PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Benches > Smudge (Moderator: Smudge) > The MEG revisited
2024-11-26, 23:23:37
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: The MEG revisited  (Read 7918 times)
Topic Options img
img  Paul-R
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #25 on: 2022-04-11, 00:00:35 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1579
Quote from: Paul-R on 2022-04-10, 22:39:38
This may be true, but eliminating the impossible is impossible because there are an infinite number of impossibilities to get through.

In the meanwhile, I'll get that paper and have a good look at it.

I'm not sure how many people could understand that paper. Stephen Hawking, possibly, but he's passed on. If there isn't a document which is very much more accessible, then that project may be a dead duck.
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #26 on: 2022-04-11, 03:29:22 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-04-10, 18:25:18
What kind of energy did you power it with?


The energy of auto-suggestion.  ;D


You're Good.  You're REALLY Good.  Although I'd suggest thinking about Ed Leedskalnin's Magnetic Current.  It might take less juice to shear the flux on one side. A Magnetic Shear, what an innovation that would be.

Leedskalnin said the transfer of magnetic strength through the inductor is instantaneous.  But the expansion from the core isn't.

*****

I finally got my wheel bearing fixed, but the slide area for the caliper now has a nicely machined notch.
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #27 on: 2022-04-11, 17:51:46 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
PaulR
Quote
This may be true, but eliminating the impossible is impossible because there are an infinite number of impossibilities to get through.

Not really, this is how I and many others came to understand this technology so it's not impossible just very difficult.

Here's a clue, one insight came from an unlikely place. It was when Steven Marks was talking about energy and all of the things which could occur when a pulse of energy flows down a single length of wire. Most would think it's absurd and they understand all about electricity and wires but there only fooling themselves.

For example, it's easy for me to do something nobody could understand and think impossible. Under the right conditions I sent a high voltage, high energy impulse down a length of wire and it ejected radiant matter. It did not induce other objects or conductors with a magnetic field change but physically ejected very small particles of metal with a large surface charge ie. radiant matter. You and most others including the supposed experts would be completely dumbfounded because this kind of induction does not follow any of the standard rules for induction. The conductor acts more like a charged particle accelerator than a conductor or transformer. Tesla described one effect of radiant matter as a stinging sensation on his face and arms.

Do you see how easy that was?. I just described an experiment I proved which could easily confuse anyone because it would literally be the last thing they were looking for. The thought would never even cross there mind and they would have no idea how or why it was even possible. Thus when we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

The kicker, of course, is that it's relatively easy to try and produce the effect because we have some understanding of what were trying to accomplish. However to see the effect in action and have no understanding of what could be happening is almost impossible to comprehend. As the saying goes, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" Arthur C. Clarke.

Of course the MEG does not use this radiant matter effect and I'm just pointing out how easy it is to misinterpret other effects most don't understand. 

Regards
AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  F6FLT
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #28 on: 2022-04-11, 18:29:55 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022-04-11, 03:29:22
...A Magnetic Shear, what an innovation that would be.
Leedskalnin said the transfer of magnetic strength through the inductor is instantaneous.  But the expansion from the core isn't.
...

This would be a great innovation. Unfortunately Leedskalnin has been dead for more than 70 years, and nobody has produced anything from his theory.
I think that those who tried failed because his theory was bogus, not because they were simpletons.  As I don't pretend to be smarter than them, I'll look elsewhere.
It seems to me that if we want to "innovate", it is not by looking to the past but to the future, therefore to the unexplored.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #29 on: 2022-04-11, 18:32:17 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
I saw a drawing where someone had two radial holes in the torus, and he put some windings through one and back through the other.
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #30 on: 2022-04-11, 20:00:09 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-04-11, 18:29:55
This would be a great innovation. Unfortunately Leedskalnin has been dead for more than 70 years, and nobody has produced anything from his theory.
I think that those who tried failed because his theory was bogus, not because they were simpletons.  As I don't pretend to be smarter than them, I'll look elsewhere.
It seems to me that if we want to "innovate", it is not by looking to the past but to the future, therefore to the unexplored.

What's been unexplored?

Even though the magnetic impulse might travel at the speed of light, relative to the medium of the insulated iron wire, it hasn't been disputed that magnetism appears at the non connected end of the coil when it's switched into a branch going to a battery or capacitor.

Tom Bearden taught us about the existence of Heaviside's electrostatic explanation.  Further proof that moving static is magnetic is given by my Van deGraaf Cymbol's confirmation of CPH Theory, which uses 1/3 and 2/3 charge sub electron particles with a certain interaction predicting positive charges moving towards each other.

It's well accepted that successful Inventors leave something out of the patent.  On the other hand, 'one thing' ("For the Public") can be put into a decoy patent.  Such as a patent claiming a transformer.  The design and any non claimed elements or facts then become Prior Art.

We're always looking towards, and working for, the future. This includes those of us in prior centuries.  Every 'one thing' which has been disclosed, which might fall within our interest, should be investigated, to build understanding.
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #31 on: 2022-04-11, 21:00:59 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
F6FLT
Quote
This would be a great innovation. Unfortunately Leedskalnin has been dead for more than 70 years, and nobody has produced anything from his theory.

I would disagree, I found the perpetual motion holder(PMH) I built and tested to be quite interesting and learned a great deal.

For example, one impulse of current is enough to align the magnetic domains so the cross bar is held in place indefinitely. The supposed secret is in the gap, once the U shaped ends are magnetized they magnetize the cross bar in an opposite sense across the gap ie. magnetic induction. It's a form of residual magnetism holding the cross bar in place however there's a little more to it. On one side the N pole remains because there is a S pole across the gap still inducing it. Likewise on the other side the S pole remains because there is a N pole across the gap still inducing it. So it is the mutually induced residual magnetism which drives the force holding the cross bar in place. The two gaps are as follows, N gap S and S gap N.

This is similar to a charged two plate capacitor that also has a gap and doesn't discharge when one plate is grounded. The charge on one plate cannot dissipate to ground because the opposite charges across the gap are attracting each other and holding them in place. The PMH is similar to two charged capacitors in a loop with two gaps where no charge can escape because each gap has induced an opposite polarity across each gap. That is (-)II(+) and (+)II(-).

As well, If we enlarge the gap and separate the capacitor plates then they can be discharged just like the PMH U bar and cross bar being separated and discharged.

I thought it was really interesting that there are so many similarities between electric and magnetic effects. In this case it was mutual induction across a gap holding the opposite conditions and forces in place. There's more to Leedskalnin's work but I haven't had the time to sort it all out.

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #32 on: 2022-04-12, 05:08:31 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
Right.  And, IIRC, the unit he built and used was a heavy iron strap bent into a 3' horseshoe about 18" across the end.  And he had a piece of the strap spanning the ends.  (He put in a stream of trigger pulses with an object other than the strap). And there was a big 6" coil on one side.  The PM he discussed involved magnet corpuscles circulating around the loop.  The fact that they were corpuscles indicates a Heaviside like condition.  So I think you should have a two circuit winding to switch a magnet's core.  Unless you have a lot of CEMF.

Hominid Sciam vs Hominid Barbaros
« Last Edit: 2022-04-12, 17:50:00 by Jerry Volland »
   
img  F6FLT
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #33 on: 2022-04-12, 09:57:33 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
By "no one has produced anything from his theory", I mean of course the production of a useful and functional device creating OU or free energy. For the rest everyone knows how to do, starting with conventional engineering.
But if you guys already have free energy, it's a pity that you are unable to give us the recipe.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #34 on: 2022-04-12, 14:47:25 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
One thing John Bedini emphasized was the danger in experimenting with a magnet corpuscle floating inside a 'reconditioned' magnet (VTA).  Tom Bearden said there are a hundred other ways to do it.  But every Jedi Knight has to build his own light saber.  Questions?
   
img  F6FLT
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #35 on: 2022-04-12, 16:26:03 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Bedini did not originate any useful and functional devices that create OU or free energy.
I will come to believe that people with bad intentions or paid by the oil or nuclear industry want to prevent us from moving forward and doing open research, by systematically sending us back to the unproductive past and locking us endlessly in idle theories of charlatans.  :)   >:(


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #36 on: 2022-04-12, 17:54:03 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-04-12, 16:26:03
Bedini did not originate any useful and functional devices that create OU or free energy.
I will come to believe that people with bad intentions or paid by the oil or nuclear industry want to prevent us from moving forward and doing open research, by systematically sending us back to the unproductive past and locking us endlessly in idle theories of charlatans.  :)   >:(

I'm a 'free' energy worker; I work for free.
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #37 on: 2022-04-12, 18:29:29 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Looking at the MEG a little more and I think it's entirely doable...

It's similar to a perpetual motion holder(PMH) and could store a certain amount of the input energy across the gap. On field collapse this could then couple with the PM field driving the efficiency to near 100%. Note that in the patent the core gaps are placed directly over the poles of the PM. The goal here is to drive this part of the system to as close to 100% efficiency as possible.

Once the energy in this part of the system is conserved we can then think about other mechanisms to drive the COP>1.

Anyone want to bet a short impulse into the MEG without a magnet yields the same results as the perpetual motion holder(PMH)?. I'm thinking 100%.
On further reflection I like this setup and think a MEG rebuild may be in the works...

Regards
AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #38 on: 2022-04-12, 19:39:52 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
That's great, AC.  I've heard that a shoulder gap produces a non linear inductance.
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #39 on: 2022-04-12, 20:39:14 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-04-12, 16:26:03
Bedini did not originate any useful and functional devices that create OU or free energy.
I will come to believe that people with bad intentions or paid by the oil or nuclear industry want to prevent us from moving forward and doing open research, by systematically sending us back to the unproductive past and locking us endlessly in idle theories of charlatans.  :)   >:(

I've read that over a million private Inventors are now using nano fog hho for their generators.  I found an aspirator jar.
   
img  F6FLT
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #40 on: 2022-04-13, 10:11:57 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022-04-12, 20:39:14
I've read that over a million private Inventors are now using nano fog hho for their generators.  I found an aspirator jar.

First, even if it were true, which remains to be proven, it is not a proof of OU. I have heard that the earth is flat. That doesn't make it true.
Secondly, the user of an invention is not an inventor. The logic of your statement is, to say the least, bizarre.

Of what is claimed to be "over unity" or "free energy", we see either devices that don't work at all, or devices that work in a way that is perfectly explained by the laws of physics, the OU being insinuated or claimed when there is no evidence of it, notably no experimental evidence. The HHO is of this second type, as is the MEG.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Paul-R
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #41 on: 2022-04-13, 11:28:02 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1579
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-04-13, 10:11:57
The HHO is of this second type, as is the MEG.

I suspect that HHO increases the combustion efficiency from the usual very low figure. But how do you reckon the MEG gives a result, if it does?
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #42 on: 2022-04-13, 18:12:17 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-04-13, 10:11:57
First, even if it were true, which remains to be proven, it is not a proof of OU. I have heard that the earth is flat. That doesn't make it true.
Secondly, the user of an invention is not an inventor. The logic of your statement is, to say the least, bizarre.

Of what is claimed to be "over unity" or "free energy", we see either devices that don't work at all, or devices that work in a way that is perfectly explained by the laws of physics, the OU being insinuated or claimed when there is no evidence of it, notably no experimental evidence. The HHO is of this second type, as is the MEG.

There's a lot of evidence that a water drop explosion releases 200 times as much energy as the ignition spark.  Randal Mills has reported 15 MW output when injecting colloidal silver into the droplets.  Why so cantankerous?

Anyone who has the skill to build a revolutionary system, then make it work, has to be an Inventor.  Even if it's someone else's discovery.  Of course, those who aren't Inventors will instead demand that someone just hand them a working device.  Then complain that it's not 'free'.
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #43 on: 2022-04-13, 22:30:43 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
Dr. Paul Brown has a decoy patent.  I was living in his town when he made his big discovery with Cessium.  His can melted a 2" x 1/4" bus bar.  Then he sold out and they moved his company to Seattle.  Historically, Brown had a small foil tube of pure Strontium90 metal.  Even though it put out 39 Watts, he said only two people in a hundred realise the radioactive energy is less than 5% of the output.  (Standard OU boilerplate.). The transformer wiring is authentic.  He said he found a new way. to get the kinetic energy into a wire.
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #44 on: 2022-04-14, 21:54:03 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
If you can build a Fusor and stand coils like that around it,
That proves you're an Inventor.

And I just finished my new Ed Leedskalnin Test Circuit.
(For a different thread linking back to the MEG.
   
img  F6FLT
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #45 on: 2022-04-22, 10:38:54 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022-04-14, 21:54:03
If you can build a Fusor and stand coils like that around it,
That proves you're an Inventor.
...

Doing anything is not proof of invention.
"An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process."



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #46 on: 2022-04-22, 17:53:18 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-04-22, 10:38:54
Doing anything is not proof of invention.
"An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process."

Under Legalese, an Inventor is someone who makes or designs something useful which hasn't been patented or placed into the Public Domain.  Anyone who comes up with a working variation of the MEG.  As an example.  Or a Fusor with an output socket.


Dr. Paul Brown, a brilliant Nuclear Phisicist, Scientist and Inventor, said he found a new way to get electrons into a wire.  What he apparently did was tap the duality of an electron's wave/particle manifestation, relative to the seething mass of electrons in and around his chunck of Cessium.  He built a receiving coil antenna in the form of a ring of transformers to allow the wave function to transfer into the primary windings, with a tuning cap providing a desired output frequency.  The secondary windings are how output is taken from the passive resonance surrounding the isotope.

I've been around for a while, building my understanding.  I remember a forum discussion about the 'technical' beginning of the new Mellinnium.  And I'm also technically an Inventor,  with a patent listed under my name (4,260,933 - Optical Generator).  (I'm selling those ResMods).  I'm going to try Dr. Brown's transformers around the outside of my Fusion Spark.  It's known in the Prior Art that an arc will support six lengthwise nodes around it's perimeter.  So that's how many transformers I'll try.

About the MEG, I got a couple of square florescent tubes, about the size of a quarter and a good 1/8" thick.  Plasma normally blocks magnetism, but I doubt there would be much of that with such a wide pole gap.  So I'll see if I can polarize the plasma, to provide permittivity through the gap.  Using an on switch rather than trying to make an off switch.

*****

edit:  Quoting Aaron Murakami :  "Don't you start thinking about his patent; he's just trying to relive the glory days when he Had a patent.  And it's just one more tube with a spark in it."
« Last Edit: 2022-04-22, 19:33:15 by Jerry Volland »
   
img  F6FLT
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #47 on: 2022-04-23, 08:41:01 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022-04-22, 17:53:18
Under Legalese, an Inventor is someone who makes or designs something useful which hasn't been patented or placed into the Public Domain.  Anyone who comes up with a working variation of the MEG.  As an example.  Or a Fusor with an output socket.

Dr. Paul Brown, a brilliant Nuclear Phisicist...

I agree, but it should be added that the legal definition does not imply that the legal inventor is a real inventor, since a working machine is never required to obtain a patent.

What we are interested in are real machines that work. If patents were the proof that the mention "inventor", with his name, corresponded to a real inventor, then we would have free energy since a long time, considering the very large number of patents that claim to provide it. 

So rather than talking about people who say to have something that works, presenting us with either something that works, including schematics, measurement method and data, or with refutable theories, thus accompanied by their logical or mathematical formalism, would be much more useful.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Jerry Volland
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #48 on: 2022-04-24, 03:27:21 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-04-23, 08:41:01
I agree, but it should be added that the legal definition does not imply that the legal inventor is a real inventor, since a working machine is never required to obtain a patent.

What we are interested in are real machines that work. If patents were the proof that the mention "inventor", with his name, corresponded to a real inventor, then we would have free energy since a long time, considering the very large number of patents that claim to provide it. 

So rather than talking about people who say to have something that works, presenting us with either something that works, including schematics, measurement method and data, or with refutable theories, thus accompanied by their logical or mathematical formalism, would be much more useful.

All this is straight thinking.  And I did invent something which works.  It's called a Capacity Changer, using a VdG and a cymbal from a drum set.  Also, I posted a picture showing my self charging battery setup, but no one said anything.
   
img  F6FLT
Re: The MEG revisited « Reply #49 on: 2022-04-24, 09:44:06 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Making something that works is very easy, it is within the reach of everyone in all fields.

Making something that works by producing more energy than it consumes is very easy for the person who does it. Either he persuades himself, a matter of cognitive bias and/or incompetence to make measurements, or he wants to persuade others when he knows he doesn't have it, a matter of ego or scam.

Making something that works not only for the inventor but also for those who duplicate the inventor's plans, producing more energy than it consumes, has, until proven otherwise, never been done. The inventor would have to be a real inventor, and a real inventor is able to transmit his know-how.

I see your statement supporting point 2, but we need an invention supporting point 3.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 23:23:37