Reams of papers are written but hardware is not forcoming, why is that?

DTB

In addition to the AB effect, nonlinear oscillation theory is also involved. Nonlinear oscillation theory is quite different from sine wave oscillation (linear oscillation theory) familiar in many areas. Control of nonlinear oscillations is another specialist area all its own, particularly with respect to chaotic oscillations. The MEG certainly looks simple sitting on the bench, but I assure you it is a very complex and highly nonlinear device, using nonlinear oscillations (and control of nonlinear oscillations).

Most of the fellows attempting to build the MEG seem strongly determined to build an ordinary transformer. If they do that, and do not use the AB effect, they will build a very efficient transformer, which runs very cool, handles higher frequencies that usual transformers using more ordinary cores, and it will not provide overunity operation at all. There are already thousands of such ordinary transformers out there in the field, using that class of core materials, and none of them are running at overunity because they are not using the AB effect.

Finally, we do sympathize with the MEG builder's group, but they must also realize that, as long as we are still in the throes of the patenting process involving our intellectual property rights protection procedures, we cannot just give them a complete prescription for building the MEG. We still have a second patent document in process and will be preparing and submitting two more.205"

Many thanks.

"If you wish a very rigorous theoretical exposition of how the energy is taken from the vacuum, I refer you to M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T.E. Bearden et al., "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator in O(3) Electrodynamics, Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94. If you are interested in legitimate processes to extract EM energy from the vacuum, I refer you to M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T.E. Bearden et al., "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517. Other relevant group papers by the same 15 authors are: "On the Representation of the Maxwell-Heaviside Equations in Terms of the Barut Field Four-Vector," Optik, 111(6), 2000, p. 246-248; ----- "Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum", Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409."

In that document it is stated in the abstract: "The device has been independently replicated by Naudin."

In another Bearden paper: T. Bearden, "Energy from the Active Vacuum: The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator", Advances in Chemical Phyiscs, V119, 2001 we find this stated again in the following way: ', '"...a variant of the MEG experiment has been independently replicated by Jean-Louis Naudin in France, and other independent replications are planned. Naudin's version produced COP of 1.76. His results are posted on his Website: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/megv2.htm"
Well, this experimental nuclear physicist decided to take a look at Naudin's data, as reported by Bearden in two science journals to have purportedly reproduced Bearden's claims. I do not find that the data confirm COP 1.76 at all. In fact, I find that the data shows that the device performs in accordance with standard Faraday's Law of electromagnetic induction.
My article showing this, using Naudin's own data is here: ", 'http://www.sfu.ca/~sbishopa/soapbox/meg.pdf

Shawn

For my part, I observe there are only 3 possibilities:
-MEG is a hoax, in which case it will soon be debunked or quietly disappear
-MEG is real but no one (including Bearden et al) understands or can explain it
-MEG is real and Bearden and co. do indeed understand it but they are deliberately withholding details and theoretical basis.

Finally, I would point to the obvious fact that if MEG works as advertised, then it defies classical EM theory (deserving more than a passing mention:) So why not formulate the behavior of the device using classical theory and quantify how it deviates from (and where it converges with) classical EM theory.

John

Of course, skeptics (famous like Bob Park or less famous but aspiring to fame, like the experimental nuclear physicist above), would immediately reply: "for money from gullible investors", and point you to Randell Mills and his BlackLight Power Corp. Yes, none of the classical physicist accept his hydrino theory. They consider stupid/gullible anybody who invested money in BLP, inclusive two major utilities who obviously had an army of well paid engineers and scientists who examined BLP thoroughly before recommending investment. As practical people and businessmen, they acknowledged Mills' proposed theory is not accepted by the main stream physics but looked at his working plasma power cell prototype and the new chemical compounds and decided, based on facts. Look at what BLP did with those couple of million $ in few years and compare with what the hot fusion classical nuclear scientists obtained with a couple of billion $ in few decades! These scientists also have the theory resolved (!?), but still claim every year they are just around the corner for the big break through to a limitless clean energy source 205 "just give us some more money"? They sure look like big scam artists to me.
Now, I would agree with your third possibility for the simple fact that there is evidence for it. They have a prototype which they claim works (so it can be tested, if required) and they have published numerous scientific papers (see above posts) to attempt to explain how it works. They are indeed withholding technical details (not theoretical) because that's the way it's done, until they have all the upstream/downstream patents granted to protect their IP. I would also argue that the MEG indeed defies classical EM theory, and Bearden and his colleagues did exactly that in their scientific papers: explain when, how and why and proposed an extension to it This would be like, for example, the extension of the Newtonian into the Relativistic mechanics.
I personally don't think anybody replicated the MEG yet. I think the death of MEG has been greatly exaggerated. As Tom said: "The MEG certainly looks simple sitting on the bench, but I assure you it is a very complex and highly nonlinear device, using nonlinear oscillations (and control of nonlinear oscillations). Most of the fellows attempting to build the MEG seem strongly determined to build an ordinary transformer." Even on JLN site I have seen nice, beautiful sine waves which even Naudin admitted: "These diagrams are not the original MEG diagrams being tested by the Bearden's teamwork or some accredited labs." The only merit of the acclaimed paper by our young aspiring new amazing Randi was that it finally made JLN remove those diagrams and at least, take a look at them again (because there is no room for sloppy work here). To the little skeptic who made bad judgements before (that almost cost his life): insults are heavy as well as your backpack full of dogma - drop them and you'll be able to breathe again.