MEMM

[PaulLowrance]

Rob,
I can't see why those mosfests would not work. They look good. I don't think the differences in capacitance will make noticeable difference.


Gyula,
You mentioned your replication of the MEG using ferrite core. According to MCE theory the MEG design will not work on most ferrite cores because most ferrites are not electrically conductive. The MEG uses Method #1.

Naudin made two designs, iron and metglas, which are both electrically conductive. IMHO it would be extremely difficult to get "free energy" with an iron core, but possible. I found errors in Naudin's scope interpretation. At least the scope pictures I analyzed show his iron core version did not produce more energy out than in, but it is very clear that according to his scope pictures his metglas version produced more out than in. IMHO there is no way to discount Naudin's scope pictures of the metglas version, unless Naudin outright falsified the pictures.  I've discussed this with other people in private regarding ultra high frequencies tricking the scope, the input source, etc. It's just not true and if anything Naudin's metglas produces more output than we can tell from his scope pictures.  Of course, this all presumes Naudin's scope is not faulty.

Regards,
Paul Lowrance

[MeggerMan]

Hi Paul, MrAmos,
I have ordered a AMCC-320 core from Elna Magnetics and should be with me by Thursday provided there is no hold up in customs.
I now need to look at building a pulse circuit.
Not sure wether to look at controlling it with a PIC or try the circuit that JLN used.

Ahh...I have just looked at the spec for the TL494C.
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tl494.pdf

250mA output drive current, much better than the PIC.
Also the output voltage is determined by the supply.
1 to 300Khz frequency range.
Built in oscillator stabiliser.

Yep, it has the the lot.
Its tried and tested by JLN, so why re-invent the wheel.
I think I will invest in a 30v 5amp bench power supply too, more toys to play with ;o)

Regards

Rob

[PaulLowrance]

Hi,

That's really great news kingrs!  How much was the AMCC-320 core?

Hopefully by tomorrow I'll be testing a silicon iron transformer under exceptionally small power conditions. Unless I'm incorrectly simulating this in my mind I'm guesstimating that a few microwatts should reach the level where even a standard silicon iron core could reach the "free energy" state. I know, whoopee, a whole microwatt, lol.   There might be a whole lot of other forces involved at such microwatts, but we'll see.

Unless I made some errors the theory shows how efficiency is relative to the reciprocal of power.  In other words, less power equates to more efficiency. Of course that is not considering the inefficiencies of the circuit and presumes the magnetizing field is always at optimum.

This seems to match Naudin's results, but it is not so evident -->

http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/meg21iof.gif

Notice the output (red line) exponentially increases up to 25 volts, but then drastically decreases. Then look at the input as it continuously increases with its exponential rate. Understandably there are a lot of factors involved, but we cannot ignore the fact that Naudin's power chart shows the input power approaching the output if we follow the pattern. I did not enter these graphs in a spline function, but I would guesstimate the two merge at roughly 75 to 100 volts input.

I know everyone wants to pump a ton of power in their core so they can get a lot out, but please consider lowering the input voltages as low as your circuit will efficiently tolerate. Another way of achieving less input power is to increase the amount of turns on the input coil, up to certain point of course depending on frequency-- you probably don't want significant reflecting waves.

Similarly, 10 small cores should be more effective than 1 large core.

In a nutshell, as you double to input voltages you are essentially doubling the coils current, unless your circuit is not linear. That quadruples the input power. Although, by doubling the current your are doubling di/dt, which simply stated will merely double the MCE energy. So you are quadrupling the input power, but you are only doubling the available MCE energy.

Regards,
Paul Lowrance

[MeggerMan]

Hi Paul,
From Elna Magnetics the AMCC-320 core costs $107 + $64 shipping to UK, plus $3 handling.
The shipping is FedEx, but I guess if I ordered a few cores the cost per core would be a lot less. Shipping within the US will be a lot less.
The AMCC-500 core costs $140.

I did not ask about the AMCC-1000 (7Kg lump) but if the AMCC-320 works out, that will be my next order.

MrAmos, 1 hour to design and etch a PCB, now that is fast.
I have all the gear to design, UV process, etch and drill but it will take a couple of evenings to do one design.
Are you going to get an AMCC-320 core?

I will knock up a design on Eagle (free to use on small 4" x 4" or less boards) if anyone is interested.

Regards

Rob

[MeggerMan]

I made my UV box from an old flatbed scanner that I could not longer use because the scsi card was ISA.
Put two UV tubes into the bottom, wired this to a guts out of a new 12v caravan light.
I use pre-coated laminates from MegaUK (http://www.megauk.com)

I time it on a stop watch and manually turn it off.
The tubes need to warm up a bit, so manual control is fine for this.

I have etched double sided panel PCB antennas using this and they are perfect.

Do you iron the toner onto the board from a transfer sheet?
My mate does this, but I prefer the UV method.
Where abouts are you based?

Regards

Rob