fact ! we are all here to find a F E device and make it runing ! so... :

[nightlife]

 z_p_e, I am glad you brought up the speaker. Do you and or others know what actually powers a speaker?

Has anyone ever actually tested the EMF and or collapsing fields voltage from a speaker?

Has anyone ever checked the voltage created by just vibrating the speaker cone?

Has anyone checked the voltage created the EMF by just vibrating a speaker?

That would be a very interesting experiment if it has not been done yet. If it has, does anyone have a link to a site with those findings?

I know what actually powers a speaker but I still would like to know some answers to the other questions. Those findings may lead some in to another way of producing electricity.

[Koen1]

The MEG is using a magnet as power source. It's not relying the BEMF to provide OU.
And so far there is no proof of the MEG really working.

Really? So that's why they got a patent on the thing, right? Because it was never proven to work?
Perhaps you should read up some more...

They got their US patent granted in 2002 already. To get a patent you need to have proof.
(see http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/bnsviewer?CY=ch&LG=fr&DB=EPD&PN=US6362718&ID=US+++6362718B1+I+ for patent)

I do wonder why we still haven't seen any MEGs for sale though... Seems to me you can start production not long after getting the patent,
and the first commercial versions should be available 5 years later... Strange... You think they got an "offer they couldn't refuse"?

Oh, and @ z_p_e: your explanation sounds correct... However, if he's powering a 110V AC bulb, then not only does it mean he is upping the voltage from 12V to 110V, nearly 10 times as high, which according to normal transformer rules means the 12V input DC should increase almost 10 times in amperage, like you have stated, BUT
will a 110V AC bulb light up continually if no AC is put in?
will the bulb emit light when powered off 110V DC pulses, in the same way as it would when powered off 110V AC ?
I don't think so...
Now I don't know if Mehmets bulb actually does light up just like it would when hooked into a 110V AC feed,
but if it does, I would assume it wasn't DC pulses powering it...??

[Honk]

They got their US patent granted in 2002 already. To get a patent you need to have proof.

You don't need proof of any kind to get a patent. That's an old misconception still hanging around.
It's not an actual device your are patenting, it's the idea of a certain device or function you patent and protect.
I know this by fact because the company where I work file several patents applications every year without ever building any units.
But having a big patent portfolio will give a company something to deal with in case of a lawsuit or some other situation.

[Schpankme]

Transverse and Longitudinal electric waves.  Lab demonstration with Eric Dollard, Tom Brown and Peter Lindemann. Specially focusing on Tesla's longitudinal electricity.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-721789270445596549

- Schpankme

[Koen1]

Really?

I thought they had instated the demand for proof around the 1950s after they had figured out that half of the patents granted since 1900 were totally useless because the described technology simply didn't work. And they had granted the patents because there was no need for proof back then...

Are you really saying they reverted back to that practise? So you don't actually have to show any form of proof to get a patent?
That seems more than a little odd to me...
What then differentiates a patented design from a fantasy? Nothing? You can once again patent designs without any more proof than your own fantasy and wishfull thinking?

I thought actual science was involved in reviewing a patent application, and that it had to pass quite rigid testing before any patent was granted...
At least, when I want to patent my invention in the Netherlands, I need to show them a working version along with documented measurements and supporting theory. They will not give a patent based solely on a set of measurements and theory. Which makes sense; anyne can make up a set of data that accord with some theory and appear to show the claimed effect, in order to dupe the patent office into granting the patent.

Think about it, in the case of the MEG. Just imagine you work at the patent office, and here comes Bearden with a folder full of data and formulae, and says to you "We have invented a motionless electromagnetic generator, that extracts usable electrical energy straight from a permanent magnet. Give us a patent please?"...
You really deem it logical that you (or any other patent guy) would reply "Ah but of course sir. Hundreds of people have tried to do that and failed in the past, but since I like your beard so much here you go, here's a patent, no questions asked. No, no, we don't need to see your device actually producing the claimed over unity output. If you say so, we believe it. Have a nice day!" ??