http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm
"Motionless Electromagnetic Generator"
They basically claim they can generate power from a small input current. It has so much information, it seems like an amazing hoax if it is. If it isn't? Well, I guess the world's power problems are over
Its not audio-related really (except for a powerless amplifier possibility) but you people have an immense collective knowledge of electronics that I don't.
"Motionless Electromagnetic Generator"
They basically claim they can generate power from a small input current. It has so much information, it seems like an amazing hoax if it is. If it isn't? Well, I guess the world's power problems are over
Its not audio-related really (except for a powerless amplifier possibility
) but you people have an immense collective knowledge of electronics that I don't.
Ignite,
it's not a total hoax although it's not a be all and end all solution ... it works by moving energy from one place to another and converting it in the process.
Tiroth,
You can never get out more than you put in, that is true but you are missing the point in saying that.
The purpose of this device is not to convert the energy that goes into it into energy that comes out of it; It uses the small amount of input energy to move the energy that is stored inside the device converting it in the process and in this way none of the laws of thermodynamics are broken. Refrigeration systems work on a similar principle in that it is not actually possible to decrease the amount of heat in a system you can only move it from one place to another, so refrigeration systems use the input energy to move the heat away from a given area and in doing so cool it. In such cases, because no part of the input energy appears at the output, we cannot assess such devices in terms of efficiency we must instead assess them with respect to COP (Coefficient of Performance) which is energy moved/work done and can be in excess of 1. This is how refrigeration and air conditioning systems are rated also. Industrial airconditioning systems usually have a COP of about 4.0 so 5.0 is totally feasable just think of it as an efficienct energy pump.
ps. I am not affiliated in any way with the people involved with the MEG project.
it's not a total hoax although it's not a be all and end all solution ... it works by moving energy from one place to another and converting it in the process.
Tiroth,
You can never get out more than you put in, that is true but you are missing the point in saying that.
The purpose of this device is not to convert the energy that goes into it into energy that comes out of it; It uses the small amount of input energy to move the energy that is stored inside the device converting it in the process and in this way none of the laws of thermodynamics are broken. Refrigeration systems work on a similar principle in that it is not actually possible to decrease the amount of heat in a system you can only move it from one place to another, so refrigeration systems use the input energy to move the heat away from a given area and in doing so cool it. In such cases, because no part of the input energy appears at the output, we cannot assess such devices in terms of efficiency we must instead assess them with respect to COP (Coefficient of Performance) which is energy moved/work done and can be in excess of 1. This is how refrigeration and air conditioning systems are rated also. Industrial airconditioning systems usually have a COP of about 4.0 so 5.0 is totally feasable just think of it as an efficienct energy pump.
ps. I am not affiliated in any way with the people involved with the MEG project.
Audiofreak
the refrigerator example is very, very bad. In fact, what the refrigerator does is to take heat from a hot place and put it into another place that is just as hot making that place even hotter and that, my friend, is an uphill skate that takes energy, see your electrical bill.
That...coefficient of whatever maybe good for windmills but not for refrigerators.
As far as the motionless generator is concerned that's as intriguing as superconductivity.
the refrigerator example is very, very bad. In fact, what the refrigerator does is to take heat from a hot place and put it into another place that is just as hot making that place even hotter and that, my friend, is an uphill skate that takes energy, see your electrical bill.
That...coefficient of whatever maybe good for windmills but not for refrigerators.
As far as the motionless generator is concerned that's as intriguing as superconductivity.
i agree that it's an uphill battle but on a comercial scale, industrial air conditioning systems have a COP of about 4.0 in that for every 1kW or input power consumed, they move about 4kW or heat. COP is indeed how refrigeration systems are rated and in the industrial size systems the COP can be reasonably good but as you pointed out, the need to keep the system small enough to have it in the home means that the COP of such systems always suffers. Such commercial systems usually rely on cooling towers etc to remove the built up heat from the system .... hardly practical for us but entirely achieveable in a high rise building.
I was thinking of the parallel between superconductivity yesterday myself when i typed my 1st reply in this thread
I was thinking of the parallel between superconductivity yesterday myself when i typed my 1st reply in this thread
This is just mind-blowing. Assuming this is commercially viable and it seems to be from everything I've read, we can convert almost every power generating facilities to large-scale implementations of this device. It could mean in a few years we have volts to arc (money to burn?) and then some.
sssssslither....
I tried to read Mr. Thomas E. Bearden's 69 page paper and found myself foundering, trying to find any definite statement of what is actually going on. There were numerous vague references to a "replenishing potential environment" and "magnetic energy wind". The kicker for me was this statement:
"THREE IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES AND MECHANISMS
We explain three very important principles/mechanisms necessary to comprehend the new process in a replenishing potential environment:
(1) The conservation of energy law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. What is commonly not realized is that energy can be and is reused (changed in form) to do work, over and over, while being replenished (regauged) each time. If one has one joule of energy collected in one form, then in a replenishing potential environment one can change all that joule into a different form of energy, thereby performing one joule of work. However, one still has a replenished joule of energy remaining, by the conservation of energy law in such an environment, since the first joule was removed in different form. If one collects and holds that remaining joule in its new form, and then changes the form of it yet again in the replenishing environment, one does another joule of work—and still has a joule of energy left, just in a yet different form. The process is infinitely repeatable, limited only by the ability to hold the changed form of the energy each time it is changed."
This sounds kind of impressive until you think about what has to be happening for this to be real. Here is a real world demonstration:
Assume I have a pail of water elevated over my head. I can open a valve in the bottom of the pail to make water flow (in response to the pull of gravity). This moving water can be used to power some mechanism (like a generator for example). Before I can use the water to power the generator again I have to lift the water back up over my head. This takes an energy input that is always going to be at least as large as the work done by the water flowing.
Somehow (without ever explaining how) Mr. Thomas Bearden claims to have found a way to have the water jump back up into the bucket by itself. I am skeptical. He describes the makeup of the magnetic core material in excrutiating detail, yet never seems to explain what the "replenishing environment" mechanism is that makes the "magnetic energy wind" blow. I can explain why wind blows (energy input from the Sun), but nowhere did I see where he explains where the energy required by this mythical "replenishing environment" comes from.
I am willing to consider the possibility that a heat pump can move energy from place to place with a COP rating of greater than 1.0. I don't really know. However I believe that this analogy does not apply in this case since the objective is not to just move the energy, but rather tap the potential difference created by this movement to do work. I believe that if you attempt to use the heat potential difference to generate electric power (say with a thermocouple pile) then you would see your COP rating drop in direct proportion to the amount of energy you removed from the system.
IMHO This guy is describing a perpetual motion machine. And the problem is that as soon as you start to take power out of the system it is going to stop (probably even before that due to internal losses, the magnetic equivelant of friction) .
My snakes are gleaming brightly and are very well lubricated. I can't wait to invest my 401K in this project.
Phil
I tried to read Mr. Thomas E. Bearden's 69 page paper and found myself foundering, trying to find any definite statement of what is actually going on. There were numerous vague references to a "replenishing potential environment" and "magnetic energy wind". The kicker for me was this statement:
"THREE IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES AND MECHANISMS
We explain three very important principles/mechanisms necessary to comprehend the new process in a replenishing potential environment:
(1) The conservation of energy law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. What is commonly not realized is that energy can be and is reused (changed in form) to do work, over and over, while being replenished (regauged) each time. If one has one joule of energy collected in one form, then in a replenishing potential environment one can change all that joule into a different form of energy, thereby performing one joule of work. However, one still has a replenished joule of energy remaining, by the conservation of energy law in such an environment, since the first joule was removed in different form. If one collects and holds that remaining joule in its new form, and then changes the form of it yet again in the replenishing environment, one does another joule of work—and still has a joule of energy left, just in a yet different form. The process is infinitely repeatable, limited only by the ability to hold the changed form of the energy each time it is changed."
This sounds kind of impressive until you think about what has to be happening for this to be real. Here is a real world demonstration:
Assume I have a pail of water elevated over my head. I can open a valve in the bottom of the pail to make water flow (in response to the pull of gravity). This moving water can be used to power some mechanism (like a generator for example). Before I can use the water to power the generator again I have to lift the water back up over my head. This takes an energy input that is always going to be at least as large as the work done by the water flowing.
Somehow (without ever explaining how) Mr. Thomas Bearden claims to have found a way to have the water jump back up into the bucket by itself. I am skeptical. He describes the makeup of the magnetic core material in excrutiating detail, yet never seems to explain what the "replenishing environment" mechanism is that makes the "magnetic energy wind" blow. I can explain why wind blows (energy input from the Sun), but nowhere did I see where he explains where the energy required by this mythical "replenishing environment" comes from.
I am willing to consider the possibility that a heat pump can move energy from place to place with a COP rating of greater than 1.0. I don't really know. However I believe that this analogy does not apply in this case since the objective is not to just move the energy, but rather tap the potential difference created by this movement to do work. I believe that if you attempt to use the heat potential difference to generate electric power (say with a thermocouple pile) then you would see your COP rating drop in direct proportion to the amount of energy you removed from the system.
IMHO This guy is describing a perpetual motion machine. And the problem is that as soon as you start to take power out of the system it is going to stop (probably even before that due to internal losses, the magnetic equivelant of friction) .
My snakes are gleaming brightly and are very well lubricated. I can't wait to invest my 401K in this project.
Phil
Yep i have the same kind of reservations which is why i said this is not a be all and end all solution but i would rather stop short of saying "This doesnt work" and would rather remain a little sceptical until more data is available .... from what i can gather, this project is still under development but it relies heavily on quantum physics where things are a whole lot more weird than usual and i still think this may be possible.... also, i cant blame the people involved for keeping the finer details of this device rather vague to say the least : if it works, it's gonna make them all rather rich; if it doesnt work, they dont look quite as bad because there will always be that little bit of doubt in everyones heads.
My other hobby is building Tesla coils.
See: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~dkfinnis/
Spend a bit of time around a Tesla list and the "free energy fringe" soon emerge with all sorts of claims ........ very elaborate/scientific some of them too .... much more so than the "snake-oil" paper referred to above
At the end of the day, not one has yet stood up to peer review or been reproducible. Scepticism is a good basis for analysis of any "new" scientific theory/invention.
Do remember, though, the "laws of thermodymanics" are merely our current paradigm .... there was a time when the earth was flat and the heart did not pump blood .......
cheers, mark
See: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~dkfinnis/
Spend a bit of time around a Tesla list and the "free energy fringe" soon emerge with all sorts of claims ........ very elaborate/scientific some of them too .... much more so than the "snake-oil" paper referred to above
At the end of the day, not one has yet stood up to peer review or been reproducible. Scepticism is a good basis for analysis of any "new" scientific theory/invention.
Do remember, though, the "laws of thermodymanics" are merely our current paradigm .... there was a time when the earth was flat and the heart did not pump blood .......
cheers, mark
A heat pump is very different than something like a generator; very little work is required to just move heat from one place to another, because the actual heat transfered is doing no work. In theory 'COP' of 100 is quite possible in a heat pump.
Contrast this with doing something useful, such as powering a 100W bulb. Fully 100 joules/s are doing work, so if you were to put the light in a box and use it to make toast, you'd know that less than 100 J/s of heat would be forthcoming, due to losses.
This statement is complete crud from a physics standpoint. It's quite true that energy can be reused, in the sense that we can recollect it. The key fact is that if we use that energy to do any form of work, anything we can collect from that process will be (much) less than we put in, and in the best case we can approach (but never reach) 100% efficiency by collecting loss products. (It's called entropy, and it isn't debatable)
To anyone that has taken thermo, this isn't a revolutionary idea, it is a sad joke.
Contrast this with doing something useful, such as powering a 100W bulb. Fully 100 joules/s are doing work, so if you were to put the light in a box and use it to make toast, you'd know that less than 100 J/s of heat would be forthcoming, due to losses.
This statement is complete crud from a physics standpoint. It's quite true that energy can be reused, in the sense that we can recollect it. The key fact is that if we use that energy to do any form of work, anything we can collect from that process will be (much) less than we put in, and in the best case we can approach (but never reach) 100% efficiency by collecting loss products. (It's called entropy, and it isn't debatable)
To anyone that has taken thermo, this isn't a revolutionary idea, it is a sad joke.
yeah i agree the above statement is troubling in that it would appear that he is actually trying to create energy. He says energy can neither be created nor destoyed (by the way, this theory is actually now up for debate and some in the scientific community are out to prove that it is slowly being destroyed but i'll leave that arguement for another day) but he moves the energy from the device to do work and then says that it replenishes itself now it must do this in one of 2 ways, given the input energy is so small, that is not enough to replenish it so forget that idea 1st, energy in the surrounding environment must somehow be converted into a form that can be stored in the device or 2nd energy is being created where previously there was none. Now the second is not feasible and the 1st contradicts what his statement is saying.
Personally, i'd still like to see the thing in action and i still wont say "this thing dont work" but i'd caution against holding your breath waiting for more precise details regarding the MEG project. There is a patent for this device but it's generally mystical in it's details.......
ps. i have done studies in thermodynamics.
RULE #1. EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE
Personally, i'd still like to see the thing in action and i still wont say "this thing dont work" but i'd caution against holding your breath waiting for more precise details regarding the MEG project. There is a patent for this device but it's generally mystical in it's details.......
ps. i have done studies in thermodynamics.
RULE #1. EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE
I've got a solution
A few of my friends - skeptical but intruiged - are trying to see if they can find the required parts for a reasonable price to test it ourselves. I'm a fan of "seeing it with my own two eyes" when it comes to this sort of thing. Even if it isn't a patent for a perpetual motion device involving a wheelchair motor, 3 old golf clubs and a pair of rubberbands, it still isn't in the realm of commonplace science.
There are a few other sites describing 3rd party attempts at the project, with mixed results. A number of them are convinced the device is actually getting over unity. I found the letter at http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tbinfos.htm to be rather informative background, though I'm not sure exactly how the device is harnessing the divergent energy - if that is even what is hypothesized to be happening.
I think the major problem here is that there is an awful lot of related material but because of the infancy of the project, no entirely coherent documentation has been put together yet.
From the link above:
A few of my friends - skeptical but intruiged - are trying to see if they can find the required parts for a reasonable price to test it ourselves. I'm a fan of "seeing it with my own two eyes" when it comes to this sort of thing. Even if it isn't a patent for a perpetual motion device involving a wheelchair motor, 3 old golf clubs and a pair of rubberbands, it still isn't in the realm of commonplace science.
There are a few other sites describing 3rd party attempts at the project, with mixed results. A number of them are convinced the device is actually getting over unity. I found the letter at http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tbinfos.htm to be rather informative background, though I'm not sure exactly how the device is harnessing the divergent energy - if that is even what is hypothesized to be happening.
I think the major problem here is that there is an awful lot of related material but because of the infancy of the project, no entirely coherent documentation has been put together yet.
From the link above:
funny thing is, if this thing can move energy and do so @ greater than unity, upon starting the circuit, you could then use a portion of the output to feed the input thus creating the mystical perpetual motion machine and using the remainder of the energy, power any device you might care for. I'm starting to see the gaping faults in this system ... most of the science behind it is plausible but alot of it is grossly misused.
free energy
These "Free energy" buffs have been around for years, they even hold conventions every year or so. Like UFO roswell group. Every so often one of them thinks they've found a new way to break the law of conservation, usually reworking the classic generator: a coil of wire rotating between two or more magnetic fields (or more coils of wire for that matter) www.depalma.pair.com is another interesting one.
These "Free energy" buffs have been around for years, they even hold conventions every year or so. Like UFO roswell group. Every so often one of them thinks they've found a new way to break the law of conservation, usually reworking the classic generator: a coil of wire rotating between two or more magnetic fields (or more coils of wire for that matter) www.depalma.pair.com is another interesting one.
Well the energy is there, but in a different form. The energy is from magnets, EMFs, and a pulse width modulator chip. I think MEG used a neodymium magnet.
I did make a circuit that uses a 3 volt solar cell, about ten 220uf, and a motor. The solar cell had an output voltage of about 400mV from a 60 watt bulb that is a distance of 2 inches or 5.08 centimeters away. The solar cell powered the motor but not a red LED without a motor. I connect the motor and it ran but when I hooked my multimeter it read around 1.5...1.7...1.8...1.9...2.0.............5 volts. Then I touch the led. It lit but only for a limited time. One disadvantage is that the capacitors have to be little charged from the solar cell or energy before the circuit to work. The motor creates delay from rotating the coils. This creates a timing. The coils then generate EMF that enters in the circuit.
MEG might work or might not work but the energy is there.
I did make a circuit that uses a 3 volt solar cell, about ten 220uf, and a motor. The solar cell had an output voltage of about 400mV from a 60 watt bulb that is a distance of 2 inches or 5.08 centimeters away. The solar cell powered the motor but not a red LED without a motor. I connect the motor and it ran but when I hooked my multimeter it read around 1.5...1.7...1.8...1.9...2.0.............5 volts. Then I touch the led. It lit but only for a limited time. One disadvantage is that the capacitors have to be little charged from the solar cell or energy before the circuit to work. The motor creates delay from rotating the coils. This creates a timing. The coils then generate EMF that enters in the circuit.
MEG might work or might not work but the energy is there.
There are a few things I cannot fathem in this story:
Strange thing no 1: The designers claim that they draw their power from "the Vacuum". Apart from the fact that you will have to run this in a vacuum chamber (consumes energy), or in open space, What energy is there in "Vacuum"? Magnetic energy? This exists also in free air, but ok, have it in their vacuum...
Strange thing no 2: It appears to me that this will only work if you put this thing in the right circomstances in space-time. Their magnetic fields can only propagate in a linear form of space-time. Since this is very thin ice to move on, I wonder: Do they believe that we currently live in a linear form of space-time? Did Einstein not explain to us that space-time is curved? This is heavy stuff they just put on their thin ice!
I'm sorry, but I do not believe this thing works. Nice april-fool's joke though
Bouke
Strange thing no 1: The designers claim that they draw their power from "the Vacuum". Apart from the fact that you will have to run this in a vacuum chamber (consumes energy), or in open space, What energy is there in "Vacuum"? Magnetic energy? This exists also in free air, but ok, have it in their vacuum...
Strange thing no 2: It appears to me that this will only work if you put this thing in the right circomstances in space-time. Their magnetic fields can only propagate in a linear form of space-time. Since this is very thin ice to move on, I wonder: Do they believe that we currently live in a linear form of space-time? Did Einstein not explain to us that space-time is curved? This is heavy stuff they just put on their thin ice!
I'm sorry, but I do not believe this thing works. Nice april-fool's joke though
Bouke
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.