Question: Promises requested

[FreeEnergy]

mix this with it: http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/minto.html 

[PaulLowrance]

Hi FreeEnergy,

I saw that on Mythbusters. Actually the MEMM is a completely solid-state device. The only moving part, that's actually not required, is a fan or some type of thermal conducting fins, but this would only be require for high output devices to keep the device withint operating temperature.  The output would be good old electricity.

---
"Relevant Post" was appended to ->

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:MEMM

Paul Lowrance

[Kator01]

Hi PaulL,

I remember that Bil Muller used some amorpheous magnetic tape-material. I had seen this on Don Adsitts
Page : www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com

Here is the email of his daughter :

carmen@mullerpower.com

As far as I know Don Adsitt has passed away some time ago


Kator

[gyulasun]

@gyulasun,
I agree. I've pointed out incorrect scope interpretations regarding Naudin's silicon iron version. Although the good news is that Naudin's Metglas version scope shots seem to clearly demonstrate "free energy" ->
http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/meg21io.gif
occurs in:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm
The above image shows both current and voltages. It's difficult to ignore the obvious huge difference from input versus output unless Naudin faked the scope images. Some may debate the scope is not picking up on high frequency output, but such undetected output signals would merely increase to the output. As for the input, it's a DC power supply so AC current means nothing-- we want to know the average input power, which is the DC current * DC voltage coming from the power supply or battery. If AC current is somehow effecting Naudin's scopes display of DC current then I would say it's a faulty scope. What are your thoughts on this?  It's always been my experience that frequencies beyond the scope are merely dampened out and do not affect the lower frequencies displayed on the scope.

Naudin is misinterpreting his scopes power output. It shows 3.976 W input, that is correct, but the 28.98 W output is not exact, but close enough for government work, right, lol?  What the scope is showing is the average power output as displayed on the screen at present. As we can see, there are roughly 5.5 cycles displayed on the output. To display the average power output we want one exact cycle or multiples of one.

So I spent some time last month studying the pictures pixel by pixel, going over each pixel and multiplying voltage by current per segment of time and adding them up. That being said I am confident Naudin's Metglas machine was generating "free energy."
.....

Hi Paul,

Sorry for being a bit late in reflecting your question, have been busy. Well, if an oscilloscope has a bandwidth less than the frequency of the components constituting the measured signal, than, although it displays a more sinusoid-like waveform but the main lower frequency amplitudes remain more or less correct. However, this cannot be revelant or applicable here because the scope THS720P has a 100MHz bandwidth and the measured signal is around 56-57kHz with MEG v2.1 and 24kHz with v3.0 (at least this is seen so on this page from the scope pictures http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm )
And I agree: the AC current measurements cannot influence the DC current measurements.

It is interesting that Naudin's conditioned resistor he used for loading the 1.5kVpp output voltage was just conditioned to be 10kOhm from the 100kOhm value (because it comes from his measured RMS current of 48.08mA for his MEG v2.1), the difference just a factor of 10 in the resistor values.  And if I multiply the RMS output voltage with the RMS current (486.2V * 48.08mA) I get 23.37W but his scope shows 28.97W RMS. ( Of course this 23.37W output would still be fantasticly good for a 3.976W input power. )  Where was the error coming from I wonder. Correct answer can only be given by repeating his measurements.

Regards
Gyula

[Trump]

HI' Paul,

I have looked back and read all of the replies to your electric motor concept, others feel you are close to  achieving the design of the ?over unity motor?. Have you been working on this concept for a long time?  I don't possess the knowledge as you and others do, but it does seem that there are many who agree with you on how things look so far. Have you been working mostly on the theory of how this motor may work, or have you got physical testing  with a prototype model ?  Once you get some testing done and are satisfied that your motor is doing what you feel it should do, will you test this motor for a good length of time and then tell us how the motor works, or will you just test the motor and tell us as your testing goes along. I feel everyone would just like to see a small motor to set on the desk and produce over unity, lighting a light bulb or something. It looks like you have a vast amount of peopole on this site to get information from, if we all stick together and help one another I feel as things will work out for the best. I wish that there were  other people with your knowledge close to me, I live in Tennessee. When the time comes and you have the plans to build the motor, I will do whatever it take to build it, even if I need to fly out and have you help me with it.

Hope that a lot of the stumbling blocks are out of the way now so you can get a working model going soon.  Keep in touch and I must say I am ready for this to come true. Most of the other ?over unity? motors seem to be a talk of the town for awhile and then fade out of site.

Trump !