Hey, Robin and George... wait a minute----
Naudin apparently incorporated the low duty cycle in his
calculations (in a non-standard way) by figuring the "average
value" by multiplying the peak voltage (from a 12 volt power DC
battery power supply) by the duty cycle to give an average voltage
... However, you now seem to be suggesting that he is off by a
factor of 20, because he did this -as if there was no duty cycle?
that's ridiculous ....
Actually it does seem slightly off as it should be closer to .6
than below .5 but that is not a huge problem and he does say that
he checked it with two different meters so the difference is
probably due to losses in the solid-state pulse unit. Whether
those losses should be attributed to the MAHG or not is an open
question, but... it is relatively small.
He is using square waves so there is no need for a significant
power factor correction. He has a very fast O'scope. How can there
be a phasing problem? He is apparently-cross checking at the
battery itself - which is a DC reading (at least the battery
appears connected to a scope).
I think you guys are NOT giving the guy enough credit.
For him to be unknowingly putting enough power into the MAHG (the
same 100 watts he gets on output), using the low duty cycle, he
would need to be drawing approximately 4000 amp pulses from a 120
amp battery (@ 5% DC) ... no way !!
You (Robin, at least) is willing to accept Mills equally
surprising claims - whereas Mills gives almost zero detail, and
often bases his P-out claims on guess-timates of what the power
would be IF the photon radiation were converted, and yet in
comparison, here we have what looks to be very fairly solid
readings of "real" power, not Mills' guesstimated power, and
yet...you guys are balking because of what, exactly?
....yes, if memory serves, 6 years ago Naudin did follow Bearden's
dictates and instructions and reported erroneous power from the
MEG - is that what this is about? That was a stupid error, but it
was a VERY different situation....give the guy some credit, or
please at least let us know exactly why it is that your think the
data is off now.
I don't see the problem - yet I understand why the 20x figure
seems coincidental (and also why the 50 cycle thing seems
coincidental) - but surely we can come up with something more than
vague innuendo based on being overly influence by Bearden (which
is probably why he won't answer mail from the USA)...
What assumptions did you make to allow the calculation of input
power during the pulse? Are the numbers that JLN reports
actually
average voltage and current as the labels, now changed, on his
web site once indicated? If they are, the input power calculations
are low by a factor of 1/(duty cycle) or about 20 and the system
actually is close to unity.
George is correct. This really needs to be clarified before
indulging in any speculation as to the "energy source".
