Bill McMurtry wrote:
> Hi Norm,
>
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >