Absolutely correct on high Q and lumped resistance. The measurement method
used by Hal/Little would have destroyed the very effect that you guys went
to so much trouble to create. So, is the present standing on the MRA device
simply that it has not been suitably, independantly, tested yet? Obviously
any measurements taken within the resonant loop will potentially effect the
operation of the circuit, as you know. Why not just make comparitive
readings from an input supply battery source and the D.C. output to provide
overall circuit gain figures (ie: supply battery voltage decrease over time
is determined by a specific load)?
Regards, Bill.
At 13:07 15/08/98 -0500, Norman Wootan wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
>
>