Re: What is the costs of charging for overunity tech? (WAS:
Norman Wootan ( normw@fastlane.net )
Sat, 15 Aug 1998 13:07:05 -0500
Hi! Bill: Excellent questions. Thanks for your interest in the MRA Project.
Regarding the Hal/Little test on the MRA it is all too simple to explain. Pick
up any good text book on Series and Parallel Resonance Circuits such as
Electrical Engineering by Ternman, Dean of Electrical Engineering, Stanford U.
1955 and you will understand how the MRA works. When you have a finely tuned
resonant circuit running at very high "Q" with a very pronounced resonant peak
you will have a phenomenon which Ternman describes as a greater circulating
current than input current into the circuit by the "Q" ratio. We were tapping
off this anomalous circulating current by our Phi ratio secondary circuit. When
Hal and Scott inserted a lump resistance into the primary circuit they in effect
cut off the resonant peak and dropped the circuit out of the high "Q" gain which
gave a 50% of unity report. Any Electrical Engineer will tell you that insertion
of lump resistance is how you flatten the resonant peak out and establish band
width. The MRA will not display O/U characteristic unless it is finely tuned
into this region of ultra high "Q". Our problem was with matching circuit
components that would work together. An example was with the piezo element which
Jerry, Bert and I bought from Tanner Electronics here in Dallas. Only about one
in five would produce the effect that we needed. We found that the primary had
to be wound with at least 22 Ga. AWG stranded (preferably silver tinned) wire so
as to cut the primary resistance down so as to produce a sharp resonant peak.
Remember resistance in the circuit will cut off the resonant peak. We found that
Phi ratio winding Primary/ secondary 1.618:1 worked best. We rectified all
secondary output via full wave bridge with big filter caps so as to have true
D.C. for output measurement. Oh! the secondary was generally wound with 18 Ga.
AWG stranded for low resistance. The only way that Joel and I found to measure
input power was with an equivalent resistance test for inserting resistance into
the circuit would upset the resonance characteristics of the circuit. It is
rather complicated I realize. Tom Bearden wrote an excellent paper for us
regarding testing of this type of circuit. He basically stated that modern test
equipment falls short in capabilities when it come to measuring these anomalies
circuit behavior. Regarding the comments about sharing free energy ideas, you
bet, for if I had it to do all over again I would put the idea out there for all
to share in the development and heart aches. Flames from the establishment are
to be expected so take them with a grain of salt. An individual researcher will
never be able to come up with the necessary fund to flesh out a prototype and put
it into a saleable product. Patents are for big companies that have to answer to
stock holders who expect a protected market segment before funds can be allocated
ot research and development. Patents do not prevent you as an individual from
building any thing for your own us in your household. You just cannot build a
product for sale to others if a patent exist. Basically people are lazy and will
not put forth the effort to build anything. If you can't put together a kit or
buy it from "Wally-World" they are not interested. Remember that cable TV,
Budwiser and Bass Boats prevail in own modern world. As to patenting an
over-unity device, we had documented evidence in our patent application as to
over-unity and the patent office was going to issue the patent until someone
intervened from higher up in government. I hope I have answered your
questions. When Jerry post the balance of the old BBS dialog messages after
the 6000 series you will have access to all the tech messages that Joel and I
posted regarding the MRA development. This was from the fall of 1994 up until
summer of 1995. There are litterly hundreds of messages related to this projest
that are very informative. Norm
Bill McMurtry wrote:
> Hi Norm,
>
> On the topic of the MRA - a few years ago I followed the progress on this
> device quite closely. I still find the system quite interesting in many
> respects. Hal Putoff reported on his testing of the device and could find
> no indication of O.U. after input/output power measurements. I was
> wondering if you could comment on this and if you agree with Hal's finding
> or not?
>
> I've often wondered how one could patent any potential 'free energy' device
> without threatening free public disclosure. It would seem that your
> experience indicates that there are some serious problems with the patent
> system when it comes to the need to claim priority on a concept AND give
> that concept information freely to the public. Does this mean that it is
> both futile and dangerous to attempt public disclosure AND patent an O.U.
> device? What would be your approach after these experiences?
>
> Regards, Bill.
>
> At 17:22 14/08/98 -0500, Norman Wootan wrote:
> >Hi! Frank: I have not communicated with you before but I will throw in a
> comment
> >regarding this thread. If you will go to the archive and dig out my 27
> Mar.98
> >comment to Jerry about the MRA project you will see that My and Joel's
> intent was
> >to share the knowledge with everyone in the world who has access to the
> internet.
> >This we did and was noticed by the U.S. Patent Office who contacted us and
> almost
> >demanded that we file a patent on the technology so that the U.S. would
> control the
> >technology if it proved out. We demonstrated the MRA to IBM engineers and
> >Procurement executives who told us that they would not attempt to develop
> it as a
> >power source for lap top computers until such time as we had a patent on the
> >technology. The only way a theoretical model can be turned into a product
> is by
> >investment of R&D funds on a large scale. We tried to do the right thing
> and was
> >stopped by some un-seen intervention by (I suspect, NSA) in the 11:59 hour
> at the
> >patent office. They requested a complete file on the project which was
> provided
> >to them months before the Patent Office action.