View this page "MEG replication"

[MeggerMan]

Test page

Click on
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/energymover/web/meg-replication -
or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't work.

[softwa...@yahoo.com]

Hi Rob,

Looking forward to reading the updates on your MEG project!

Regards,
Paul

[softwa...@yahoo.com]

Hi Rob,

I see you updated your project. Nice pics. I downloaded your movie,
but wasn't able to view it with windows media player 9. Is there a
movie player we could use to view it?

Thanks,
Paul

[MeggerMan]

Replication updated - see what you think.

[MeggerMan]

Hi Paul,
Its not that interesting, just a flashing bulb.
It will work using certain players, but not all, done in Linux.
Works using MPlayer movie played, created using DeVeDe.

[MeggerMan]

Small update

[MeggerMan]

UC28025 test

[Paul]

Hi Rob,

You were saying, "Tested it at up to 300kHz and
noticed the rise time
for the mosfet pulse shows up as curve, so I suspect
the drive current
from the TL494 needs increasing if the pulse is to be
a better shape."

There are two methods of tackling this. 1) Better
mosfet driver, which I
guess you're now trying. 2) Do as Naudin did, which
is use mosfets with
lower C. I believe Naudin used BUZ11's mosfets from
Intersil. Are
there any dealers in your country that have BUZ11's?
I see digikey.com
has them for 0.84 at quantity of one. Mouser.com has
them at a bit
higher cost. Do you have access to NTE parts?
NTE2389 is a BUZ11
replacement.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm

http://www.intersil.com/data/fn/fn2/fn2253/index.asp

I'm thinking if you use the exact parts Naudin used
then we can
accomplish two things -->

1) Achieve the same results as Naudin.
2) Know for certain what Naudin was seeing.

Lets say you replicate Naudin's MEG, but not an exact
replication, and
you get different results. The problem is there will
always be question
if Naudin found something special. That's why I say
go all the way and
replicate everything exactly, even Naudin's
conditioned resistors.

Regards,
Paul

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[MeggerMan]

Hi Paul,
Yes I plan to built one of each circuit.
One exactly as Naudin built and one based on the UC28025.
I can get the BUZ11 very easily, in fact they are the cheapest high
power 50V mosfet you can buy.

The scope shot shows the slope on the turn off of the mosfet, and this
is because I am using a 1K ohm pull down resistor.
When the TL494 pulse goes off, it floats and you use the pull down
resistor to drag this down to ground.
BUT, the pull down resistor has no where near the resistance of the
transistor in its "On" state.
The output is rated at 200mA, so I estimate its resistance will be
about 60 ohms at 12V.
So, yes you are correct in that a large gate charge would cause the
slopes I am seeing.
To get arround this I could drop the resistance still further or use a
mosfet driver.
This is my reason for trying out the UC28025, its a pity it is only
available in surface mount.

I aim to get as much of the pulse into the core and not wasting hardly
any of it as voltage drop across the mosfet.
I will need to make a PCB up for the UC28025 once I have sorted out
what components I need.

Regards
Rob

[Paul]

Hi,

It seems Naudin is still available via email. I
received the following forwarded email
dated Jan. 2nd 2007 by Naudin -->

-------Original Message-------
From: JNaud...@aol.com
Date: 1/2/2007 3:56:05 AM

Subject: Re: MEG

Thanks for your interest in my researches and
experiment published in my web site.

You will find all the datas with the wires size and
components references about my Meg
device at : http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm

Today, I can 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

Unfortunatelly, I have not yet succeeded in the closed
loop and in spite of the "apparent"
power measured, the RLoad resistor doesn't heat up too
much, it is only a bit warm. I
think that it still remain a possibility of a
measurement artifact ( not a measurement
error ). ... A COP >>1 will be fully confirmed only
with a closed loop and a self-running
device...

For more information about the MEG working principle I
recommend you to read these papers at :
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3354/megpaper.pdf
http://cheniere.nii.net/references/found%20phys%20letters/no%201%202001/index.html
http://www.cheniere.org/references/sachsO3.pdf

Sincerely,
Jean-Louis Naudin
Email: JNaud...@aol.com
Web site : http://www.jlnlabs.org

[MeggerMan]

Hi Paul,
That reply looks like a standard reply, he sent the same to me last
year:

You will find all the datas with the wires size and components
references about my Meg device at :
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm

Today, I can 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

Unfortunatelly, I have not yet succeeded in the closed loop and in
spite of the "apparent" power measured, the RLoad resistor doesn't heat
up too much, it is only a bit warm. I think that it still remain a
possibility of a measurement artifact ( not a measurement error ). ...
A COP >>1 will be fully confirmed only with a closed loop and a
self-running device...

Sincerely,

[Paul]

Hi Rob,

I guess Naudin has nothing new to say. It's at least
nice hear he still, as of Jan. 2007,
believes the MEG works as claimed by Bearden's paper.
Bearden claims the MEG is over COP 1.0.

I'm very anxious to see your Naudin MEGv2.1
replication results. He claims the conditioned
load resistor don't heat up that much. What does he
mean by "that much?" It will be nice
if you could replicate that load effect. IOW, did
Naudin compare the power load
dissipation of the MEG load and compare that to a
similar resistor of equal size that
dissipates the same power?

Regards,
Paul

[g trump]

Everyone,   More on the MEG by  Tom Bearden, hope I am not repeating anything for anyone, if so I am sorry. Here is Tom Bearden's web page with some pictures on the MEG.      http://WWW.cheniere.org/megstatus.htm     Trump       -------Original Message-------

[g trump]

Seems that the people that invented the MEG are,    Inventors: Patrick; Stephen L. (2511 Woodview Dr. SE., Huntsville, AL 35801); Bearden; Thomas E. (2211 Cove Rd., Huntsville, AL 35801); Hayes; James C. (16026 Deaton Dr. SE., Huntsville, AL 35803); Moore; Kenneth D. (1704 Montdale Rd., Huntsville, AL 35801); Kenny; James L. (925 Tascosa Dr., Huntsville, AL 35802)   Are located not far from me. I have no idea if they are still around, but if they  are maybe I can contact them and find out more about the MEG. I can do a name and address search and maybe come up with something.  I have no idea on what is going on with the MEG on there part right now? If I am leading everyone on the wrong track, please tell me. I am just trying to help all I can.    Here is the link that gave the names and addresses.     http://WWW.spiritofmaat.Com/announce/meg.htm       Regards,     Trump     -------Original Message-------

From: MeggerMan Date: 1/4/2007 1:09:28 PM To: Energy Mover Subject: Re: View this page "MEG replication"

[MeggerMan]

Update to the progress on the MEG replication

[Paul]

Rob,

How's the MEGv2.1 replication going? Any updates on replicating
Naudin's conditioned resistors?

Stan (moderator for MEG_Builders) and I have been exchanging emails
lately. Initially he tried to get me thinking the MEGv2.1 was
replicated and dead until I confronted him. After asking who knows how
many times, he finally admitted it's never been replicated to within my
standards. My standards being -->

* AMCC 320 Metglas core. My first pick would be a longitudinal annealed
core. If it doesn't work then the transverse annealed core.
* Naudin's conditioned resistors.
* Exact circuit as shown -> jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm which
includes BUZ11 MOSFET's & TL494CN PWM controller.
* Test a wide range of magnets-- Ceramic 5 & 8, NdFeB 10 to 40 MGOe range.
* Same coil and turns-- 100 turns of 24 AWG, 1500 turns of 26 AWG.
* Precisely replicating Naudin's scope shots.

Now Stan and I are debating Naudin's current measuring abilities.
Initially Stan gave me the impression Naudin made measurement errors.
Now it appears Stan might agree with me that it's slim and none that
Naudin made current measurement errors. Here's a very rough outline of
my reason -->

-----------
You should also take note that Naudin shows MEGv2.1 snapshots using
another type of scope-- PM3215 2x50 MHz Philips analog scope.

* If I correctly understand you, Naudin used two methods of measuring
current. 1) Current probe. 2) Voltage across 10 ohm R.

* Naudin used at least two different scopes. One appears to be a simple
analog scope.

* Naudin has completed and published a significant amount of projects
requiring oscilloscope measurements.

Given the above, it seems likely Naudin would have noticed such an
error. If Naudin made a mistake then he should have realized by now and
thought, "Oh, that's how you use the oscilloscope to measure current.
Gee, my MEG current measurements were incorrect. Therefore I should
inform people." Roughly last month a friend contacted Naudin. Naudin
replied that he fully backs Tom Bearden's over-unity MEG claim. Any
half intelligent person trying to "save face" would say nothing if they
realized the error.

Furthermore, it seems the "current probe" and 10-ohm voltage measuring
technique gave the same current readings. Otherwise Naudin should have
noticed such an obvious reading difference. Last, but not least, Naudin
used at least two different oscilloscopes, one being an analog scope.
Naudin showed a snap shot of this during MEGv2.1 measurements -->

http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/meg3tana.jpg

BTW, you are aware of Naudin's other projects, right? The MEG is one of
Naudin's older projects. Surely he's learned to use a scope by now. Note
that Naudin still completely supports his MEG measurements.

In short, I merely place high probability that Naudin's measurements are
accurate. If I'm wrong about Naudin then he's either a complete idiot or
very deceptive.
-----------

So according to Stan, Naudin used two different methods of measuring the
current. 1) A current probe. 2) Voltage across a 10-ohm resistor.
Obviously Naudin saw the same results with both methods. That addresses
the "current probe" issue. Some think Naudin might not know how to use
his Techtronix scope. Naudin took measurements with two different
scopes. The other scope being a simple analog scope. Obviously Naudin
saw no difference between the scopes. That addresses the Techtronix
issue. If that's not enough then it should be noted that Naudin has
built many projects using oscilloscopes. I'd sure hope he would have
noticed the difference between the two scopes by now. To this day Naudin
still backs up Tom Bearden's MEG over-unity claims.

Regards,
Paul Lowrance

[MeggerMan]

Updated 15th Feb 2007
Click on http://groups.google.co.uk/group/energymover/web/meg-replication?hl=en

[Paul]

Actually the link should be:

http://groups.google.com/group/energymover/web/meg-replication

Paul