278 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
278 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
______________________________________________________________________________
|
|
| File Name : NORMRA.ASC | Online Date : 09/05/95 |
|
|
| Contributed by : Frode Olsen | Dir Category : ENERGY |
|
|
| From : KeelyNet BBS | DataLine : (214) 324-3501 |
|
|
| KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187 |
|
|
| A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences |
|
|
| InterNet email keelynet@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Decker) |
|
|
| Bill Beaty's Alternative Science Web site http://www.eskimo.com/~billb |
|
|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
The following excellent file also has two diagrams. The files are listed on
|
|
KeelyNet as:
|
|
NORMRA.ASC - text description
|
|
NORMRA1.GIF - circuit diagram
|
|
NORMRA2.GIF - magnet layout
|
|
|
|
NORMRA.ZIP - all of the above files
|
|
|
|
Frode and his associates in the Norwegian Free Energy group are to be highly
|
|
commended for their initiative in trying to quantify free energy by actual
|
|
experiments. Ideally, if many people would take this experimental approach
|
|
and share their findings (positive or negative) through a common, open
|
|
information exchange forum, we would progress at a MUCH faster rate.
|
|
|
|
Many people have equipment, knowledge and/or funds to to carry out various
|
|
experiments. The problem is getting them inspired enough to do it. Why
|
|
should we all waste time and money in chasing projects which have been proven
|
|
unworkable and openly shared with everyone to eliminate that path?
|
|
|
|
Thank you Frode and other members of the Norwegian Free Energy group for
|
|
sharing the results of your experiment!
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
To : ALL
|
|
|
|
From : Frode Olsen
|
|
|
|
Comments to sysop:
|
|
|
|
Jerry, could you please place this as a message if you think it would be of
|
|
interest to anyone. I uploaded it as a file to save time. I don't like to be
|
|
the bringer of bad news, but you encourage experiments to validate/refute the
|
|
different claims, and so we did. Our group will continue to systematically
|
|
experiment to check out designs. The next may be the TOMI or the HUMMEL disk.
|
|
..............................................................................
|
|
This file/message was put together by the Norwegian Free Energy group, for
|
|
Keelynet.
|
|
|
|
The background, or reason the experiment was conducted was to clarify whether
|
|
or not the claims made for the MRA would hold.
|
|
|
|
The experiment was conducted by one engineer, and two persons with a Masters
|
|
degree in Radio Electronics.
|
|
|
|
Date : 8th of July - 1995
|
|
|
|
Equipment : 2 channel - 20 Mhz Oscilloscope
|
|
Fluke meter
|
|
LF (low frequency) generator
|
|
|
|
The MRA was made up of a core made of 4 BaFe, 300 mT permanent magnets.
|
|
|
|
The 0,1 mm Cu-wire was wrapped on top of a single layer of ordinary letter
|
|
paper to get a smooth surface for the coils.
|
|
|
|
L1 was put on first, then a single layer of plastic tape to smooth the
|
|
surface, then L2 was put on top of this. Another single layer of tape held it
|
|
all together.
|
|
|
|
We first tested the MRA with no load to see if it had the characteristics that
|
|
are described for the MRA. On a generator with a high output impedance, the
|
|
voltage went from 14 volt input to 160 volt measured across the coil L1 only.
|
|
This signifies series-resonance at the input.
|
|
|
|
Now having shown that the mini-MRA performed as described, the real test would
|
|
be to measure RMS voltage and RMS current at the input, and calculate the REAL
|
|
input power. Then measure the RMS voltage across the load resistor and find
|
|
REAL output power.
|
|
|
|
Only these quantities would be a real measure of the performance of the MRA.
|
|
|
|
The RMS voltage and RMS current at the input was measured on the two channels
|
|
on the scope. The peak-to-peak voltage was measured across the input, and the
|
|
RMS voltage was calculated. The P-P current was measured across the 10,4 ohm
|
|
series resistor, and the RMS current was calculated.
|
|
|
|
The frequency was tuned so that the phase difference in all the measurements
|
|
in this first part of the experiment was less than 18 degrees, that is, the
|
|
COS PHI error in all the measurements was less than 5%.
|
|
|
|
The output P-P voltage was then measured on the output by the scope, and the
|
|
RMS voltage and the power was calculated. Now the input and output REAL power
|
|
was compared.
|
|
|
|
Table 1 shows the results of the first experiment. This was conducted to find
|
|
the optimal resistive load, i.e. the load which would give the highest output,
|
|
or the least mismatch.
|
|
|
|
Table 1 I II III IV V VI
|
|
(units)
|
|
RL ohm 5,2 10,2 46,2 100,2 326 466
|
|
Ui Vrms 1,91 2,02 2,4 2,4 2,2 2,1
|
|
Ii mA rms 11,6 10 6,3 5,3 9,5 11,4
|
|
Pi mW 22 20 15 13 21 24
|
|
Uo Vrms 0,149 0,269 0,689 1 2,16 2,55
|
|
Po mW 4,24 7 10,3 10,1 14,3 13,9
|
|
Fo [KHz] 248 248 230 183 151 148
|
|
n = eff % 19% 35% 69% 78% 67% 57%
|
|
|
|
|
|
We see that column 4 has the highest efficiency. The optimum load for the
|
|
experiment would therefore be 100,2 ohm. Now having scanned through the
|
|
resistance values, and found the optimum, we were ready to scan the frequency
|
|
with 100,2 ohm load.
|
|
|
|
Table 2 shows the result. This experiment required us to measure the angle
|
|
between the input voltage and the input current and correct the calculated
|
|
power by multiplying by COS PHI. At each frequency, the angle was measured on
|
|
the scope at the zero crossing of the two sine waves.
|
|
|
|
Table 2 I II III IV V
|
|
(units)
|
|
fo [KHz] 160 182 216 313 600
|
|
Ui Vrms 2,4 2,4 2,48 2,58 2,62
|
|
Ii mA rms 5,95 5,4 4,49 2,86 1,56
|
|
Pi mW 13,5 13 10,7 6,2 3,76
|
|
Uo Vrms 1,03 1,03 0,94 0,707 0,552
|
|
Po mW 10,5 10,5 8,76 5 3,04
|
|
n = eff 78% 80% 82% 80% 80%
|
|
cos phi 0,945 0 0,966 0,841 0,92
|
|
phi degree 19 deg 0 deg 15 deg 32,7 deg 23 deg
|
|
|
|
From these measurements we conclude that the MRA DOES NOT give more power
|
|
output than it requires on the input when put to the test.
|
|
|
|
The important issue seems to be THE WAY the input power is MEASURED.
|
|
|
|
Note that there were no alterations on the output with or without the series-
|
|
resistor of 10,4 ohm necessary to measure accurately the input current by
|
|
scope. Therefore, the argument that this resistor destroys the Free Energy
|
|
production characteristic does not hold.
|
|
|
|
We have carried out these experiments to the best of our ability, and used the
|
|
present scientific conventions when measuring power.
|
|
|
|
One interesting aspect was found in table 1. When the load resistance was
|
|
varied, the local peak in output power at 10,3 mW was not found at the same
|
|
resistance value as the lowest input power at 13 mW.
|
|
|
|
The accuracy of our results should be well within the accuracy of the first
|
|
table, that is within 5%.
|
|
|
|
We then conclude that the MRA has an efficiency of 75% to 85%.
|
|
|
|
This is well below unity, very far from 1200% as claimed, and of the same
|
|
order of magnitude of measured efficiency as found in the independent test
|
|
carried out by Dr. Harold Puthoff and Scott Little.
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Vanguard note..
|
|
|
|
The preceding report is the second actual file test data we have received at
|
|
KeelyNet since the original MRA paper. The first test was carried out by Dr.
|
|
Harold Puthoff and Scott Little, yielding considerably less than unity
|
|
efficiencies.
|
|
|
|
There are three files from Puthoff/Little where they go to great lengths to
|
|
try to make the device work as claimed (from the original MRA file) indicate.
|
|
These include Puthoff/Little admitting that IF YOU USE THE MEASUREMENT METHOD
|
|
by McClain/Wootan, YES, it will APPEAR to yield over-unity.
|
|
|
|
The three files from Puthoff/Little are available on KeelyNet as MRATEST1,
|
|
MRAERROR, MRACLAR should you wish to study their findings.
|
|
|
|
A short excerpt from MRACLAR;
|
|
|
|
Some people have suggested that the presence of this resistor is the reason
|
|
that our MRA device did not produce over-unity results. This is not the
|
|
case. With the resistor present we observed THE SAME over-unity results
|
|
claimed by McClain and Wooten WHEN WE USED their measurement procedure.
|
|
|
|
Specifically, at a frequency just below resonance, where the DC output is
|
|
about 85% of maximum, we demonstrated with our equipment that the McClain
|
|
and Wooten method of input power determination yields an efficiency of
|
|
536%. In other words, we REPRODUCED the results of McClain and Wooten
|
|
PERFECTLY. The MRA worked just as they claimed it would.
|
|
|
|
At the same operating frequency we recorded high-resolution traces of input
|
|
voltage and current with our digital scope and used them to compute the
|
|
true input power to the MRA. This data showed the MRA to be only about
|
|
50% efficient.
|
|
|
|
Therefore it was not a matter of MRA performance but a matter of
|
|
measurement technique that disconfirmed the over-unity results.
|
|
|
|
In our original report we explained why the methods of McClain and Wooten
|
|
yield erroneous results. For the basic AC circuit theory that underlies
|
|
our discussion we would recommend any of a number of excellent texts on
|
|
this subject, for example "Principles of Linear Networks" by Friedland,
|
|
Wing & Ash, McGraw-Hill, 1961.
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
|
|
|
The above NORMRA from the Norwegian Free Energy group is the second file that
|
|
has been received at KeelyNet providing test results as well as the equipment
|
|
and circuit used. Unfortunately, the Norwegian Free Energy group was not able
|
|
to show anything near overunity.
|
|
|
|
To date, all the contacts I have received here at KeelyNet, by phone and
|
|
email, regarding duplication of the MRA have reported NO SUCCESS in being able
|
|
to duplicate over-unity.
|
|
|
|
On a personal note, I am frustrated with the entire subject of the MRA. It
|
|
either works or it doesn't, and the facts provided as well as contacts I've
|
|
had with various experimenters thus far indicate it does not.
|
|
|
|
Measurement error is the likely culprit as was seen in the TOD circuit from
|
|
1993 and pointed out in the MRA by both Puthoff/Little and the Norwegian Free
|
|
Energy group. It is not the first time, nor will it be the last that such
|
|
error has led to an overnunity conclusion.
|
|
|
|
I know Joel and Norm personally and they are sincere and very honest about
|
|
their work with the MRA. They have never tried to use the MRA to make money
|
|
or promote any kind of scam, instead, they simply wished to share what
|
|
appeared to be a wonderful discovery with all who might be interested.
|
|
|
|
So, what has KeelyNet learned from this? The question arises as to when is
|
|
the appropriate time to release information relating to such devices.
|
|
|
|
1) Should a potential overunity circuit/project be released as soon as
|
|
possible upon preliminary test of the circuit?
|
|
2) Should the inventor wait until he has a working model that indeed runs
|
|
itself and operates a small load, a test that would be very hard to
|
|
refute?
|
|
3) Or opt for a combination of the two, with absolutely clear statements
|
|
that this is an anomaly which APPEARS to produce overunity.
|
|
|
|
Any devices of this nature that are released via KeelyNet in future will
|
|
clearly indicate they are preliminary and no claims are made whatsoever UNTIL
|
|
the device has been verified as truly overunity (self-running) by at least two
|
|
independent researchers.
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, the confusion and headaches that have swirled around the claims
|
|
associated with the MRA to date have been extremely dissipative towards the
|
|
entire free energy community. We don't need negative feelings in the vein
|
|
that we are half baked about our ideas or claims, crying wolf (over-unity)
|
|
each time something 'new' pops up.
|
|
|
|
Again, there are numerous claims of duplication of the over-unity MRA, but
|
|
nothing has been provided or openly published as to DETAILS of such successful
|
|
duplications (with the possible exception of Hodowanec), particularly in the
|
|
final test, where it will not only RUN ITSELF but will also sustain a small
|
|
load. To my knowledge, no self-running MRA model has even been hinted at as
|
|
being achieved.
|
|
|
|
Once such a point of failure has been empirically reached, one must make the
|
|
choice, continue spending time, money and resources in an attempt to make the
|
|
circuit work with an undying faith, or GO ON to a more viable project.
|
|
|
|
Due to the lack of confirming evidence as provided in the form of test
|
|
results, circuit and equipment used, future MRA information on KeelyNet will
|
|
be limited to confirming evidence or none at all. There are many paths to the
|
|
mountain top.
|
|
|
|
For your information, both MRA inventors have changed addresses and declined
|
|
allowing me to publicly post a mailing address/phone number or other contact
|
|
point on KeelyNet so that interested experimenters can contact them directly.
|
|
|
|
I regret and apologize for any mis-representations that were made on KeelyNet
|
|
which might have caused you to spend money or time on a project which was not
|
|
properly verified before being posted. Perhaps there is still hope for the
|
|
MRA, but at this point, all indications are it does not work. However, there
|
|
are many other non-MRA approaches which KeelyNet will post in future.
|
|
|
|
Keep after it, being honest, providing constructive criticism and suggestions,
|
|
experimenting, working together and sharing information, we will figure out
|
|
how to achieve over-unity and get it out to everyone. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Jerry W. Decker/Sysop/KeelyNet
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|