PDA

View Full Version : Free Energy Lifter Patent Granted



Phobos
2002-Mar-31, 12:38 AM
http://www.msoft.no/meg/images/megprj.jpg

Earlier this year I posted information about new NASA sponsored lifter technology by Transdimensional Technologies (http://www.tdimension.com).

The trail led to a French company JLN Labs (http://jnaudin.free.fr) which seemed to be doing most of the lifter testing.

Well there has recently been news of a patent granted to the company for what some are calling "The first commercial free energy machine".

MEG homepage (http://www.msoft.no/meg/)

Whilst there are contentious aspects to this device (hence inclusion in this section), the potential implications for spacecraft technology are very interesting (main one that comes to mind is not having to carry fuel in the spacecraft).

Jeff


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-03-30 19:45 ]</font>

Jigsaw
2002-Mar-31, 01:45 AM
Yes, but does it work? Is it reproducible? IANA electrical engineer, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like yet another "perpetual motion" machine that somehow never works for anybody besides the inventor. I thought it was supposed to be impossible, according to the laws of physics and electrical engineering, to get more energy out of a motor than you put in.

From this link http://www.msoft.no/meg/

Tom Bearden made shockwaves when he published his MEG in October 2000. The result was so unbelievable, that it was difficult to take it serious. Then JL Naudin tried to duplicate the result, and in the beginning of November Naudin started to get results that could be over unity. That is more power getting out then what is put in to the system.

On 17. November, Naudin got results that showed 29 Watt out from less then 4 Watt in.

:: snip ::

With close contacts with people at SINTEF and The University of Trondheim we hope to be able to duplicate the results of Tom Bearden and JL Naudin, and we will share the result with you as the project develop.
One of the problem at the moment is to be sure there is no error in the measurements of power going in to the MEG and of that coming out. The input is DC between 10-30 Volt, so it should be possible to measure with high accuracy. The output is AC at high voltage of 500 till 1500 Volt (depending on input). At the moment there are still room for some error in this measurements, so it is inconclusive until some better test has been made.
So, they're still tinkering with it, and it hasn't been proved to work yet.

You can take out a patent on anything--you're not required to prove to the Patent Office that your gizmo actually works.

Phobos
2002-Mar-31, 03:30 AM
The section of the background information that you highlighted was headed;
"Created on 19. November 2000 - Last updated 30. juli 2001"

So the details you referred to we last update in July 2001. The patent they refer to is dated March 26, 2002.

They do not claim that it generates energy, they say that it "tapps in" to longitudinal electromagnetic waves (zero point energy). If this is true then no laws of science have been broken.

If what they claim is false they should be found out fairly quickly. They intend to go into production in about a years time with a unit which produces 2.5 kilowatts of "free" electricity - if their product does not work, people will not buy it (frankly the end consumer would not even bother how the thing worked, they would just be concerned with if it saved them money).

Perhaps the problem is that people call this free power generation when in reality they say they are converting one form of energy into another (in that sense what is claimed is similar to conventional power generation).

Of particular personal interest to me is the fact that they refer to a alternate theory of gravity (http://gravity.ontheinter.net/) which explains the observed effects of gravity in terms of energy transfer from neutrenos. I take a personal interest here as the idea tallies exactly with a theory I was developing in my early twenties (whilst I was thinking very closee to their ideas, they took them further, and seem better qualified than I to back up those ideas).

Jeff


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-03-31 10:27 ]</font>

David Simmons
2002-Mar-31, 03:28 PM
On 2002-03-30 20:45, Jigsaw wrote:
Yes, but does it work? Is it reproducible? IANA electrical engineer, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like yet another "perpetual motion" machine ....


I don't think they are claiming more energy out than is put in. The claim is that the gadget's energy comes from the "vacuum energy of the universe." Sort of an endless series of controllable, mini-Big Bangs. Is that an oxymoron?

The whole thing is highly suspicious, but it can't be dismissed as just another perpetual motion scheme.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Simmons on 2002-03-31 10:29 ]</font>

David Hall
2002-Mar-31, 03:40 PM
I'm highly suspicious of this.

Ever since this "vacuum energy" concept came about, certain people have seen it as a way to market their perpetual-motion scams without having to claim something from nothing. It's become a smoke-screen allowing them to claim free-energy without violating the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

I think if the vacuum-energy is ever really tapped into, it's much more likely to come from a reputable and well-known physics lab, one that's been involved in research specifically in this area for a long time and really knows what's going on.

John Kierein
2002-Mar-31, 03:50 PM
Maybe they've found the secret of how Coral Castle was built!

Phobos
2002-Mar-31, 04:53 PM
On 2002-03-31 10:50, John Kierein wrote:
Maybe they've found the secret of how Coral Castle was built!


For those who have not come across what John is referring to here read this (http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa071999.htm)

I did come across this whilst searching through reports of anti-gravity experiments, but I did not follow up on it as this particular story doesn't seem to involve any testable science.

More interesting (and testable) are the unusual and possibly related experiments by a Canadian Amateur Scientist - John Hutchison, who's experiments in this field have had very strange results which have been termed The Hutchison Effect (http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/HEffect1.html)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-03-31 16:36 ]</font>

Phobos
2002-Apr-01, 02:23 PM
http://popularmechanics.com/science/research/1999/10/taming_gravity/images/tb_0010STRSCB.jpg

I just discovered another piece of information in the Anti-Gravity jigsaw which I thought worthy of sharing with you.

More NASA related Anti-Gravity research (http://popularmechanics.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=49930224&EXTRA%20_ARG=&CFGNAME=MssFind%2Ecfg&host_id=1&page_id=2590&query=taming+gravity&hiword=T%20AMING+GRAVITY+GRAVITYS)


While an operational device is at least five years in the future, developers of what can be loosely termed a force-field machine say it has cleared major theoretical hurdles. To demonstrate their claim, they invited POPULAR MECHANICS to visit their Huntsville, Ala., laboratory to see the most important component of their proof-of-concept demonstrator. It is a 12-in.-dia. high-temperature superconducting disc (HTSD). When the force-field machine is complete, a bowling ball placed anywhere above this disc, which resembles a clutch plate, will stay exactly where you left it.

Reading throught the article I found this thought provoking quote;


Build a larger disc and the force field above it should be controllable. "It's a gravity-like force you can point in any direction," says Campbell. "It could be used in space to protect the international space station against impacts by small meteoroids and orbital debris."

I have researched this report and found an interesting bullitin board discussion which seems to confirm the details;

Skeggs & Ning Li on Gravitational Modification -- Superconductors, varying magnetic field (http://www.allanstime.com/UFT_discussion/00000019.htm)

The site confirms that Ning Li works for the University of Alabama, Huntsville and does a lot of work with NASA’s Manned Space Flight Center.

Based on the results of her experiments so far, then perhaps we can expect future spacecraft from NASA to be saucer shaped ...

Jeff

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-04-01 10:05 ]</font>

John Kierein
2002-Apr-01, 04:42 PM
Interesting link. Ive done some superconductor gravitational experiments myself with at first some results that we later showed were inconclusive. Noever is Dr. David Noever who gathered a bunch of data on the anomalies of Foucault pendulums during the 8/11/99 eclipse that passed through Europe. He agreed to present his results in the book "Pushing Gravity", but then he disappeared. He left NASA and took all the data with him. All I know about the results were that there were anomalies seen, but only in those pendulums that were on the path of totality. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DyeHard/dye990915.html

Phobos
2002-Apr-01, 06:11 PM
The effect on the pendulum is explainable if you accept the Alternative Gravity Theory (http://gravity.ontheinter.net/) - that gravitational attraction is not caused by a pulling force, but by a push.

If gravity is caused by a transfer of energy from neutrenos then it would seem reasonable to expect a neutreno shadow caused by an eclipse to have a detectable gravitational effect.

If this is true then the we may expect the effect on the pendulums to be proportional to the effective reduction in nuetrenos arriving at the pendulum.

Naturally we can come up with other possible explanations, but it tallies very well with the idea that gravity is caused by a reduction of push caused by other objects.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-04-01 13:17 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Apr-01, 06:57 PM
On 2002-04-01 13:11, Phobos wrote:
If gravity is caused by a transfer of energy from neutrenos then it would seem reasonable to expect a neutreno shadow caused by an eclipse to have a detectable gravitational effect.

If this is true then the we may expect the effect on the pendulums to be proportional to the effective reduction in nuetrenos arriving at the pendulum.


Why would a solar eclipse be such a special event? Wouldn't there be a gravitational anomaly every time the moon was directly overhead? This is an event that is far more easily observed, since it happens so much more often.

The Cavendish experiment (mass attracts mass) works as well at the bottom of a mine-shaft as it does at the top of a mountain. What kind of "mass shadow" are you envisioning, if it is not seen even in such straightforward tests?

Silas

Phobos
2002-Apr-01, 07:50 PM
Why would a solar eclipse be such a special event? Wouldn't there be a gravitational anomaly every time the moon was directly overhead? This is an event that is far more easily observed, since it happens so much more often.

The Cavendish experiment (mass attracts mass) works as well at the bottom of a mine-shaft as it does at the top of a mountain. What kind of "mass shadow" are you envisioning, if it is not seen even in such straightforward tests?

In my version of the concept of gravitation "push" I did not know what would be doing the actual pushing, but I realised that if gravity was caused by some form of transfer of momentum from some as yet undetected particles, then it would meet the observed aspects of gravity.

The alternate theory proposed above actually labels the candidate particles - Neutrenos.

This is important because it explains why you might expect a different effect on the pendulums that fall in the shadow of the sun.

In answer to your question "Why would a solar eclipse be such a special event?" the answer is that in the case of when the pendulums fell under the shadow of the moon, the pendulums were also being sheilded from non-light emmisions, and what we are saying is that these non-light emmisions are the cause of the effect we call gravity.

If the results of the experiments indicate different results between pendulums that fell under moon shadow, and those that did not, then we must assume that there is a possibility that something from the solar emmisions was blocked besides light, and the effect of the moon passing between the pendulum and the emmision source (the sun) seems to have had an effect on the movement of the pendulum - and hense gravity.

The alternate theory presented above suggested that gravity was a side effect of the interation of objects with neutrenos.

Whatever the cause of the reported effects they seem to me to indicate that they are caused by some mechanism if not the same as the one postulated, then along those lines.

I would have to check the specifics of the Cavendish experiment to find out if that experiment checked for sheilding effects, but one thing we do know is the experiments were on completely different scales (multiple orders of magnitude).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-04-01 15:04 ]</font>

John Kierein
2002-Apr-01, 08:56 PM
Look here for some discussion of the Brush push theory of gravitation (which Brush called the "Kinetic Theory of Gravitation") and the pendulum effect per some Russian authors. The translation is a little poor, but enjoy.
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/RadzKaga/radzkagal.htm