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

Re: [jlnlabs] (Info) About the MEG replicability...

Expand Messages
  • Dave N.
    Jean, et. al., Here are some selected excerpts from my correspondence with Bearden pertaining to the MEG and ... From: jnaudin509@aol.com To:
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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 -----
      Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:05 AM
      Subject: [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 ?

      Best Regards
      Jean-Louis Naudin
      Email: JNaudin509@...
      Main Web site : http://jlnlabs.org
      Site France : http://jlnlabs.multimania.com
       
       
       
      From 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
      | problem
      | > 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
      | while
      | > 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
      | wrong.
      |
      | 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.
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      .
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
    • mayerstan
      ... Dave, 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 2 of 2 , Apr 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In MEG_builders@y..., "Dave N." <dnarby@s...> wrote:

        > Jean, et. al.,
        >
        > 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)

        Dave,

        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,

        Stan

        P.S. A by-the-way for the reader ... Dave Narby is a VALUED co-
        moderator of this site.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.