The MEG Replication Project by hyiq.org

Please Note: The MEG is a Patented Device. hyiq.org has been granted permission for this Replication by The MEG's Inventors.

Tom Bearden "One build-up has produced up to 100 times more power than was input"

A basic idea on how The MEG Works.

The MEG has some history. Although patented in 2002 by Thomas E. Bearden, Ph.D. James C. Hayes, Ph.D. James L. Kenny, Ph.D. Kenneth D. Moore, B.S. Stephen L. Patrick, B.S. The MEG has operational characteristics of many other devices throughout History. Some may disagree with my opinion but that's all this page is about, my opinion on how the MEG Works.

Simply put, The MEG is See-Sawing Electromagnetic Flux from the Permanent Magnet from side to side of the MetGlas Cores. As the name suggests The MEG is a Generator, just a stationary one. The actual EMF Generated in the Output Coils is induced in a slightly different manner than the EMF Generated in a Conventional Generator, or at least how current theory says EMF is Generated in Generators. We must remember the great Michael Faraday only said, we only have to have a Flux move in relation to the Conductor to generate an EMF in the conductor.

A Magnet's Flux is made up of several things (called vectors and potentials), we look at these forces in a manner where we can define these forces in a manner similar to a River. This is similar to Electricity, Flow and Current. Flow can be the amount of water flowing in a River, or Volts in a Electrical Circuit and, Current, how much force or power the Flow is travelling at, similar to the Current in an Electrical Circuit. These differences are defined as the H field, (Current or strength) and the B Field, (Flow or volume). Looking at Magnetic, or Electromagnetic Flux is made simple when viewed in these terms.

To move Magnetic or Electromagnetic Flux requires Force. In the terms of a River, to stop the flow of a river we must have a river flowing, equal in Flow and Current, flowing in the opposite direction to the River we wish to stop.

Like in the Flux-Gate Magnetometers, it is very important to look at The MEG in two halves. One half on one side and the other half on the other side. Each side containing a Power Coil and an Actuator Coil. The Power coil and Actuator Coil on one side do not match up as a pair. In fact the Power Coil on one side matches up with the Actuator Coil on the opposing half of The MEG.

In an idle state, The MEG has equal Flux in each side of the Core. The idea is that we want to create an imbalance with our input.

In The MEG we are stopping the Flow of Electromagnetic Flux from the Permanent Magnet on one side of The MEG at a time, (this is not entirely accurate, not quite stopping), more accurately we are re-diverting some Electromagnetic Flux, from the permanent Magnet, but we are using the opposing Path for this redirection, the Flux from this path, then moves into the opposing side of the Core. Because we have one MEG and two paths, we are simply closing one Path while having the opposing path open. This makes for greater efficiency's in the amount of force to move the Electromagnetic Flux.

A Quote from Gabriel Kron:

"...the missing concept of "open-paths" (the dual of "closed-paths") was discovered, in which currents could be made to flow in branches that lie between any set of two nodes."

Ok, is Gabriel Kron talking about Electrical Currents or could it be he is talking about Magnetic Currents? Magnetic Currents have been referred to before by many people through history and we have referred to them above. Gabriel Krons reference to "Nodes" is a Di-Pole. One set of two Poles. A Permanent Magnet is a Di-Pole, North and South Poles.

On our Input we create an imbalance, or difference in potentials on each side of the cores will give us two effects in the one action that we input.

1: Flux moved across will induce an EMF in the opposing Power Coil on the other side of the MEG.

2: Electromagnetic Flux return will create an EMF on the same side as the DC Pulse was Input.

Thus two actions output for only one action we put in. The Free action is Action Two. This is Free because Nature is inputting Energy to bring the system back into its state of balance, referred to above, equal Electromagnetic Flux in each side of the core when The MEG is in an idle state. This is what Tom Bearden refers to as Equilibrium, and how Nature will bring systems back into an Equilibrium State for Free.

We have a few things to think about now. On time of our input. Off time of our input and also the timing of the clock cycle or driving frequency of our input. Remembering we need On time of our input to re-divert the Electromagnetic Flux into the opposite path and just as important Off time to allow the Electromagnetic Flux to move back into our then closed path when our input was On, the same path which is now Open when our input is off.

The MEG Simulations:

The Basic architecture of the MEG, Magnet Placement and Actuator coil alignment and pole directions.

Graphed Input to the Actuator Coils:

Animation slowed down so it is visible what's is happening in The MEG

The Core - Metglas® Alloy 2605SA1:

 CORE # AMCC-1775 a (mm) 33.0±1.0 b (mm) 40.5±0.5 c (mm) 106.30±1.25 d (mm) 142.00±1.5 e* (mm) 106.5±2.5 f* (mm) 172.6+4.0 Lm* (cm) 39.72 Ac* (cm2) 39.36 Core Wt.±2% (gm) 11466.0 Window Area (cm2) 43.05

The material, known as Metglas, was commercialized in early 1980s and used for low-loss power distribution transformers (Amorphous metal transformer). Metglas-2605 is composed of 80% iron and 20% boron, has Curie temperature of 373 °C and a room temperature saturation magnetization of 125.7 milliteslas.

An amorphous metal is a metallic material with a disordered atomic-scale structure. In contrast to most metals, which are crystalline and therefore have a highly ordered arrangement of atoms, amorphous alloys are non-crystalline. Materials in which such a disordered structure is produced directly from the liquid state during cooling are called "glasses", and so amorphous metals are commonly referred to as "metallic glasses" or "glassy metals". However, there are several other ways in which amorphous metals can be produced, including physical vapor deposition, solid-state reaction, ion irradiation, melt spinning, and mechanical alloying. Amorphous metals produced by these techniques are, strictly speaking, not glasses. However, materials scientists commonly consider amorphous alloys to be a single class of materials, regardless of how they are prepared.

In the past, small batches of amorphous metals have been produced through a variety of quick-cooling methods. For instance, amorphous metal wires have been produced by sputtering molten metal onto a spinning metal disk. The rapid cooling, on the order of millions of degrees a second, is too fast for crystals to form and the material is "locked in" a glassy state. More recently a number of alloys with critical cooling rates low enough to allow formation of amorphous structure in thick layers (over 1 millimeter) had been produced, these are known as bulk metallic glasses (BMG). Liquidmetal sells a number of titanium-based BMGs, developed in studies originally carried out at Caltech. More recently, batches of amorphous steel have been produced that demonstrate strengths much greater than conventional steel alloys.

The alloys of boron, silicon, phosphorus, and other glass formers with magnetic metals (iron, cobalt, nickel) are magnetic, with low coercivity and high electrical resistance. The high resistance leads to low losses by eddy currents when subjected to alternating magnetic fields, a property useful for eg. transformer magnetic cores.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_metal

Typical Impedance Permeability Curves & Typical Core Loss Curves:

 General Properties & Characteristics ELECTROMAGNETIC Saturation Induction (T) As Cast 1.56 Maximum DC Permeability (µ): Annealed (High Freq.) 600,000 As Cast 45,000 Saturation Magnetostriction (ppm) 27 Electrical Resistivity (µ-cm) 130 Curie Temperature (°C) 399 PHYSICAL Thickness (mils) 1.0 Standard Available Widths Minimum (inches) 0.2 Maximum (inches) 8.4 Density (g/m3) As Cast 7.18 Vicker's Hardness (50g Load) 900 Tensile Strength (GPa) 1-2 Elastic Modulus (GPa) 100-110 Lamination Factor (%) >79 Thermal Expansion (ppm/°C) 7.6 Crystallization Temperature (°C) 508 Continuous Service Temp. (°C) 150

B H Curve:

I got my cores from http://www.uaml.net/. The Contact there is Vikas. He is very helpful. Please mention Chris from hyiq.org and Vikas will help you out.

Aharonov-Bohm Effect:

## Magnetic Aharonov–Bohm effect

The magnetic Aharonov–Bohm effect can be seen as a result of the requirement that quantum physics be invariant with respect to the gauge choice for the vector potential A. This implies that a particle with electric charge q travelling along some path P in a region with zero magnetic field ($\mathbf{B} = 0 = \nabla \times \mathbf{A}$) must acquire a phase $\varphi$, given in SI units by

$\varphi = \frac{q}{\hbar} \int_P \mathbf{A} \cdot d\mathbf{x},$

with a phase difference $\Delta\varphi$ between any two paths with the same endpoints therefore determined by the magnetic flux Φ through the area between the paths (via Stokes' theorem and $\nabla \times \mathbf{A} = \mathbf{B}$), and given by:

$\Delta\varphi = \frac{q\Phi}{\hbar}.$

This phase difference can be observed by placing a solenoid between the slits of a double-slit experiment (or equivalent). An ideal solenoid encloses a magnetic field B, but does not produce any magnetic field outside of its cylinder, and thus the charged particle (e.g. an electron) passing outside experiences no classical effect. However, there is a (curl-free) vector potential outside the solenoid with an enclosed flux, and so the relative phase of particles passing through one slit or the other is altered by whether the solenoid current is turned on or off. This corresponds to an observable shift of the interference fringes on the observation plane.

The same phase effect is responsible for the quantized-flux requirement in superconducting loops. This quantization is because the superconducting wave function must be single valued: its phase difference Δφ around a closed loop must be an integer multiple of 2π (with the charge q=2e for the electron Cooper pairs), and thus the flux Φ must be a multiple of h/2e. The superconducting flux quantum was actually predicted prior to Aharonov and Bohm, by London (1948) using a phenomenological model.

The magnetic Aharonov–Bohm effect is also closely related to Dirac's argument that the existence of a magnetic monopole necessarily implies that both electric and magnetic charges are quantized. A magnetic monopole implies a mathematical singularity in the vector potential, which can be expressed as an infinitely long Dirac string of infinitesimal diameter that contains the equivalent of all of the 4πg flux from a monopole "charge" g. Thus, assuming the absence of an infinite-range scattering effect by this arbitrary choice of singularity, the requirement of single-valued wave functions (as above) necessitates charge-quantization: $2qg/c\hbar$ must be an integer (in cgs units) for any electric charge q and magnetic charge g.

The magnetic Aharonov–Bohm effect was experimentally confirmed by Osakabe et al. (1986), following much earlier work summarized in Olariu and Popèscu (1984). Its scope and application continues to expand. Webb et al. (1985) demonstrated Aharonov–Bohm oscillations in ordinary, non-superconducting metallic rings; for a discussion, see Schwarzschild (1986) and Imry & Webb (1989). Bachtold et al. (1999) detected the effect in carbon nanotubes; for a discussion, see Kong et al. (2004).

## Electric Aharonov–Bohm effect

Just as the phase of the wave function depends upon the magnetic vector potential, it also depends upon the scalar electric potential. By constructing a situation in which the electrostatic potential varies for two paths of a particle, through regions of zero electric field, an observable Aharonov–Bohm interference phenomenon from the phase shift has been predicted; again, the absence of an electric field means that, classically, there would be no effect.

From the Schrödinger equation, the phase of an eigenfunction with energy E goes as $\exp(-iEt/\hbar)$. The energy, however, will depend upon the electrostatic potential V for a particle with charge q. In particular, for a region with constant potential V (zero field), the electric potential energy qV is simply added to E, resulting in a phase shift:

$\Delta\phi = -\frac{qVt}{\hbar} ,$

where t is the time spent in the potential.

The initial theoretical proposal for this effect suggested an experiment where charges pass through conducting cylinders along two paths, which shield the particles from external electric fields in the regions where they travel, but still allow a varying potential to be applied by charging the cylinders. This proved difficult to realize, however. Instead, a different experiment was proposed involving a ring geometry interrupted by tunnel barriers, with a bias voltage V relating the potentials of the two halves of the ring. This situation results in an Aharonov–Bohm phase shift as above, and was observed experimentally in 1998.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm_effect

 Other Successful MEG Replications: Please visit Jean-Louis Naudin's MEG Replications at: V1: http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv1.htm V2: http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv2.htm V2.1: http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm V4: http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg4cf.htm Please Note: The MEG is a Patented Device. Please help get the MEG into Production help Fund the MEG. Please direct all MEG Enquiries to Dr. Lee Kenny President, Magnetic Energy Ltd. jlkenny@knology.net

• By: hyiq.org (Chris)
• Created: 17/06/2009 5:24:32 PM
• Modified: 10/10/2013 5:26:38 PM