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
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
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.
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:24:15 -0700
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
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.
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.