PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > General - Free Energy Related > Miscellaneous Discussions (Moderator: Allcanadian) > MEG revisited.
2024-11-27, 04:40:44
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: [1]
Author Topic: MEG revisited.  (Read 1788 times)
Topic Options img
img  Atti
MEG revisited. « on: 2023-03-09, 04:36:55 »
Newbie
*

Posts: 11
Welcome to all.

I would like to share some thoughts in the posts here.
I will not do this all at once.

The basic theme is M.E.G. device. But I think that the operation of other machines can also be related to this topic.  For example the Bulgarian MEG or the machine of Árpád Bóday.
In the Bóday machine, the transformer winding system is divided into three parts.
Excitation, load, recharging.

In my opinion, one possible way of recharging is shown here.
(Description below the video.)   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY70sZed87I

So if during the control breaks, for some reason, the primary winding becomes a secondary,then it will back-feed to the source. One on, one off.
I also noticed this possibility in another layout. No, there is no excess power in this form.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HNJXYWevYQ&t=1s    History in the E.R. 1, 2, and 3 below.


Atti.
   
img  Excelsior
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #1 on: 2023-03-09, 16:45:13 »

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 321
Be the change you wish to see in the world
@ F6FLT : Is the second law of thermo truly correct, 100% accurate and all encompassing?

Perhaps some of what Bearden said was wrong but all of it?   ??? Surely not..

Being a manmade and inherently flawed construct (and an old one at that, by our reckoning) - I doubt it personally, it's just the best line of fit given the (paltry) information we have so far gleaned which we can vouch for being palpably and irrefutably true.


There is ample reason to suspect that a device as such could work, and the reason for it not having been deployed as an energy source could well be because of corporate greed.

(Myriad assassination attempts / examples of suppressed inventors throughout history, if you have the eyes to see)

There is only one way to know..

You nor anybody else could ever hope to disprove the MEG, only prove it..


I would instead say - forge ahead Atti..

The more replication attempts we have to juxtapose, the better
« Last Edit: 2023-03-10, 15:11:38 by Renaissance Rising »
   
img  F6FLT
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #2 on: 2023-03-10, 10:38:21 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
"the primary winding becomes a secondary" is a truism, not an explanation.
The MEG is based on an absurd idea disconnected from any reality, that the magnetic flux would not be conservative.
How else would you explain its hypothetical OU effect that has never been confirmed ?





---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Atti
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #3 on: 2023-03-10, 14:36:18 »
Newbie
*

Posts: 11
Everyone has their own interests. So do I.
From this comes the practical work as far as possible.
Question? Are the conclusions drawn from this really correct?
 I am not claiming anything. I'm just pointing out a few things.

I am presenting a few things from my experience so far (but again, this is just my opinion. And it may not actually be true!)

Let the reader decide if this is useful information for him.

Atti.
   
img  partzman
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #4 on: 2023-03-10, 14:52:10 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1808
As a suggestion, I would recommend anyone seriously interested in attempting a MEG replication take a look at what has already been done in the past-

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

Pm
   
img  Atti
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #5 on: 2023-03-10, 15:42:41 »
Newbie
*

Posts: 11
Step by step.
So.
For me, the ultimate solution is the device implemented by Árpád Bóday.
But let's not forget the analysis of the operating parameters of similar devices. Because it can be important.
So what happened in the past ?
 And did something new happen ? No.

Then where is the fault?
-In the device?
-Or in the experimenter?
-Or in the use of materials?
-Or in the wiring diagrams ?
Of course, everyone has their own theory on this.

I have made a brief analysis of the Bulgarian M.E.G. device.
You can see a short analysis here :
Is there measurable excess energy?
There is no.
But there is a reactive power factor.  Interesting is the one hundredth feedback.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C3ggXDkTSw

There is a reactive power factor.
This is just an indication. It is not a valid measurement.
The results are different when two magnetic circuits are tested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwmfTD8ONt0

Árpád Bóday's device.
Here is an example of this implementation:
The basic phenomenon : visible until 2:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HeBr5Fjx58

 The larger final realization is shown from 1:43 to 1:48.20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsRNEpfxOb0

In this there are two transformers. On each of them there is a control coil, a load coil, and a recharging coil.

So the question arises: why are there two similar transformers?
You can see. This is not the simple M.E.G. device (by the way, the invention filing dates do not match)

Atti.
   
img  Atti
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #6 on: 2023-03-10, 16:09:35 »
Newbie
*

Posts: 11
Quote from: partzman on 2023-03-10, 14:52:10
As a suggestion, I would recommend anyone seriously interested in attempting a MEG replication take a look at what has already been done in the past-

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

Pm

You are absolutely right! But was the thinking right?
   
img  Atti
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #7 on: 2023-03-10, 16:14:44 »
Newbie
*

Posts: 11
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023-03-10, 10:38:21
"the primary winding becomes a secondary" is a truism, not an explanation.
The MEG is based on an absurd idea disconnected from any reality, that the magnetic flux would not be conservative.
How else would you explain its hypothetical OU effect that has never been confirmed ?

You are absolutely right!

In this case, the layout will not show any extra energy (see the Bulgarian M.E.G. implementation, it didn't show me any extra energy)
But the question always arises.


Is it possible to think differently in terms of implementation?

Atti.
   
img  Atti
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #8 on: 2023-03-10, 16:33:57 »
Newbie
*

Posts: 11
Quote from: Renaissance Rising on 2023-03-09, 16:45:13
@ F6FLT : Is the second law of thermo truly correct, 100% accurate and all encompassing?

Perhaps some of what Bearden said was wrong but all of it?   ??? Surely not..

Being a manmade and inherently flawed construct (and an old one at that, by our reckoning) - I doubt it personally, it's just the best line of fit given the (paltry) information we have so far gleaned which we can vouch for being palpably and irrefutably true.


There is ample reason to suspect that a device as such could work, and the reason for it not having been deployed as an energy source could well be because of corporate greed.

(Myriad assassination attempts / examples of suppressed inventors throughout history, if you have the eyes to see)

There is only one way to know..

You nor anybody else could ever hope to disprove the MEG, only prove it..


I would instead say - forge ahead Atti..



Look.
For me it's a hobby. I don't care if there is or isn't excess energy.

I don't get any financial advancement from it.I don't get any financial wealth from it. No money.
Just experience.
I take that experience with me into the afterlife. I thank everyone I've ever met for that.
For me, materialism is a human weakness. A fiction. The opposite pole of knowledge and experience.

I think that in most forums people think alike.

Truth above all.


Atti.
   
img  Excelsior
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #9 on: 2023-03-10, 18:24:57 »

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 321
Be the change you wish to see in the world
Power to you - I hope you find some new addition / alteration to the MEG design that was missed.
No reason why it couldn't be the case.

We all must approach this in our own particular way.


RE. your addendum - Agreed, 100%   :)
   
img  F6FLT
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #10 on: 2023-03-11, 11:27:35 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: Atti on 2023-03-10, 14:36:18
Everyone has their own interests. So do I.
From this comes the practical work as far as possible.
Question? Are the conclusions drawn from this really correct?
 I am not claiming anything. I'm just pointing out a few things.

I am presenting a few things from my experience so far (but again, this is just my opinion. And it may not actually be true!)

Let the reader decide if this is useful information for him.

Atti.

I don't blame you for anything. You talk about MEG, I talk about it too.

The MEG has also been my interest, I have studied it, and as you mention it, I provide an objection on the subject.

When you speak publicly about a subject here, you have to accept that others speak about it too in their own way, and answer the objections and questions they ask, otherwise there is no point in coming to a forum, a blog is enough to monologue. So what I would appreciate is an answer to my question, and if you don't know how to answer it, you can say so rather than answering with a digression.

Those who seek to answer my question will surely understand the impasse of the MEG and its many variants, based on the same flaw. It is to them that I address myself. My goal here is to enlighten when I can and to ask questions to understand the subject myself or to have it understood by others, not to blindly follow what anyone else may say.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Atti
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #11 on: 2023-03-11, 15:50:28 »
Newbie
*

Posts: 11
F6FLT

For you, the behaviour of inductance may be a cliché and not an explanation.

I am aware that a lot of people have done measurement experiments on the M.E.G. device. Unsuccessfully.
I only state this : ( but rather posed as a question)
 Is it possible to think differently about the working principle of permanent magnet devices? I mean what the "inventors" claim about it. 
Of course the question arises and two answers are possible.
-Or they are not telling the truth and are trying to get financial support by making false claims and measurements.
-Or they are hiding the operation of their machine for some reason.

A simple hobbyist like me can't know for sure. So all possibilities must be considered.

That is why my answer is this: I DO NOT KNOW!
So I will not answer with evasion.
And no one should follow me.

But you are right! One blog is enough for a monologue. In fact, I don't even need one. It's enough to keep it to myself.
   
img  Smudge
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #12 on: 2023-03-11, 16:24:59 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
Hi Atti,

Have you seen my "MEG Revisited" thread at https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3530.0?  It ran to 51 posts over 3 pages.  I posted 4 on the first page but then it got taken over by arguments between other members so I just dropped out.  As someone who hasn't the space or equipment to do experiments I hoped that perhaps someone like yourself would follow up on the ideas presented there.  It seems F6's negativity throws any thread into decline.

Smudge   
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #13 on: 2023-03-11, 21:33:55 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Atti
Quote
A simple hobbyist like me can't know for sure. So all possibilities must be considered.

Indeed, I found the MEG like most free energy devices is a contradiction in terms.

Most would claim the MEG cannot work because we understand all about electromagnetic induction. However this is only partially true because it falsely presumes the working mechanism must only be electromagnetic induction when we don't know. Do you see the contradiction?, if we think standard induction cannot work then why would we think that is the only working process?.

It makes absolutely no sense and it's like saying this is how it must work despite the fact I know that way cannot work.

It's similar to false claim that the MEG must violate the conservation of energy when we know it cannot. I mean, if we actually believed in the conservation of energy then why would we think the MEG could violated it?. It makes no sense and either we believe the conservation of energy always holds or we do not.

I found some success using a different approach and doing the opposite of everyone else. Basically, whatever everyone else was doing and thinking I would not do that because I know it doesn't work. This way of thinking seems to work because were training our mind to look at everything from a different and new perspective. To see things others could easily miss if there not specifically looking for it. To remove what we know cannot work and whatever is left is probably moving in the right direction.

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  dsquared18
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #14 on: 2023-03-12, 15:43:16 »
Newbie
*

Posts: 5
This guy's replication is worth a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI5XqXD_ZL0&t=2s

Jefferson Drumm did a methodical recreation of JL Naudin's MEG replication, and series of short videos, which he said resulted in COP of 3.5.

He's been dormant a while but has said he will be working on this more in the future.

D2
   
img  partzman
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #15 on: 2023-03-12, 20:49:10 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1808
Quote from: dsquared18 on 2023-03-12, 15:43:16
This guy's replication is worth a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI5XqXD_ZL0&t=2s

Jefferson Drumm did a methodical recreation of JL Naudin's MEG replication, and series of short videos, which he said resulted in COP of 3.5.

He's been dormant a while but has said he will be working on this more in the future.

D2

JLN used conditioned non-linear resistors for the loads and Drumm uses reactive power for his input and output measurements.  IMO, there is no comparison and no OU.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  F6FLT
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #16 on: 2023-03-14, 10:17:11 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Quote from: Atti on 2023-03-11, 15:50:28
...
I only state this : ( but rather posed as a question)
 Is it possible to think differently about the working principle of permanent magnet devices? I mean what the "inventors" claim about it. 
Of course the question arises and two answers are possible.
...

The question obviously does not arise. Why would we need to come up with questions about working principles about devices that don't work? Theories and principles are for explaining facts.
The MEG is a very simple device to build. The first thing to do is to check the facts: its functioning. Nobody has succeeded, it doesn't work. So if there is a principle to evoke to explain the facts, it is the reason of its non-functioning, and I gave it: the magnetic flux is conservative.





---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Chet K
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #17 on: 2023-03-14, 14:25:05 »
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4045
Here the US government exposed for suppression yet again ( one prior very big reference was plasma kinetics
Just one of  who knows how many others?

Here the suppressed technology and UFO etc etc finally coming to light
After years of conspiracy theorist abuse from … everywhere!( actual government cover ups)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X52tV6PYxlM

6:40 mark ——Micheo Kaku Ph.D.
Gives his opinions on being denied access to “new physics “

4:35 mark us government report released June 25 2021

——//////
Point is …all is in motion , what has been suppressed?
In FE as well ( experimental details or ??
F6
Stop greeting builders with a sledgehammer!
As if enemies from some other life or experience ?
Not going over well !

Yes it is nice you show other paths
From today

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4370.msg104311;topicseen#msg104311

Respectfully
Chet K
Ps to Atti
I am sending you an email for perspective on our open source community ( from one of our scientists

I know like most here …you will never give up the hunt …
Yes F6 tooo ( the hunt)

Pps
F6 mission statement from overunity.com

https://overunity.com/18109/2019-and-beyond/msg529276/#msg529276

And here
https://overunity.com/18026/a-treatise-on-the-magnetic-vector-potential-and-the-marinov-generator/
We need more please …
I especially appreciated TinselKoala’s contribution ( post 5 broli link above) of something he could not explain ( which was built at the lab ?
« Last Edit: 2023-03-14, 17:05:38 by Chet K »
   
img  Atti
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #18 on: 2023-03-14, 18:44:21 »
Newbie
*

Posts: 11
Hi Smudge!

The quote is from your post:


"If the acoustic resonance of the cores is responsible for Bearden's results, then it could be that the two C cores should have the same or near resonant frequency.  Is that what happened by sheer luck?  How do different C cores vary in resonant frequency?  Could that be why the experimental results have not been replicated?"


I did the job at the time. I got a similar tiny tension figure as the one Itsu showed in his video. But it doesn't give any extra energy. But!  If it is collected in a capacitor it can contribute to the whole operating parameters. But I note.

In my opinion it will not be the parameter responsible for the operation.

Atti.
   
img  Atti
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #19 on: 2023-03-14, 18:58:24 »
Newbie
*

Posts: 11
Hi Allcanadian!

Looking at this train of thought. Quote:

"Here we can see a few key points...
1)The device isn't designed to act like a normal transformer, we know that won't work. It's designed to act like a "negative resistor" where the load periodically becomes another source.

The main issue I see with this point is that most people aren't thinking rationally or deductively about it. When I see a statement like this I think...
What's a normal transformer?, how does it work?, how could it work in a different way?, what am I missing?, what's a negative resistor?, how does it work?, how could it work differently?, what am I missing?, how can the load become a source?, what is a load and what is a source?, what's the difference between them?, how are they similar?, what does periodically mean?, what am I missing?."

So for me it is confirmation of your view on the coils that you have explained in your post.

 That is, which is primary and which is secondary. And if you change places, what happens. What happens if there is a backfill. And similar questions. An older picture:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKevr32DViI
In Árpád Bóday's machine these coil issues are separated. But the point is the same.

MOV. Metal oxide varistor. Are you sure you need it?  Or is it more like reactive power ? Which one will recharge the source voltage ?   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABqRLA_nCes


Atti.
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: MEG revisited. « Reply #20 on: 2023-03-14, 21:07:29 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Atti
Quote
The main issue I see with this point is that most people aren't thinking rationally or deductively about it. When I see a statement like this I think...
What's a normal transformer?, how does it work?, how could it work in a different way?, what am I missing?, what's a negative resistor?, how does it work?, how could it work differently?, what am I missing?, how can the load become a source?, what is a load and what is a source?, what's the difference between them?, how are they similar?, what does periodically mean?, what am I missing?."

So for me it is confirmation of your view on the coils that you have explained in your post.

This is exactly the right attitude to have and were supposed to question everything...what are we missing?.

Logically, we cannot know everything thus something is always missing and the more we find the more we learn. In fact, most of my progress came from understanding psychology, what we think, how and why we think it. For example, how do we learn?, thus learning how to learn better and faster is big part of the process of making real progress. Learning how to learn more...

On the MEG, I learned a few new tricks from a FE inventor by the name of Hendershot. He was using a similar setup with a permanent magnet placed in between two solenoid coils. However, as Hendershot implied, the PM was not a source of energy and acted similar to a magnetic spring to store energy during part of the cycle. Similar to the action of a magnetic amplifier, https://www.nutsvolts.com/magazine/article/the_magnetic_amplifier. Ironically, some claimed the PM/coil setup was a source of energy while the critics claimed it did nothing but neither was correct according to Hendershot. Which comes full circle back to another question, if the PM/coil setup was simply a mechanism to periodically store and control the flow of energy then what other process(s) are missing?.

This is the fascinating thing about technology and invention. Most of the time all the answers we want are right in front of us in plain sight. How can one person see nothing and another see nothing but opportunities and progress?. Not unlike Nikola Tesla's supposed teacher claiming he was a fool to think an alternating current could carry energy anywhere. Everyone knows if the current alternates back and forth it must always sum to zero(-1 plus +1 = 0). However we now know Tesla learned something new his teacher obviously didn't know or understand.

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
   
Pages: [1]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 04:40:44