The Tom Bearden Website

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