 |
There are currently, 291 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
More on the MEG operation
Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2003 @ 19:22:31 UTC by vlad
|
|
"…A very simple way to look at the MEG: It is directly analogous in its operation to a common heat pump. Let me explain. The heat pump has TWO energy reservoirs, being (1) the electrical energy reservoir of the EM energy we ourselves input and pay for, and (2) the heat energy in the air that it draws in and processes, extracting some of the heat energy from it..."
"The air is freely available from the atmosphere as a "second energy reservoir"; one has to pay a little "processing" costs, but one can extract more energy from that free "second energy reservoir" than one has to pay to extract it. The heat pump system usually loses at least half the electrical energy we input, in its losses and electrical inefficiencies. However, we get much more energy out of that second reservoir when we process and extract the heat, than we paid to process it, and than we lost in the electrical part of the system. So from the overall system, we can get out more energy as useful work, than the electrical energy we ourselves input. The average COP of a heat pump, under nominal good conditions, is about COP = 4.0, or four times as much useful work as the electrical energy input we PAY for. Of course, the extra energy is indeed input to the system, but it is FREELY input from the second energy reservoir (the environment). So the EFFICIENCY of the heat pump is about 50% or so, but its COP is about 4.0 under nominal conditions.
The MEG works in similar fashion. We found a nanocrystalline core material that performs the same function (localizing the magnetic field) as a perfect toroid coil. In a good toroidal coil, all the magnetic B-field energy is held inside the coils, and none of it spills out into the space outside the coil. That's ONE energy reservoir, with the toroid. But as is well-known (the long proven Aharonov-Bohm effect), when such localization of the magnetic field occurs, then outside that localization volume there freely appears a second energy reservoir (in the form of the field-free or curl-free magnetic vector potential).
In the MEG, the core material of the transformer section localizes all the H-field flux (from the input coil and from the permanent magnet) inside the core volume. Hence, via the proven AB effect, there appears outside the core material a free second energy reservoir, in that special form (the curl-free magnetic vector potential).
Voila! By putting in some input signal into the primary, we have tricked nature not only into giving us the normal magnetic field energy reservoir of energy (which we pay for), but also have tricked her into freely giving us that extra energy reservoir in the space outside the core material.
Well, it happens that when we "change" the A-potential, that makes an ordinary E-field, by the simple equation dA/dt = - E. Note that the magnitude of that E-field depends on the time rate of change of that A-potential, not just on its magnitude. So by using nearly rectangular pulses for our input to the input coil, and adjusting the rise time and decay time of these pulses (and also the pulse width and duty cycle), we can control the magnitudes of the E-fields that are produced.
So we can use the normal magnetic field energy in the core, which because of the efficiency of the material will (by itself) give a transformer of some 90% to 95% efficiency (considering the energy delivered from the output coil into the secondary or load circuit, compared to the input energy in the primary coil. But additionally, we have those E-fields interacting with that output coil also, and producing extra output energy in it. We can make that energy appreciable by adjusting the magnitudes of those E-fields that interact.
So by extracting and furnishing to the secondary or load circuit energy from BOTH reservoirs, we can produce more energy output from the secondary coil than is input to the primary coil. Indeed, we can readily get COP = 3.0 or even CO = 5.0, but there are some other nonlinear effects at COPs in those ranges. But COP = 1.5 or 2.0 is readily achievable, by clearly understanding how one is extracting the two types of energy. One must optimize for this DUAL operation and dual energy use, not just a single reservoir use. If one neglects the second reservoir, one is almost certain to build just a good 95% efficient transformer, not the MEG..."
Tom Bearden correspondence - MEG assistance - Thu, 24 Apr 2003
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: More on the MEG operation (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, May 19, 2003 @ 18:38:59 UTC | Mr Harwood is a dubious character himself but this is probably real:
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 00:00:05 -0000
From: "Tim"
Subject: Lawrence B. Crowell puts record straight about Tom Bearden
http://www.cheniere.org/references/megsachs/p01.jpg
I've been trying to email some of the people named on that paper, that I could find, and one just wrote back to me that he did not give permission for his name to be given on that paper, and that the AIAS he joined did not have Tom Bearden as a member (Evans brought in Bearden), and that he is as appalled as much as everyone else by recent events. After correspondence, I have now been given permission to reproduce the following email extracts. Mr Crowell wishes the record to be put straight about certain points:
1) He specifically requested his name NOT be used - Bearden was NOT authorised to publish a paper in Crowell's name.
2) Crowell thinks Bearden's physics is all wrong, and wishes nothing to do with it. He wishes his name to be removed from the Bearden website, as he has NEVER supported Bearden's physics EVER.
I'd like to post this to the JLN list, but as we all know, JLN censors his list. No-one is allowed to speak the truth about Tom Bearden in the JLN Labs Egroup, sadly.
This is pretty low from Tom. Citing people in papers he has written, against their specific instructions. It's right up there with the fake Ph.D for academic dishonesty.
'Dear Tim Harwood,
As for the MEG thing, I have had a hard time living that one down. Before the disasterous paper on MEG was published I had continual arguments with Tom Bearden over the physics claimed to operate with it. The physics is just completely wrong. I requested that my name not be included in any paper intended for publication on this stuff. I was later informed that I was included in the paper and that it had been published. I probably should have written a retraction of it, but never got around to it.
Myron Evans brought him into the AIAS group and within a short period of time it was clear to me that there were serious problems with his ideas about physics. I will also state that Dr. Evans has also taken things in spurious directions as well. I am no longer active in these areas of research.
The initial idea of the nonabelian electrodynamics is basically phenomenological. It is a useful device for deriving equations for nonlinear optics with photon bunching and solitons. It also has some connections to squeezed states of the vacuum and other matters. However, in the last few years the trajectory for these ideas has gone into territory that I find at best highly problematic.
I never supported Bearden's physics, and in fact had arguments with him over his ideas. His idea with the the over unity circuit is an inverse resistor, which apparently is a device that converts ambient heat or vacuum energy into an electrical current. This is clearly wrong. Bearden also claims that vacuum energy is obtained by an electric dipole, since the field has to propage outward in space. First off this is clearly wrong since the energy in the field that defines the dipole is from the energy input to set up the dipole. I also mentioned to him that the dominant mode of photon production by excited atoms are dipole transitions. Thus if he were right every atom in the universe would be spewing out photons endlessly. Bearden has a litany of spuious claims.
I think that I need to set the record straight on a lot of this. It is amazing how much damage somebody like Bearden can cause. I have for some time distanced myself from the electromagnetic claims by the AIAS.
best,
Lawrence B. Crowell |
- recantation by chipotle_pickle on Monday, May 19, 2003 @ 22:41:08 UTC
|
|
Re: More on the MEG operation (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, July 06, 2003 @ 18:58:57 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | From Tom's recent correspondence (http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/061603.htm)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:38:07 -0500
Jim,
I'm limited (by the MEG team nondisclosure agreements) in what I can specifically tell you.
First, use a good magnetic field instrument with a good probe, against your permanent magnet's pole region from outside. Put the probe right on the surface of the magnet. If you measure a strong, regular magnetic field on the surface of the magnet, then your core material is not localizing the B-field flux, and that is the problem. It would mean you have not produced that external A-potential energy reservoir because the core does not evoke the Aharonov-Bohm effect, and all you can possibly have is a normal underunity transformer.
When you find the AB effect is indeed invoked, then you can adjust the magnitude of the E-fields produced in the A-potential reservoir by dA/dt. That means you adjust the rise time and decay time of the input pulses. Also play around with frequency (each unit has its own "sweet spot").
Finally, use a really good digital capture scope with good probes, and check all coils, etc. It is best if you can afford an expensive multichannel scope and measure all channels simultaneously with the exact same time base. That way there is no phase error between comparative measurements.
Once these items are working, you should see the frequency regions where overunity appears and rises. Simply optimize those spots, by optimizing the E-fields external to the perturbed core, rather than the perturbed magnetic fields inside the core. This is NOT a normal transformer if it's overunity. If it acts as a normal transformer, it's underunity.
I'm not allowed to give any more hints than that, except to point out that wire size and numbers of windings are also variables you must investigate rather thoroughly. They do have great effect on the COP.
Further, if you don't have a really tight fit between the permanent magnet ends and the core material, B-flux will spill out of the magnet in those gaps and into space and you will lose the A-potential extra energy reservoir. Then you will just have a normal transformer, not a MEG. And it will be underunity.
But something is very bad wrong with your buildup; the nanocrystalline core material even for a normal underunity transformer makes a very efficient unit as a regular transformer when optimized. If you're not getting 90% efficiency or above as a normal transformer, something is very wrong somewhere in your buildup, switching, or something.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Tom Bearden
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:24:15 -0700
Tom:
I finally got all the pieces for the above, which included a 1" x 2" x 1 3/8" (Pole-Pole) Neo' permanent magnet with a rating of 5320 gauss, the Powerlite core, and the other items shown in JLNaudin's MEG schematic. I used two 40 turn input coils, one on
either side of the North pole of the magnet; two 100 turn output coils, one adjacent to each of the input coils; and two 200 turn output coils, one directly below each of the 100 turn output coils. (No coil was located at the bends in the core.) Operating F was about 61 khz.
The waveform across the input coils was a quasi-square wave with a P-P amplitude of about 70 v., that across the 100 turn output coil was vaguely sinusoidal at about 190 volts P-P, and that across the 200 turn coil about 350 volts. The output coils were loaded with 20K and 78K resistors so that output power could be calculated. [(ExE)/R] Total power from all four coils was about 1.5 w.
Power supplied by the battery (25v) was 5.25 w. COP = 0.28.
Thinking that the 100 turn output coil next to the 40 turn input coil could be affecting the flux switching action, I removed the two 40 turn coils and used the 100 turn coils as inputs. The input voltage was 78v. with no loading R, and dropped to 68v. when R's were added. I went from 78K down to 1K and found that a 10K load gave the highest wattage output, a whole 0.385w, for a total from the two output coils of 0.77w. Input from the battery was 1.785w. so again the COP was low at 0.43.
Finally, with the R's both at 10K, I lowered F from 61 khz to 30 khz in increments of 10 khz and got essentially no change in output voltage or power (124v, P-P, vs 0.195w., each) The battery power did drop, though, from 1.8w. at 61 khz to 1.25w. at 30 khz.
In that the output voltages are roughly related to the input voltage by the ratio of the number of turns, I see a simple transformer action in process. No energy from the "seething vacuum". I suspect that I am not accomplishing flux switching. I did, of course, make sure that the input coils were energized with their North ends facing each other and the North pole of the magnet. Interestingly, when the input coils were reversed so that their South poles faced each other across the North end of the magnet the output coil waveforms were the same.
Any suggestions?
Jim W
PS: I'm a firm believer in the mechanism which you and Naudin have seemingly proven, partially because I believe that we are immersed in a very dense sea of energy from which useable energy can be drawn. The permanent magnet appears to be our best handle on that energy, as the efforts of a number of inventors have indicated over the last 70, or more, years.
JW
|
|
|
|
|
