant guess as to why closing the loop is extremely difficult:
| No, the thing that prevents close-looping is not anything superluminal. it
| turns out there is an astonishing mechanism in the vacuum itself by which
| nature "decays" any overunity situation. You cannot even see it unless you
| analyze what I call the "supersystem": That is, the local curvature of
| spacetime, the physical EM system, and the active nonlinear vacuum. All
| three of these entities are in interaction together, in any legitimate
| overunity systems. As you can see, standard circuit theory does not hack
| it, and neither does the simply "flat spacetime, inactive vacuum" assumption
| of just clamping some positive feedback from output to input. The actual
| mechanism by which nature promptly decays from that excited supersystem
| state that exists in an overunity system, is quite surprising because it is
| just now, way out there on the absolute forefront of physics, that the basis
| to comprehend the mechanism has finally appeared electromagnetically at
| last. In other words, struggling overunity inventors cannot be blamed for
| not doing it in the past, because much of the physics necessary to do it had
| not been realized yet, and there was absolutely no model which they could
| use to even hint at how to do it. A few did it by either pure luck or an
| incredible series of experiments until they stumbled across it. One that I
| known of hit it right on the head the first time, an incredible stroke of
| luck comparable to winning the lottery with a single ticket. I was very
| lucky to eventually be able to find a reference that pointed toward the
| mechanism, and after lots and lots of wrestling with what on earth it could
| be pointing to, finally found what it really was. It involves a totally new
| kind of potential, a new kind of force, and a new kind of current. [There
| are many kinds of energy currents in higher symmetry electrodynamics, e.g.,
| the curl-free magnetic vector potential is actually a purely longitudinal
| flow of energy current, of if you will, a flow of what would normally be the
| electrostatic scalar potential, in space.] That's why it was so difficult
| to arrive at. But with his incredible intuition, and hordes of determined
| experiments, John Bedini had found a way to convert this wild beast into
| usable electromagnetic energy, taming it on the bench. Even after seeing
| what he did, it was extraordinarily difficult to come up with the actual
| technical mechanism he was performing.
| Anyway, we finally found it, at least to first order and good enough to
| allow close-looping of many (but not necessarily all!) overunity circuits.
| But it's a cantankerous beast, and even knowing it, it is very difficult to
| wrestle to the mat in a given application. I want to be sure, however, that
| in the future it is well-known that John, not me, discovered how to do it.My question on the value/necessity of 'closing the loop':
| > Perhaps you can shed some light on this. It appears that the major
| > with OU devices is that inventors invariably try and 'close the loop' to
| > make a device a 'self-runner' (I assume this is because it destroys the
| > source dipole, if I understand you correctly). John has been practically
| > foaming at the mouth with frustration trying to make the point that if you
| > want OU (and you haven't hit upon the method you and he have) you can't
| > close the loop.
| > Here's the nut of the problem and what I can't comprehend - why does the
| > loop HAVE to be closed?!? From what I've seen there's several designs out
| > there (Gray's was one, unless I am mistaken) that charged one battery
| > running off another - then simply switched batteries after a while! It's
| > not an elegant solution, but neither was the first gas engine compared to
| > steam! It just had the potential to be BETTER. Even an open loop OU
| system is
| > better than NO system at all! Eventually the loop will be closed, and it
| > will be cheaper, better, faster, but for right now - so what!Tom's response:| Dave,
| Sorry for not addressing it directly; just plead terrible fatigue tonight.
| Well, your intuition is absolutely correct! There is nothing that says an
| overunity systems has to be close-looped at all, and that's the point.
| Overunity per se is not close-looping, just COP>1.0. You are quite right on
| that. What is wrong is so many folks who automatically assume that, if it's
| overunity, hey, it's a piece of cake to close-loop it. That's totally
| But one continually gets "attacked" by lots of very naïve folks who assume
| the role of experts in the free energy community, with some such statement
| as, "Well, if it's real, you can easily close loop it, by just using some
| controlled positive feedback. If you are not doing that, it is not
| legitimate and it is therefore a fraud." After getting hit with that
| perhaps fifty times, understandably one gets impatient with such a naïve
| assumption by a person who never saw an overunity circuit in his life, never
| experimented with one, never saw what happens when one tries to close loop
| it, etc.
| So it's perfectly legitimate to advertise an open-loop overunity experiment
| or device. That's precisely the case for every conventional generator
| anyway, evaluated for energy transduction only. It has a COP>>1.0 for
| energy transduction, but certainly is not close-looped. As you can see, by
| using the ubiquitous closed current loop circuit which self-enforces
| underunity COP, the conventional engineers eliminate the problem entirely,
| and never even run into it, because they eliminate COP>1.0 anyway. But that
| results in their wasting enormously more energy than they catch and use, and
| they have been doing that for more than a century.
| We are also working on a (proprietary) method of hopefully allowing
| close-looping of the MEG by an entirely different mechanism we have
| postulated. Still too early to tell on that one, but at least on paper it
| looks good (lots of things look good on paper, and only a few of them really
| work out!), and it appears it may totally avoid the other major problem.
| But it requires a very different MEG construction to try to do it. So we
| will have to laboriously make several more buildups of the new kind before
| we can tell, and we have to get different cores. But hey, if it fails, we
| haven't lost much except some time and a little money. It's certainly worth
| a shot at it.
| Anyway, a COP>1.0 open loop system is perfectly okay, and would dramatically
| reduce pollution, release of hydrocarbon combustion byproducts, and produce
| more energy. Nothing at all wrong with that, in my book!
| But I'm sure you yourself have probably met with the same "Well, if you
| can't close loop it easily, it isn't real" objection to your insight.Apologies for the rather lengthy post, but I hope this clears things up. If I recall correctly from other correspondence I've had w/Tom, the closed loop version of the MEG will be called the TGEN.Until then, if anyone gets a working version of ANY OU device, my recommendation is to find some alternate way of measuring Pin VS. Pout to prove OU and NOT TO BOTHER WITH CLOSING THE LOOP - i.e. If a device runs off a battery while charging its replacement, all the while boiling a pot of water - and does this for a few days in a row... Well, you get the idea.Best always,Dave N..
- --- In MEG_builders@y..., "Dave N." <dnarby@s...> wrote:
> Jean, et. al.,Dave,
> Here are some selected excerpts from my correspondence with
> Bearden pertaining to the MEG and the points Jean (Naudin)has
> raised .... (snipped here for brevity)
Thanks so much for posting this. While this is all interesting
stuff, as a practical experimenter I find the new (dated 4/3/02)in-
line quoted message from Naudin to be of particular interest. Thank
you for posting this!!!!! Please keep your Bearden correspondence
and news from Naudin coming. I think many of us at the site
appreciate your doing this.
Very best regards,
P.S. A by-the-way for the reader ... Dave Narby is a VALUED co-
moderator of this site.