Joel McCLAIN & Norman WOOTAN

The Magnetic Resonance Amplifier

An Introduction to the Magnetic Resonance Amplifier

by Joel McClain & Norman Wootan

With low-level ultrasonic input signals, the Magnetic Resonance Amplifier (MRA) produces usable direct current power at levels above unity. This circuit is based upon the work and theories of John Ernst Worrell Keely, and is offered into the public domain in his memory.

Introduction ~

Without lengthy discussion about the aether, tetrahedral geometric aggregate resonance or the Rule of Nines, it is possible to understand this circuit as basically a tuned magnetic and quartz amplifier.

However, it was necessary to study those subjects in order to design and build the MRA, so if you want to fully realize how it works, avail yourself of the files on KeelyNet which contain all of that and much more.

In the MRA schematic below, there is a tunable low-power oscillator which supplies a signal to one side of a barium titanate transducer. The opposite side of the transducer is connected to a primary coil which is wrapped around a barium ferrite magnet core. The opposite end of the primary goes back to the oscillator.

A secondary is wrapped around the primary and is connected to an ordinary bridge rectifier, and the output of the bridge is applied to a DC load. A filter capacitor can be used on the output of the bridge, and was used on the MRA which we built. Additionally, a load resistor across the capacitor will keep the output DC from getting too high as the circuit is tuned. We found that a 30 ohm, 10 watt resistor was sufficient.

Once this has been assembled, put a voltmeter across the output resistor to monitor the voltage rise as the circuit is tuned. Adjust the oscillator frequency to provide the highest DC output. During this process, be aware that the voltages across the piezo and the coil will be very much higher than the signal level which you are applying. We have seen combined voltages of almost 1,000 volts AC with only 30 volts AC of signal input.

When the circuit is tuned, the magnet will be "singing" at around 8,000 to 11,000 Hz. If the piezo sings, you are exceeding its power capabilities and will need to reduce the number of turns on your primary. The frequency that resonates both the piezo and the magnet at optimum resonance will be three times (three octaves above) the frequency at which the magnet is singing.

This is the nine harmonics that are mentioned in the Rule of Nines.

To test the circuit, place a precision, high wattage, low ohm resistor in series with the output from the oscillator to the piezo, and measure the voltage drop. It should be very small, less than 0.1 volt AC. Use this value to determine current in the series circuit, and then calculate power.

Next, measure the DC voltage across your output load resistor, and once again calculate power. You should be between three to four times above the previously calculated input power.

Once the circuit is in operation, you will note that the voltage will vary by 0.1 volt DC or more, depending upon the time of day. This is due to the nature of etheric forces inherent in the Earth's magnetic field. Watch for peak voltage at or before sunrise.

In our circuit, we measured 0.084 volt AC drop across a 2 ohm series resistor, for a total of 0.685 W dissipation in the primary. With this, we attained 2.75 W of output power and used this to drive a lamp and a motor. Increasing the signal voltage had the effect of decreasing the primary current while boosting output power, thus improving the power gain ratio. We believe that larger power systems can be built by using larger coils, more piezos, and a lower frequency, as long as the aggregate combination is within the resonant frequency range of the components.

The MRA is essentially a means of releasing the electrical energy stored in magnets. As such, it is an AC battery with DC output. It can be used for a portable, self-charging power supply with a solid state oscillator and rechargeable battery. For those who want a synopsis of the technology, the following paragraphs are offered, but it is strongly suggested that you follow up this reading with a more thorough study of the KeelyNet files.

Matter = Energy. To change matter, change the energy. Creation of a magnet is achieved by a process which causes the matter to be both expanded and compressed at the same time, with the result that a magnet is in a constant state of collapse. This is why magnets attract material with similar lattice structures, as they attempt to fill the energy void which created them. The "domains" of the magnet are fixed after the process of magnetization, and the only way to extract electrical energy is to physically spin a coil relative to a magnet.

However, it is also possible to induce virtual rotation by applying the resonant frequency of the magnet, which causes the lattices and the domains to vibrate. However, the power required to do this is greater than the energy released by the virtual rotation. Therefore it is necessary to increase the vibration without using excessive current.

The piezo has a virtually inexhaustible supply of free electrons, and it releases them when it is stressed. Using the piezo in series with the primary coil will almost eliminate primary current, because it is voltage which stresses the piezo, not current. Therefore the piezo can be stressed with very little actual power, and provide the current to the primary coil which vibrates the domains of the magnet.

The piezo is the catalyst for the circulating current with the primary coil. The circulating current is additive, and this is the reason for the high potentials developed across both the piezo and the primary coil.

It is at this point that resonance becomes important. You must have three octaves of separation between the magnet resonant frequency and the signal supplied to the piezo. The circulating current is rich in harmonics, and this is necessary for the operation of the circuit.

Although the circuit is simple, it utilizes the concepts of phi, of virtual rotation, of tetrahedral geometry, piezo and transformer theory, and electrical knowledge. It is not suggested as a beginner project, because of the high voltages present. For engineers and technicians of experience, it may be difficult to accept that the MRA is above unity. The ramifications are enormous. Hopefully, it will help to build a better world.

The Magnetic Resonance Amplifier: Description of Operation

by
Joel McClain

The MRA is a series resonant LC circuit in which power gain is attainable as a result of the increase in effective impedance under certain operating conditions. When the series impedance increases, primary current is reduced. When the power available from the secondary coil either remains the same or increases as the primary circuit impedance increases, a power gain occurs.

This is not possible with a series resonant circuit made of conventional materials. Even unity power transfer is considered to be unattainable as a result of accumulated losses in the components, which are passive (reactive) devices. Materials and construction methods are chosen for these components based upon the type of application and frequency to be applied, with the goal of minimizing losses.

A typical capacitor with polyethylene dielectric has a dielectric constant of 2.3 times that of air. Air has a constant of 1.0, and is the basis for comparison. Titanium dioxide, however, has a dielectric constant maximum of 170, and a corresponding power factor of only 0.0006, comparable with polyethylene, so that the dissipation of primary current in the dielectric is extremely low. This is where the comparison ends, because the titanium composite "capacitor" is also a piezoelectric device as well as an excellent capacitor.

Heat adversely affects the power factor of most dielectric materials. Titanium zirconate, however, contains polar molecules which rotate as thermal pressure is applied. This rotation increases the dielectric constant if the frequency applied is equal to or lower than the resonant frequency of the dielectric.

At series resonance, the rotation of polar molecules contributes to heat; as the dielectric constant increases, a corresponding release of free electrons occurs, as a direct result of the piezoelectric properties of the device.

In application, the MRA is tuned at resonance for maximum power transfer, then detuned slightly for maximum power gain. This relates directly to the use of thermal pressure at resonance, and the effect that this has on continued polar rotation and the release of donor electrons.

The coil, or primary of the MRA is a magnetic core which, relative to the fixed capacitance of the piezo, is a tuned permeability device. This is often used in RF devices to attain a stable resonant frequency. Magnetic materials are chosen based upon the operating characteristics of the intended application to reduce eddy currents in the operating range.

In these applications, the resonant frequency of the magnet itself is avoided, as this would "beat" with the oscillating current. However, in the MRA, this is the exact effect which we want.

The barium ferrite magnet resonates audibly at frequencies which are harmonics of the series resonant frequency. The effect of this in a typical audio application is called harmonic distortion, and is not desirable, but once again, in the MRA, this is what we want to occur.

There is energy in the harmonics, and this energy serves to both counter eddy losses as well as to oppose primary current flow, while contributing to circulating current within the resonant circuit.

The net effect of this, is that when the MRA is detuned, harmonics of the audible frequency "beat" with primary current, opposing its flow, while the increase in circulating current couples more power to the secondary, and therefore to the load. This is how the power gain is attained, basically by considering the naturally occuring harmonics as beneficial instead of as undesirable effects to be filtered out.

When the MRA is detuned, the effective impedance increases as seen by the source, while the power available to the load decreases in less proportion. This is measurable by using resistive equivalent circuit testing. However, the detuning is load dependent, and slight adjustments are required if the load requirement is greater than the power band of a harmonic interaction.

After retuning, the power to the load will increase in quantum intervals as the circulating current is reinforced by the reaction of the permeable magnet core. This will be seen as slight incremental voltage increases across the load device.

Once the magnet is "ringing", it's frequency and therefore harmonics remain stable, as long as the series resonant range is not exceeded. Therefore, the detuning affects the piezo only, and the circulating current increase is a result of the phase relationship between the harmonic and the source.

Voltage amplification is seen across the primary, measurably higher than the source voltage, and this is "seen" by the secondary. This is not the same thing as a power gain, because the power gain is a direct result of effective impedance.

It should also be noted that the term "virtual rotation" has been applied in describing the operation of the MRA. The comparison is made with a generator, in which relative motion occurs between a coil and magnet. Rather than use physical energy to rotate a mass, the MRA uses resonance to rotate the energy.

This is seen in the polar rotation of the piezo dielectric as well as in the molecular energy occuring in the reactive component of the magnet, ie, the ringing. The lattice structures of the piezo and magnet are compatible for virtual rotation, and the materials complement each other electrically.

In the past, researchers have noted many effects which occur at aggregate resonance, which typically includes a range of three octaves. Anomalous energy gains were referred to as "aetheric". The aether was believed to exist outside of the three physical dimensions, and could be "tapped" for free energy at resonance.

Aetheric energy is said to be limitless, but to vary locally with increases in earth magnetic fields at sunset and sunrise, like the tides of an infinite ocean. This effect is not thoroughly understood, but has been observed in the MRA, as increases in output in the early morning, and decreases in the early evening. This is still being studied.

Experimentation will determine the optimum MRA design for a specific range of applications.

Vanguard Note

The use of Lenz Law (back EMF) is legend in free energy circuits. When the back EMF is reversed and phase matched to the forward EMF, you have an increase in efficiency because of the reduction of eddy current heating through the addition of the previously wasted power.

This is generally understood to apply primarily to magnetic flux, yet because frequency is involved, phase conjugate principles play a major part. Phase conjugation applies to all frequencies regardless of the type of energy being used. Harmony (constructive interference) and dissonance (destructive interference) are controlled using phasing and frequency relationships.

If the rhythmic energy flowing through the mass is made resonant to the mass aggregate resonance, you further reduce the resistance and impedance, thereby achieving unity and in some cases overunity.

Most people want clean and simple circuits. These would not entail physical motion or large inductive masses as are encountered in orthodox generators. The MRA circuit fits this approach very nicely because it does not involve moving mass, but rather moving energy harmoniously to produce energy.

Further information on the MRA, its operational characteristics, correlations and updates will be provided as they are documented.

New ZPE Breakthru - Magnetic Resonance Amplifier

by
Joel McClain & Norman Wootan

Please NOTE: This is a preliminary report that will be followed by updates with more detail. Future versions will include various measurements of the components used in the circuit that is currently running. From all appearances at this date, the circuit components will simply give varying outputs and do not appear to be all that critical.

It was felt that this information should be released to the public as rapidly as possible, rather than risk loss of the information or the demo by 'circumstances' beyond our control. There have been too many discoveries which have disappeared by not being openly shared. We would rather risk being 'flamed' by other experimenters who actually BUILD THE CIRCUIT than take the chance of the information being lost by keeping it within a select group.

Our two primary fears are that someone will attempt to patent what is intended to be a gift to humanity, possibly with an intent to profit from others work or to lock it away, the other that it might be suppressed in some other fashion.

Therefore, the widest possible distribution is requested, and duplication attempted wherever possible. At the time of this correction to the original file, we have confirmation as to the numbers and others are working on the circuit on their own. Please take this information in the spirit of how it is given, as a gift to humanity.

The inventors are Joel McClain and Norman Wootan. You can contact them via KeelyNet or directly.

The circuit is being tested at various levels and attempts at duplication are under way. At this point, there is only one circuit. We will openly post other successful duplications or failures. Please feel free to try it yourself. The cost is minimal.

One other point, the crystal transducer was thought to be barium titanate and there is reason to believe it is in fact titanium zirconate. These are disc shaped, about 3" in diameter with a 1" diameter hole in the center. The disc is about 3/8" thick and is coated with silver on both sides. Thank you for your open- mindedness. They are advertised in the back of many electronics magazines for about \$5 each. We have access to a small stock and might offer them for experiments should people ask for them.

Good luck, and SEIZE THE DAY!

Vangard Note

This device incorporates power multiplication principles using multiple resonances as claimed by Keely and Hendershot. It also corresponds in some ways with Floyd Sweet's VTA and Joe Parr's energy spheres from pyramids.

Joel called Sunday night in an excited state. He and Norman took turns explaining what they had achieved using this circuit. The power input measurements were about 600mWatts and yet the circuit was generating about 2.5 Watts on the output. Norman hooked up a DC motor and he said it was spinning like crazy in addition to a light bulb glowing brightly.

Norman was laughing and said they'd beat Harold Puthoffs' One Watt Challenge as issued at the 1994 ISNE conference in Denver. This has created quite a bit of excitement and Puthoff now has a faxed copy of the circuit. No doubt it will be everywhere in a very short time. The hope by Joel and Norman is that others will duplicate the initial effect and be able to expand on it to derive useful power.

Sweet claimed something on the order of 1:3,000,000 over-unity. The input power to his device was 10 VAC at 29 uamps (290mWatts). The output had been loaded to as high as 3,000 Watts.

The initial MRA circuit is something on the order of 1:5 and is believed to be scalable. Joel says the coil he had wound around the barium ferrite magnet was not in the least precision and he is of the mind that a huge coil surrounding the magnet will produce a proportional increase in power.

Early talks with various KeelyNetters about the Sweet circuit led many of us to believe that Barium, when excited, rings for a long time when the exciter is removed. At the ISNE conference, Don Watson confirmed this with his analogy of glowing luciferase as found in fireflys or other phosphorescent materials. A weak stimulation continues to produce light for a time after the stimulation is removed.

So, here is a wonderful opportunity to build a pioneering device. If you have questions or suggestions, you may direct them to Joel McClain or Norman Wootan at KeelyNet.

I think they both need to be commended for their willingness to share what many would keep proprietary or die with the secret.

Ferroelectric Capacitors & the Magnetic Resonance Amplifier

by
Tom Bearden

In a nonlinear ferroelectric capacitor there are three major nonlinear processes involved, so it is possible to carefully choose and arrange conditions so that the current through the capacitor moves against the voltage across its terminals.

With adroit switching and timing, and some consideration for resonance effects, it is in theory possible to use such highly nonlinear effects in a circuit to allow (1) an overpotential at the terminals of the battery as a reaction from the ferroelectric capacitor, (2) consequent recharging of the battery via that back potential on the battery side, while the load is also being powered, (3) consequent driving of the load on the load side of the terminals, and (4) having a bypass ferroelectric capacitor across the terminals of the battery, where the capacitor is in the "current against the voltage" condition.

McLain and Wooten patented a great little MRA (Magnetic Resonance Amplifier) system, based on that application. Dr. Robert Bass, a very fine electrodynamicist of exceptional knowledge, experience, and ability wrote the patent for them, and assisted in their work. For that he was persecuted, unjustly attacked, and suffered financial difficulties. The "system" does not forgive highly qualified scientists who take a serious interest in "perpetual motion machines" -- as permissible Maxwellian open dissipative systems are erroneously and derogatorily labeled by the orthodox scientific community. Any scientist violating that inquisition suffers the consequences.

After technical discussions back and forth, the Patent Office even notified Wooten and McLain that the patent had been accepted and the patent would be issued. Within days, to their consternation the patent was rejected and that was the end of that.

In other words, the fix was in.

Our Own Experience In "Obtaining" Proper Ferroelectric Capacitors ~

Here's an interesting little tidbit, for what it's worth. We here at CTEC had included a specific use of ferroelectric capacitors (FECs) in one of our own patent applications. We attempted to obtain an FEC on the open market, one with the publicized nearly- square S-curve of hysteresis. No capacitor manufacturer we contacted had one for sale! I went all the way to a Swedish company, was assured they made just what I needed, and purchased several from them to be shipped by airmail. In due time they arrived. They did not have the square S-curve at all, but were carefully layered to eliminate that S-curve, into a rather straight slanting curve. That kind of curve is absolutely useless for overunity applications.

Now why would anyone wish to purchase a supposedly nonlinear capacitor for its very nonlinearity, and instead purchase one that has been altered to behave just as linearly as possible? Why would a company advertise such a nonlinear capacitor, then sell you one that is highly linearized? And considering the rather substantial literature on nonlinear capacitors with square S-curves, why do not the capacitor companies sell such?

We eventually found there is indeed a U.S. manufacturer of ferroelectric capacitors with precisely that S-curve hysteresis loop. There was just one little problem. They had an agreement with the U.S. Navy for all their production of those capacitors, and in that agreement they were not to sell any to private persons or companies.

Now why would the U.S. Navy wish to restrict a perfectly unclassified, open component from being sold on the open commercial market? Zounds! If one were a conspiracy buff, one might even try to connect this with the U.S. Navy's long suppression of the Kron negative resistor. Do you suppose there could actually be some kind of connection between the two? Why of course not! Paranoia and all that, you know. And still one wonders...

The literature continues to publish tests of just such ferroelectric capacitors, etc. Contacting several of the researchers who author those papers, we found that they (at least the ones contacted) were all making their own ferroelectric capacitors if they wished one with that square S-curve! No one seemed to know where we could just purchase one off the shelf.

Maybe all that is just coincidence. And maybe not.

A Possible Interpretation ~

What the square S-curve hysteresis loop means is that, in one region of operation, with only a very tiny voltage change, you can get a rather enormous current change from that capacitor. In another region of operation, you can get a very large voltage change from the capacitor for a very small current change. In other words, biased into one region, you have essentially a voltage device. In the other region, you have essentially a current device. Neither device will "cost" you very much energy to operate it in its region. However, if you then nonlinearly mix the two outputs just right, as we filed on methods of doing, then bingo! You had a mixer device whose output now had both large current and large power, but you "paid for" and input not nearly so much "energy dissipation" (remember, engineers calculate energy dissipation flow, never energy transport flow!) to the mixer as what would be output by the mixer.

The whole question is this. We all know about ordinary nonlinear mixing and mixers.  We know that two signals can indeed be mixed nonlinearly. Can we build a nonlinear mixer and a dual circuit, where we feed a voltage-like signal in and also a current-like signal in to the mixer, get the two combined into a high voltage, high current signal output, and do that without back-field coupling onto the two input "signals" to force equal energy dissipation in the input.

Look at this very carefully. There is absolutely no conservation of energy law that requires that the energy input circuit dissipate as much energy as does the load circuit that receives the energy to power it. So why are we taught only those mixing circuits that will indeed force equal input dissipation? We need three things in the input: (1) lots of voltage, (2) lots of current, and (3) small energy dissipation. That means we need a "voltage-like" input and a "current" like input, which do not interact with each other on the input side of the mixer. We then need a mixer that will mix the two into a single signal with high voltage and high current, but will not back-couple its fields onto the input circuit to up the input dissipation.

Is all this mystery in trying to obtain square S-curve ferroelectric capacitors really due to the fact that it is possible to use them together with other circuit components to produce such an overunity mixer? Could something like that be behind what happened to McLain and Wooten, and to Dr. Bass? Again, at this point we wonder...

So you think such odd mixing violates the conservation of energy law? Then think again. There is no valid law of physics anywhere -- in complete contradiction to the assumptions in most electrical texts -- that you have to conserve work. Energy, yes. Work, no. The energy that a circuit captures can involve the voltage only. Remember, W = fq. To get lots of W (joules) collected for use to power loads, we need lots of V (that is, Df ) and lots of q. We then need them mixed (interacting together). That's it. Anything else is what the circuit we construct is doing to fight us back. So, it would seem that we should focus on reducing the ability of that circuit to fight us back, while still doing the voltage-amperage mixing and interaction thing.

Even in the flawed old electrodynamics, one volt is one joule collected per coulomb of charge collector. So if you place one volt on a circuit which has few Drude electrons for collection, you get very little collected energy in that circuit (and note that the energy dissipated in that circuit can only be the energy that it first intercepts and collects). And if you then input the same voltage to a circuit with lots of Drude electrons, this second circuit will collect (and can then dissipate) lots of joules of collected energy.

When you change the voltage of a circuit, you change the potential energy available for collection and dissipation. How much it collects and dissipates, then depends upon how many collectors it has to do so, and the dissipaters it has to change the form of the collected energy.

So one trick would appear to be to feed a nonlinear mixing unit from two circuits: one optimized for voltage and starved for current, and the second starved for voltage and optimized for current. The one remaining trick is to prevent any back-field coupling from the output of the mixer back to the two feed circuits. If you accomplish that, you have yourself a nice little overunity device, perfectly permissible by the laws of physics and thermodynamics, and one which does not violate conservation of energy. It darn sure violates "conservation of work", however. For that matter, so does a windmill or a waterwheel, or a solar cell. You yourself do not have to perform work on something to get it to collect energy (asymmetrically regauge). It can collect the energy freely, if you arrange it correctly. Something else -- such as a free flow of energy from the environment -- is perfectly capable of doing that work on the intercepting collector, so that collection of energy in the circuit occurs.

In my view, McLain and Wooten were accomplishing something very similar to our notion of nonlinearly mixing a low power high voltage input and a low power high current input, but using ferroelectric nonlinear resonance as the "magic" mixer to combine cheap high voltage with cheap high current and obtain the product of the two while only paying for their "sum", so to speak.

But if you wish to pursue that approach to overunity, let me advise you to first do your homework on nonlinear resonance, as opposed to the linear resonance in almost all the normal textbooks. It's not at all just a "capacitance-inductance-resistance" business or just simple LC resonance. LC resonance alone has never added a single excess joule of energy to the power system.

The Rule of Nines: Resonant Geometry and the Zero Point

by
Joel McClain

"Nest two tetrahedrons and you have the keys to the universe."

The word "rule" has several different meanings -- as a form of law, or as a form of dominion, or as a measuring standard. This text uses the word in all three contexts to define the effect of the supreme chord, the trinity of harmony, in the universe.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, independent researchers began to notice the "anomalous" effects of applying resonance to a controlled experiment. Then, as now, this area of "science" is far from the mainstream. The results of those early experiments, such as the lightning of Tesla and the motors of Keely, have been ignored both as science and as history...at least in America.

Elsewhere, the work of Tesla is revered and has been "amplified" by paid research. With the creation of the Magnetic Resonance Amplifier, or MRA, perhaps history and science will have to take a second look. The theories behind the MRA are the same as those of Tesla, Keely, Russell, Bearden, King and others. The application, however, in a closed-loop ZPE device, takes a sharp turn away from effect and into application.

Look at either a piece of quartz or a magnet, and you are looking at trapped energy. Tap the quartz, and you will get a spark as the electrical potential of the quartz instantaneously jumps. Spin a magnet relative to a coil of wire, and electrical current flows in the wire. How do we extract the power of these materials without the attendant physical energy required to either
tap or spin them?

Matter = energy. To convert matter to energy, resonate the matter.

To achieve energy output which is above the energy applied at resonance, use three octaves, and there will be three harmonious notes in each octave, for a total of nine resonant frequencies.

These notes occur naturally when the base frequency applied is three octaves above the magnet's resonant frequency, and equal to the resonance of the quartz.

In this way, the potential applied to the quartz "taps" it, without the need to use physical force. The result is electrical output.  Connect this output to a coil around a magnet, and the domains of the magnet, which comprise a tiny portion of its weight, and which do all of the "work" in a generator, will be forced to spin. This spin is called "virtual rotation", because it is the spin of energy without the spin of the matter.

However, this is only one application. How can we be sure that the "rule" applies anywhere else, much less universally? We have to go very far back in history to find the answer to this question. It involves Phi, the universal constant, and delves deeply into the construction of earth's great tetrahedrons.

Nest two tetrahedrons, and put them in an orb, and you have a miniature model of the earth's magnetic field. Where the "bases" of the tet's touch the orb, you have the latitudes where all of the ancient pyramids were built. The "top" and "bottom" points are the north and south poles. This shows the naturally occuring magnetic resonance of earth as an "orb" in rotation. Connect lines between the points, and you have a map of the ley lines, which were mapped very accurately thousands of years ago.

Models of the earth as described above have been found in the ruins of every civilization which built pyramids. Earth is, as it must be, a model of the natural harmonic relationship which exists at every level, from the universe itself to the subatomic. The relationships have been understood for a long, long time. This knowledge, and the use of the energy which it can be used to provide, was believed to be the curriculum of "mystery schools" in Egypt and Greece.

If you look at the lattice geometry of silicon or germanium, you will find tetrahedrons. In his famous "ring", Hans Nieper allowed the silicon of transistors to achieve self-resonance, with the result that the circuit became lower in weight. This implies that resonance may also be the key to countering the effects of gravity, or rather, the effect called gravity, for gravity is an effect, not a force.

Gravity is "suspended" when you cancel the spin of the energy which comprises matter by resonating the matter. By virtually rotating the lattices, the subatomic particle spin virtually stops, like a spinning object seen with a synchronized strobe light.  Because gravity is a complex quadrupole effect, when you stop the spin, you lose the effect.

The matter which comprises the quartz and the magnet of the MRA is comprised of cube lattices, each of which is a nested tetrahedron at 45 degrees relative to the polar axis of the molecules. Together in a circuit, there is a 90-degree phase separation, which allows the resonant energy to create the needed harmonics to fully resonate both materials. This is the application of the rule of nines.

It is a standard, the standard of the geometry of the universe; it is the ruling law of nature; and it is the measuring tool for all electrical and mechanical interaction. If, as some have suggested, the ancient "sacred" knowledge was shared by extraterrestrials to permit the construction of the pyramids, and if, as we have seen, resonance is the key to anti-gravity as well as to free energy, then the tetrahedron has very far reaching implications.

Meeting The One-Watt Challenge

by
Hal Fox

New Energy News 3 (6): 19-21, November 1995

The Magnetic Resonance Amplifier Tests: We have received copies of two official reports from independent laboratories that show power out ranging from 1.6 to over 4 times the input power to a magnetic resonance amplifier. One of the important factors in this device appears to be the type of magnetic material used as the core of the transformer. The transformer appears to be the most important component in this unusual energy-amplifying circuit.

Keelynet BBS Messages

Message 9850 (12/13/94 09:31)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: MRA Input

For those who plan to build their own MRA, you will have to use sine wave signal wave input. I've tried square wave, and although the magnet will "sing", the output DC power will be below unity. I believe this is because the circuit can't "breathe" evenly with square wave input.

Message 9875  (12/13/94 19:23)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: MRA "Tech Bulletin"

If you build your own MRA, there are a few things that you should know that aren't in the file yet...they're still being discovered. First of all, don't wear your quartz watch while you work on the MRA, as the quartz will react with the circuit and run slow.

Secondly, avoid using scopes for anything except occasional waveform checks, because there is so much flux in the air that it will build up on the scope and skew your display.

Thirdly, use a hand-held as opposed to a panel meter if you can because the flux buildup on a panel meter chassis will destroy the front end transistors...I know, as I did it.

Fourth, the constant ringing will drive you nuts and give you a headache in short order.

Fifth, if you take the piezo out of the circuit after it has been on for a while, as it cools, it will keep building up charges, and will
bite you when you pick it up.

Sixth, if the piezo screeches, shut the MRA down and wait for a while before you start it up again. The piezos are bad tempered if you overdrive them, and will sulk for a while before they work right.

This ain't your daddy's oldsmobile... we're still learning to drive it so there may be more of these "field bulletins". ~ Joel

Message 9876  (12/13/94 20:00)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA

Bill:  Point well taken. We will prove out the circuit and you will know by the message traffic as to our progress. We all value your input and guidance therefore jump in and help us out as we sort this beast out.  I have a very similar circuit to Joel's and we compare notes constantly. I wound a coil on a barium ferrite magnet with my windings running parallel to the "Bloch wall" where Joel's coil has the windings running perpendicular to the "Bloch wall".  My I/O ratio so far as I can determine is around 12:1 which is some improvement but we need testing.  Bert Pool just left to go and build a similar circuit so the more folks that build, test and improve on the design the better.  Thanks again. ~ Norm

Message 9882 (12/14/94 08:17)
From: Norman Wootan
To: All
Subject: MRA (Tech Bulletin)

Since Joel and I have created a lot of interest in the MRA device we will place everything on line so that no "stone is left unturned".  Long ago I saw a sci-fi movie of a suitcase size device that you could plug any size AC load into it and it would power it with no problem. I dreamed of building such a device by employing a block of natural quartz with a mechanical oscillator attached to all faces (Tesla oscillator) to force the quartz to yield free electrons. I envisioned the output (high voltage) to be stored in a capacitor bank (1 kilo joule) them the output going into an inverter circuit and stepdown transformer to take this piezo generated voltage down to a useful AC voltage.  Now Joel and I have combined this effect to the resonating of the lattice structure of a magnet to sum the outputs of the piezo effect and the ferro-resonant effect to give an over-unity total at the bridge rectifier.  Last night Bert Pool came over to gather up the needed supplies to build a prototype circuit to do independent evaluation.  After I had run the circuit through the paces noting the outputs and thoroughly discussing what we thought was going on here I turned off the meters, scopes and the signal generator and finally went to bed. Well I woke up a 2:00AM with a headache, went to get the tylenol and went into the room with the test rig on the bench.  I turned on the frequency counter and found that the circuit was running in free oscillation with no input. Although no power was being produced the free running oscillations were filling my living space with a high freq ultrasonic squeal that as Joel has warned will give you a migraine headache in short order.  The free oscillation was [D[Ds around 44KHZ with the freq counter ranging up and down (no lock on). I had to take the circuit apart to stop the ultrasonic ringing.  As Joel has pointed out these titanium zirconate transducers, once set into resonance will continue to ring for a long period.  Since there is possible some conditioning taking place within the crystalline structure of the material I believe that over a long conditioning period (burn in time) the whole circuit can be make sensitive to a combination of two frequencies that are necessary. The first freq involved is the input to drive the transducer which has to be 3 octaves down from the fundamental natural frequency of the ferro-magnetic resonant frequency. Although it has not been mentioned before in "A" public on this net, Joel and I were successful in isolating and identifying the fundamental Ferromagnetic Resonant Frequency as being around 174.9 KHz. Doesn't it sound ironic that this freq should fall so close to what the Corums have determined that Tesla designed his big coil out in Colorado springs around? I have read several articles that speculated that the ferromagnetic freq or the earth natural magnetic field resonated around 180 KHz.  With this 174.9 freq in mind we have applied the Joel McClain "Rule of Nines" to the circuit where we run the transducer at a freq that is a multiple of the fundamental 174.9 ferro-resonant freq.  His circuit is running at a fifth and mine is running at a third.  Example- I input a sine wave signal at 2.28 VAC into the series resonant circuit at 59070 Hz and get a voltage developed across the transducer of 26.04 V and a voltage across the coil of 24.02 with an output voltage from the bridge rectifier of 30.2 VDC. If every thing is running in an ideal phase relationship (transducer oscillations and ferro-coil oscillations) then the beat freq will partially sum the two voltages since they are in a series circuit and set up a circulating current in the primary which when the primary winding and the secondary windings have the proper impedance matching will extract the maximum amount of energy from the circulating current in the transformer into a healthy output at the bridge which is far OVER-UNITY, high I/O ratio. My circuit is showing a 13:1 ratio at this time and I have not even approached a good impedance match in the windings. A real sharp RF engineer could sort all the details out in short order. I don't profess to be an RF engineer but have a good background in electronics.  This is the reason for Joel and I going "PUBLIC DOMAIN" with the circuit so that some highly skilled folks out there can take this circuit and help develop it into something of practical use. We don't want PROFIT motivated people to "rip" off the idea for self gain. We want any potential benefits of the circuit to remain free for the taking. More notes as we learn more. As Joel says, "we are like teenagers learning to drive dad's Olds". A little help from interested fellow researchers is welcome. ~ Norm

Message 9883 (12/14/94 09:19)
From: Norman Wootan
To: All
Subject: MRA (Tech Bulletin)

In our discussion of the MRA circuit we keep referring to the key part of the circuit as being a transducer. Let me clarify this a little for I know there are a lot of folks out there who will be running around looking for that same device that we have. First let's settle the confusion about the type of material involved. Jerry Decker and I bought some of these devices from Tanner Electronics here in Dallas and were told that they were BARIUM TITANATE transducers made for the ultra-sonic heads in the ultra-sonic welders used in the plastics industry. There are numerous manufacturers of such welding devices in which they stack these devices (each rated at 50 Watts) to get the total power needed to weld plastic by kinetic contact heating.  A physical description is: 2 inch outside diameter round with a 5/8th inch hole through the center with a thickness of 3/16th inch with silver layered on each side which is convenient for soldering leads to the transducer. When employing these units they have to be suspended to that they are free to resonate. Don't lay them on a table or surface for this will dampen the free oscillations. We have not consulted an acoustical engineer to determine the best way to mount the units or attach the I/O leads so as to provide the optimum free resonances. We have discussed the employment of tuned pipes of the proper wave length ratios needed to enhance the free resonant or targeted resonance that we desire. I have even thought of a mechanical type of tuning fork device that would give us the Tesla described "CHILD ON THE SWING" type drive that would give the maximum output with the least possible input (wattage I/O). A good microwave engineer would possibly come up with a tuned cavity resonator which would drive the transducer at the optimum phase to extract the energy needed to drive the ferro-resonant coil in the primary. The magnet that Joel is using is from an IBM hard drive and is as follows: [A[D[B 7 inches long X 2 inches  X 2 inches with the magnetic "Bloch wall" across the thickness. For those out there who may never heard the term "Block wall" it means the neutral plane in a magnet. The magnetic orientation is across the thickness of the magnetic therefore cannot be described as a bar magnet which has it's magnetic orientation along the long axis. By using a magnet which has the flux across the thickness and the windings are wound around the center of the long axis we have a coil which is wound with half of the winding turn in a "N" field and the other half of the turn in a "S" field. Makes no difference since the objective here is to ring the magnet into a resonant freq and it seems to me that it is easier to ring (mechanically) with the ends of the long axis protruding from the coil. In other words the "Node point" is under the coil with the free ends oscillating. There are several ways to suspend a bar that is in free resonance. All you have to do is open your door chime and look at how the chime bar is mounted to extract the maximum acoustical energy from the hammer strike.  The same objective applies here so there is a lot of work to be done to maximize this device. It is public so YOU can help sort it all out. Joel is using 150 turns in the primary and secondary of his ferro-magnetic transformer. Experimentation will provide the ideal ratios and impedance matching. Get with the program and provide free exchange of findings so all may benefit. ~ Norm

Message 9930 (12/16/94 18:04)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: Starting Over

Hi Norm ~ I'm breaking in another piezo. It's been on the sig gen for a few hours. I have 1.33VAC at 34.2KHz from the sig gen, measuring current in line.  Current starts at 4ma, then slowly drops for about three minutes until it gets down to just 1ma.  Since the 1.33VAC is RMS,  nput power to the MRA is 1.33mw. Output is 3.1VDC across 4.7K from the decade box which calculates at 2.0mw. Since the meter is rated at 200KHz, I know that we are well within its range.  Gain at this low level of signal is 150%. We will learn how to condition a piezo from this, which we can pass along as another tech note. It looks like we have to start at the leakage threshold and work up in terms of power applied. It will take a LOT of tests to keep from conditioning parts until they are just barely marginal under useful load. Oh well, nobody ever said it would be easy.  The noise from the magnet is amazing, even at low power. ~ Joel

Message 9949  (12/17/94 09:39)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Joel McClain
Subject: MRA

Joel ~  I have had my version of the MRA running for about 14 hours to condition the magnet and the driver piezos so when I visit you we can do some parallel testing on the two circuits for more verification of over-unity operation. After running all night the circuit is definitely in the (+) column so we need to nail down the degree. I will bring out my scope Techtronic 80 MHZ with a current probe so maybe we can further bracket that elusive input figure. Everyone agrees that when you are dealing with AC at 40KHZ with harmonic bucking taking place it is  sometimes very difficult to pin down the real input wattage. The "equivalent resistance" test that you are doing is I guess the only way, except for some sophisticated equipment that Hal and John have down at the "Institute for Advanced Studies" in Austin.  More later  ~ Norm

Message 9951 (12/17/94 10:50)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: MRA in Conventional Theory

The MRA is a series resonant LC circuit in which power gain is attainable as a result of the increase in effective impedance under certain operating conditions.  When the series impedance increases, primary current is reduced. When the power available from the secondary coil either remains the same or increases as the primary circuit impedance increases, a power gain occurs.

This is not possible with a series resonant circuit made of conventional materials. Even unity power transfer is considered to be
unattainable as a result of accumulated losses in the components, which are passive (reactive) devices. Materials and construction methods are chosen for these components based upon the type of application and frequency to be applied, with the goal of minimizing losses.

A typical capacitor with polyethylene dielectric has a dielectric constant of 2.3 times air. Air has a constant of 1.0, and is the
basis for comparison. Titanium dioxide, however, has a dielectric constant maximum of 170, and a corresponding power factor of only 0.0006, comparable with polyethylene, so that the dissipation of  primary current in the dielectric is extremely low. This is where the comparison ends, because the titanium composite "capacitor" is also a piezoelectric device as well as an excellent capacitor.

Heat adversely affects the power factor of most dielectric materials. Titanium zirconate, however, contains polar molecules which rotate as thermal pressure is applied. This rotation increases the dielectric constant if the frequency applied is equal to or lower than the resonant frequency of the dielectric. At series resonance, the rotation of polar molecules contributes to heat; as the dielectric constant increases, a corresponding release of free electrons occurs, as a direct result of the piezoelectric properties of the device.

In application, the MRA is tuned at resonance for maximum power transfer, then detuned slightly for maximum power gain.  This relates directly to the use of thermal pressure at resonance, and the effect that this has on continued polar rotation and the release of donor electrons.

The coil, or primary of the MRA is a magnetic core which relative to the fixed capacitance of the piezo, is a tuned permeability device. This is often used in RF devices to attain a stable resonant frequency. Magnetic materials are chosen based upon the operating characteristics of the intended application to reduce eddy currents in the operating range. In these applications, the resonant frequency of the magnet itself is avoided, as this would "beat" with the oscillating current. However, in the MRA, this is the exact effect which we want.

The barium ferrite magnet resonates audibly at frequencies which are harmonics of the series resonant frequency. The effect of this in a typical audio application is called harmonic distortion, and is not desirable, but once again, in the MRA, this is what we want to occur. There is energy in the harmonics, and this energy serves to both counter eddy losses as well as to oppose primary current flow, while contributing to circulating current within the resonant circuit.

The net effect of this, is that when the MRA is detuned, harmonics of the audible frequency "beat" with primary current, opposing its flow, while the increase in circulating current couples more power to the secondary, and therefore to the load.  This is how the power gain is attained, basically by considering the naturally occurring harmonics as beneficial instead of as undesirable effects to be filtered out.

When the MRA is detuned, the effective impedance increases as seen by the source, while the power available to the load decreases in less proportion. This is measurable by using resistive equivalent circuit testing. However, the detuning is load dependent, and slight adjustments are required if the load requirement is greater than the power band of a harmonic interaction.  After retuning, the power to the will increase in quantum intervals as the circulating current is reinforced by the reaction of the permeable magnet core. This will be seen as slight incremental voltage increases across the load device.

Once the magnet is "ringing", it's frequency and therefore harmonics remain stable, as long as the series resonant range is not exceeded. Therefore, the detuning affects the piezo only, and the circulating current increase is a result of the phase relationship between the harmonic and the source. Voltage amplification is seen across the primary, measurable higher than the source voltage, and this is "seen" by the secondary. This is not the same thing as a power gain, because the power gain is a direct result of effective impedance.

It should also be noted that the term "virtual rotation" has been applied in describing the operation of the MRA.  The comparison is made with a generator, in which relative motion occurs between a coil and magnet. Rather than use physical energy to rotate a mass, the MRA uses resonance to rotate the energy. This is seen in the polar rotation of the piezo dielectric as well as in the molecular energy occurring in the reactive component of the magnet, i.e., the ringing. The lattice structures of the piezo and magnet are compatible for virtual rotation, and the materials complement each other electrically.

In the past, researchers have noted many effects which occur at aggregate resonance, which typically includes a range of three octaves. Anomalous energy gains were referred to as "aetheric". The aether was believed to exist outside of the three physical dimensions, and could be "tapped" for free energy at resonance. Aetheric energy is said to be limitless, but to vary locally with increases in earth magnetic fields at sunset and sunrise, like the tides of an  infinite ocean. This effect is not thoroughly understood, but has been observed in the MRA, as increases in output in the early morning, and decreases in the early evening. This is still being studied. Experimentation will determine the optimum MRA design for a specific range of applications.

Message 9964 (12/17/94 14:31)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA

Bill ~  Yes Joel and I both have Techtronic scopes and Fluke 87 true RMS meters to cross check all measurements and so far we cannot find the "flaw" in the test procedure if there is one.  The only real test is  "independent verification" which will be done by Hal Puthoff and John down in Austin. If you saw Jerry's message to me, I will be sending Walter Rosenthal a complete running circuit for a second verification along with a complete set of all the message traffic and "Tech Bulletins" to date. Joel and I have done all we can do as to verification due to not having some very advanced equipment. The next step is on the work bench in the form of a voltage regulator stage, an  oscillator stage and a MOSFET driver stage to drive the front end of  the circuit so we can run it "stand alone".  ~ Norm

Message 9966   (12/17/94 15:45)
From: Bill Beaty
To: All
Subject: mra piezo source?

The H&R catalog has LEAD ZIRCONATE TITANATE piezos, 1.5" by 1/10", 50khz.  Think it'll work?

Message 9967  (12/17/94 18:17)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA

Bill ~  Yes, those transducers will work but they are physically smaller than the ones we are using  I figure when this circuit is verified that the next step will be to go to a natural quartz milled wafer of  the natural freq we desire to same as the crystals used in transmitters  except a lot larger. If you have access to a Thomas Directory at work, please look up Branson who makes the ultrasonic welders so we can get a source manufacturer from them.  Maybe someone on the Internet will know the manufacturers of these transducers. This circuit is a mindbender when you study its characteristics. For example I started off this  morning (after I let the circuit run all night to condition the magnet  and piezo crystal) with a total over-unity power gain of 1.65:1 ratio. After playing with the circuit all day taking measurements after each adjustment or change of operating parameters, arrived at a 150:1 I/O ratio. Here are the figures: Input 15.34 VAC @ 54.9 KHZ with .57 Ma which is .000874 Watts which has to be adjusted for power factor by multiplying by .707. The output is: 16.75 VDC @ 78.8 Ma into a pure resistive load. This figures out to be greater than a 150:1 I/O ratio. I guess you have figured out how excited everyone is over this  "Gadget". Now unless OHMS law has been nullified or there is some  "spook" phenomenon that Joel and I cannot find then we have the 1 watt challenge in the bag by a wide margin. More as we learn more. ~ Norm

Message 9982  (12/18/94 10:13)
From: Norman Wootan
To: All
Subject: MRA (Tech Bulletin)

Message 9983 (12/18/94 11:03)
From: Joel McClain
To: Jerry Decker (Sysop)
Subject: Piezos are fragile

Hi Jerry ~ The piezos, for all of their 50 watt capability, are fragile, especially along the edges. I had mine soldered at the edges, and when  it bumped into the magnet while in transport, it cracked. The piezo has to be free to vibrate... if you touch it while the MRA is running, you can watch your output drop off, so it's a question of finding a way to mount them "loose", yet protected. However, whoever accidently picked up my stapled pack of tech notes might let me know so I can pick them up... has all of the test data and correspondence with Hal, and was on the corner of the table. THANKS!! ~ Joel

Message 9984  (12/18/94 11:13)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Jerry Decker (Sysop)
Subject: MRA

Hey!! Jerry, Don Smith is right all the way.  Let me explain --- he has basically the same circuit that we (Joel and I). In his circuit he is using a Tesla coil as the driver and trying to extract power in his secondary from the "feeble" background earth magnetic field. If Don had been privy to what Joel and I know (now everyone) then he could have incorporated into his circuit a powerful barium ferrite magnet which he could drive at its resonant freq and effectively do the same thing we are doing. In fact the Tesla coil instead of the transducer is a much better driving potential.  It is inherently much more stable with much higher potentials being able to be achieved and the fact remains that the ZPE tapping occurs in the domains of the magnet in  "Virtual Rotation". Thoughts Jerry and Joel? ~ Norm

Message 9985  (12/18/94 11:55)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: Tiger by the tail

Hi Norm ~ Sorry to hear that you also blew up your input amplifier. We've got a very powerful tiger by a very short tail with the MRA. It's purpose is to give power gain by bucking input current while using circulating current to drive the load, and this is done in a tuned, balanced state. As we've seen, unbalancing the MRA by removing the load can cause the "bucking" current to run open and blow up 40 to 50 watt amplifiers...with no other power applied.  Even the flux from it blew up my panel mount DVM. Well, the good news is that we are over unity... the bad news is that we will have to cage the beast somehow. ~ Joel

Message 10033  (12/19/94 10:46)
From: Jerry Decker (Sysop)
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: (R) MRA

Hi Norm/Joel, et. al ~ Just got a call from Tom Bearden... He's excited and even though I sent the MRA to him last week, he wants it today...so I am faxing  it...along with the MRA1 and the UJTOSC (Woody's UJT oscillator file) because he can use all of it. As to the fracturing, he says this is due to pumping the potential field  and went into a long explanation that I don't remember half of....he says his paper on stepped charging of the capacitors warns of this and  they still haven't figured out how to get around it... He says they have transients exceeding 3000 volts and have smoked several test instruments on their end also... He says to be sure and warn Rosenthal of this before he trashes some of that very expensive stuff he will use... Tom says because the anomalies in such circuits are so radically different from normal electromagnetics, to prevent or at the very least ATTEMPT to minimize damage to their test devices and circuits.. They have adopted the approach of discrete charging only up to fixed levels... It is everyone's desire to get the max power out, but not at the expense of blown equipment, ruptured parts or circuits that burn out, so he thinks once the grad students and others start getting into it, they will work convergently (as everyone here does) to come up with the bottom line details of what works, what doesn't and what will produce anomalous effects...  So, I have to get those faxes to him now, again, he said he is SO VERY PLEASED that everyone is working so well together and that the information is being so freely shared... ~ Jerry

Message 10041  (12/19/94 12:10)
From: Joel McClain
To: Bert Pool
Subject: MRA at preamp signal input

Hi Bert ~ At the meeting, you were talking about energizing an MRA with low level signal input, so I gave it a try with a weak stereo preamp. The input to the MRA was 0.562VAC and 1.1ma for 6.2mw of input power. The output power is only 2.2mw. After an hour, the input power power dropped off to 4.2mw as the circuit equivalent resistance increased from 510 ohms to 1.0K ohms, and the output power stayed the same at 2.2mw, but this is still only half of unity. Even given more hours of test, I don't think it will make unity. It's possible that the weak potential and resulting current are not enough to create the flux density and piezo effect that we need. ~ Joel

Message 10054  (12/19/94 21:14)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: (R) MRA

-------  1.90vac @ 34.11KHz          Hi Norm,
| sig |------------
|     |           |                  Using this circuit in the MRA
| gen |           |                  I've been able to measure the
-------        --------              primary current without the
| ref A        []   piezo         effects of the voltage multi-
|           --------              plication or the inductance of
|              | ref B            wire wound resistors.
|              |
|              \  8 ohm comp.     With the 8 ohm resistor wired
|              /  resistor        between the piezo and primary
|              \                  and measuring from the return
|              /                  side at ref A to ref B and to
|              | ref C            ref C, and subtracting them,
|              |                  you have the voltage drop for
|              0                  calculating series current.
|              0 primary
|              0 winding          I have 11.15vac at ref B and
|              0                  11.10vac at ref C for .050
|              |                  drop, /8 = .00625 amps, times
----------------                  1.90vac for 11.9mw.

On the output (not shown) is 5.80vac across 600 ohm resistive load for current of 9.7ma and power of 56mw. Gain is 56/11.9 = 4.66 times unity. Please try this and let me know what you get. ~ Joel

Message 10059  (12/20/94 07:55)
From   : Norman Wootan
To: James Hartmann
Subject: MRA / Gravity

James ~ We have your speaker levitation experiment on the net as a file. A couple of days ago someone mentioned the harmonic rich wave form of the MRA as being the same as your output from the "distortion amp" when you were getting the levitation effect with the correct fundamental freq applied. All goes back to Keely with the multiple freq discord causing anomolous gravity effects. Sure wish you luck in the pursuit of follow-up info on the English report. With the Neiper Ring project we will need as much info as possible to achieve full anti-grav effects. ~ Norm

Message 10071  (12/20/94 14:04)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: E-Line Tests

Hi Norm ~ I like the idea of using the solid state amps to measure current differentials.  I've tried to measure the difference in AC current to the sig gen by measuring the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor in series with line to the sig gen. Even with a Sola, there is more line variation than the 0.001VAC difference in drop that would equal  the entire output power of the MRA.  (.001/2 X 119.2VAC = 60mw). So, measuring input power in this way is out of the question. ~ Joel

Message 10090  (12/21/94 04:18)
From: Bill Beaty
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: fractured traces

On your strange oscilloscope results: I see this often, when the chopping frequency gets close to the frequency being triggered upon. If you are seeing these segmented traces when the scope is in ALTERNATE triggering (or on a single channel scope) then it is real. But the chopper on a dual trace scope can easily create moving line segments of various kinds without anything weird going on. (Oh, I meant that I see it often at work, when doing frequency sweeps on circuitry)
.
Message 10094 (12/21/94 07:39)
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: (R) MRA

Another interesting thing that we verified tonight was that the natural ferro-magnetic frequency is approximately 174.9 KHz. This is a shot in the dark from my failing memory: I remember reading in my collection of one device that worked at 14.7 KHz.  I don't remember then name of it for sure, but it was the one made with the large basket weave coils (Hendershot maybe?), you've probably seen the thing it is one of the common lead gen devices in this field.174.9 KHz / 12 = 14.575 KHz. 14575 / 1944 = 7.49 Hz puts it down around the Schuman range. A harmonic interaction with the Earth field? This could account for the time of day effects.  Do you note significant changes at Sun Set and Sun Rise? Maybe this is significant, maybe it is not?

Message 10096 (12/21/94 08:11)
From: Norman Wootan
Subject: MRA

Message 10099  (12/21/94 11:44)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: MRA Anomalies

Eight days ago, the MRA was invented. Almost immediately, it began to exhibit over-unity characteristics. However, there have also been a lot of "quirky" effects...each taken separately might have been test equipment error or technician error.  However, these effects are forming familiar patterns now...familiar but not always predictable. The toll in dead and damaged test equipment so far is one panel mount DVM, one frequency counter, two audio amplifiers, and numerous 60watt light bulbs.

Sometimes, when supplying the MRA from a 12VDC powered audio amp, the battery current will decrease compared to the battery current to the amp with no load at all, and at the same time, amp output voltage will increase...taken together, this indicates that the MRA is feeding energy back into the amp. Later, with no changes to the circuit, the MRA will behave like a normal load, and cause a small increase in battery current with a small decrease in amp output voltage.

The voltage and current waveforms look like dotted lines, where each dot and space segment is equal to 175KHz, which Norm and I believe is the free running resonant frequency of ferrmagnetism. We have never seen this before, and for that matter, neither has anyone else that we've talked to about it. Even with nothing on Channel B of the 'scope, the display will exhibit the dotted line effect whenever the MRA is running and connected to Channel A.

Anything and everything in the field of the MRA is affected.  Should the MRA's output load become accidentally disconnected while the MRA is at resonance, an instantaneous and very powerful destructive surge will occur.

I THINK that the MRA, by resonating a magnet at mass aggregate frequency, is magnetically "linking" with everything in its field, and behaving like an "energy pump". We see this when we walk up to it and the output from the MRA goes up, even though the MRA is hooked up to a resistive load which is causing it to provide current. This also changes based upon the time of day relative to sunrise and set.

To test anything, you first must isolate it... By virtue of the design of the MRA, it cannot be isolated. It intrinsically links itself to everything with a coil or magnetic field, even to a quartz wristwatch if it is in the same room. As such, we get varying power gains, and the variations seem more to be a question of which test equipment is on the table at the time of the test.

Please bear in mind that this is a brand new circuit...as far as that goes, it's a whole new technology. Once the magnet has been resonated, and then disconnected from the rest of the circuit, it will continue to provide up to 25VAC at 60Hz using a human "antenna" to capture ambient energy in the room. Last night, Norm and I were measuring over-unity gains of 2X-3X, but we don't really know for sure if we were "pumping" the energy electromagnetically out of the test equipment, house wiring, earth's magnetic field, the ether, or some combination of the above.

We need some independent testing by individuals with awareness of the anomalies mentioned in this message. There is obviously a lot of power "in flux" which collapses into the MRA if the load is removed, so there will probably be more equipment lost. There is also a whole area of gravitic anomalies to investigate, because the piezo will weigh measurably less when it is in the MRA circuit, and regain the weight when it is disconnected.

The original MRA is being sent out for engineering review, from which we hope to learn more, but the more voices that are heard from, the better our chances of finding out what is really happening.  ~ Joel

Message 10103  (12/21/94 12:29)
From: Joel McClain
To: All

If the MRA's gain is caused by "pumping" energy from the test equipment, house wiring and earth's magnetic field due to electromagnetic linkage, would that be the same as "wireless electricity"?  Tesla used the same frequency which is affecting our oscilloscope trace. Since the MRA is sensitive to sunset/sunrise, is it then going to exhibit higher gains at ley lines and grid intersections? With more power applied, will the MRA achieve zero gravity? Why do we only see the EFFECT of 175KHz on the scope, and not the waveform?  Is it scalar energy being translated by the scope? If the MRA is linking with earth's magnetic field, how can we isolate test equipment, or for that matter, anything else on earth from it? Send all answers and any light bulbs you can spare to Joel & Norm.

Message 10104  (12/21/94 14:11)
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: (R) MRA

Bert wants more info on the "indestructible" transistors you mentioned. Call up Apex Microtechnology and ask them for a data book: 800-546-APEX. They make driver IC/OP amps that will run on +/- 600VDC (1200VDC total swing) at .5A, and other power parts. They also have some parts that are speced to 15,000V/uS Dv/Dt.  Dv/Dt maybe what is burning up things rather than the absolute voltage. Some parts might be able to handle 1,000VDC but ONLY if rises slow enough, to fast a rise and you've got toasted parts. Check out the app notes in the back of the book on such things.  The bad news are these things cost *BIG* bucks (\$30-\$500), but can still be a bargain when you considered the system equivalents that they replace. First this bad news the following part does NOT appear in the 1994 data book (bad sign): From the Unitrode 1990 data book:  "The Unitrode UC195/UC395 family of devices are ultra reliable, fast, monolithic power transistors with complete overload protection.  The devices act as high gain power transistor and have on chip, current limiting, power limiting, and thermal overload protection, making them virtually impossible to destroy". Doesn't look like that will help much since we can't get them. I'm still tracking down the N.S. part, they sold off their transistor division.  And I have the indestructible audio amp data sheets on order. Another company in the power area is Supertex Inc; 408-744-0100. I'll keep looking for "indestructible" parts....

Message 10112 (12/21/94 18:30)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Joel McClain
Subject: MRA

Joel ~ The MRA is as we speak on a FED-EX flight to California going to Walter Rosenthal for the independent testing.  Maybe you could write up some input and set up guidelines for Walter so as to assist his testing effort. After all this is your hand built version. If you would, run a few test runs on my "monster" MRA and we will send it to Hal down in Austin or we could simply just wind another exactly your original so they both would be testing identical units. What do you think? ~ Norm

PS:  I'M waiting for an explanation as to why the overall current draw went down on my MRA when we tried the 12VDC amp test.  The 50Ma rise was on your version. Remember we broke off the test when we got "negative" numbers. "Infinity Gain" ~ Norm

Message 10113 (12/21/94 19:23)
From: Joel McClain
To: Daniel Hill
Subject: (R) MRA

Hi Daniel ~ If we need RMS power for comparison with, for example, changes in the input power, yes we use the constant multiplier of 0.707, which is in the file info that we provided.  Whether this is the exact phase angle for this circuit, without vector analysis, we don't know. The reason why we can't be sure is that we are vectoring harmonics for the express purpose of altering the effective impedance of the circuit. This is NOT what they teach at DeVry, but it is how it works. However, the world accepts the cosine of theta at 0.707 as the normal AC circuit power factor multiplier, so we use it.  To the extent that the calculated output power performs the correct amount of work, such as driving a motor, it is as close as we can determine to be accurate. ~ Joel

Message 10116  (12/21/94 22:08)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Joel McClain
Subject: MRA

Joel ~ Gremlins are back at work. I started to take the power amp back to Radio Shack today but decided to do a test on it first.  Glad I did for it healed itself. Remember what I said about my circuit shutting down and would do nothing? Well I think this MRA builds a field up around it and blanks out some equipment. The amp is OK now and operating just fine. Tonight I was running a new MRA like your original and suddenly it shut down and I could not get any output from the secondary no matter how much I increased the input to the piezo. The only way I solved the problem was to swap sides on the circuit, in other words swap the output leads over to the input and vice versa then it took off running again. Glad this is a 1:1 turn ratio winding. This a really weird device that will take some getting use to. ~ Norm

Message 10131 (12/22/94 14:26)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: Test of the "monster" MRA

Hi Norm ~ Tested the "monster" MRA with two magnets, large coils and four piezos. First tested it with low power from the sig gen only, then with the amplifier. Since the piezos were in parallel, I tested both parallel and series connections. Also tested just the transformer, with no piezos. The transformer alone is just under unity (half of one percent difference in power) at 144.5KHz. With all of the piezos in the circuit, the power out ratio dropped off.

Found that the best gain was with only one piezo, which added 1.2% over unity with the sig gen alone, and 11.8% with the amplifier. I used a regulated 12VDC 10A power supply to power the amplifier, so that there would be no chance of current dropping off as load was added, and found that the additional drain to the supply with the MRA connected was 40ma. It took 180 ohms of equivalent load on the output of the amp to produce the same 40ma increase, so the MRA "looks like" 180 ohms to the output of the amp. That is the effective impedance of the MRA, which we can use to determine current and power into the MRA.

With 9.73VAC output from the amp at 180 ohms, and 18.8VAC from the MRA at 600 ohms, we have 372mw RMS into the MRA and 416mw RMS out, which is 1.12 times unity.

I think that the reason why the gain isn't higher is that the difference between max power out of the MRA and max power gain of the MRA is too wide of a spread in frequency. We used 85% as a "rule of  thumb" with the first MRA, but this one requires 70% change, which puts us on the edges of the resonant range, and we lose much of the power of the harmonics. I'm not sure whether this is a result of using two magnets or more wire or a combination of the two, but the best power gains seem to occur where the freq spread between max power and max gain is less. We'll have to experiment with number of turns on a single magnet to find the "sweet spot"... no pun intended. ~ Joel

Message 10132 (12/22/94 15:31)
From: Joel McClain
To: Bill Beaty

Answering as many questions as possible in one message.

Bob - Your guru is right. The current drop was seen on a DVM, and is likely caused by a meter error as a result of the surge at power-on. Also, a drop in input voltage would naturally cause a corresponding drop in input current, so we are using a ten amp regulated supply to avoid that pitfall. The current increases by 40ma after the initial surge, as measured on an analog meter.

Michael - The aggregate resonant frequency is between 34KHz and 35KHz, although we found the resonant frequency of the magnet to be around 8KHz to 11KHz. The 174.9KHz is what we believe to be the resonant frequency of ferromagnetism, based upon Tesla's experiments and some of our own.  We don't see this in the circuit on an oscilloscope, but we see wave chopping at this rate.

Bill - The signals which we are inputting and extracting are all sinusoidal. We're using battery power as much as possible,
although the sig gen is AC powered, and we've had to use a 12VDC supply to avoid battery drops during measurements. I'm not sure what the retrace or refresh rates are for this scope, but it should be higher than 175KHz on a 80MHz scope, I would guess. Yes, I know how the "observer effect" is interpreted in mainstream science, except for the folks who work at particle accelerators who have both seen and documented it. There is an "interconnectedness of all things", but once it's measurable, mainstream science jumps all over it. God bless them, every one.

Since the "original recipe" MRA has been sent out for engineering analysis, we'll have to wait until its return before we can use it for more tests. ~ Joel

Message 10134 (12/22/94 17:10)
From: Jerry Decker (Sysop)
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: (R) Addendum to MRA Anomalies

Hi Bill ~ That's some real food for thought that has applications with a gravity wave detector circuit....it too could be driven over an area and the field mapped to produce a topology...Townsend Brown did this back in the 40's I think on a Navy submarine... James Hartman sent me a copy of the book with the details...nothing spectacular but it definitely showed gravitic anomalies, way before the 'mascons' discovered on the lunar surface... excellent idea Bill! ~ Jerry

Message 10138 (12/22/94 17:49)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Jerry Decker (Sysop)
Subject: Capacitor Charging in MRA Field

Jerry ~  I have been thinking about the thread that you and I had going back in the summer about how capacitors could be charged by dropping them or spinning them. Well, Joel and I are going to do some cap charging test via the MRA fields. If we are getting this anomalous energy fields that will show up to 27VAC on a meter with everything turned off it is possible to use the device as a passive tuned energy collector. Sort of like Tesla's Cosmic Ray Converter in which he charged capacitors and drove simple motor devices. Worth a few hours of test setup. ~ Norm

Message 10141 (12/22/94 21:09)
From: Joel McClain
To: Jerry Decker (Sysop)
Subject: (R) Addendum to MRA Anomalies

Hi Jerry ~ Thank you... I didn't pick up on the implications, so glad you did. You know, the first g-wave detector that I built went nuts when that last big earthquake hit Japan. It was the electrolytic capacitor with a 747 and a small piezo speaker.  Maybe the MRA could be monitored by someone in CA next to a seismograph to see if it can correlate tectonic activity with gravity fluctuations...maybe even help give some warning in advance. It would be worth it just for that alone.

Increases in solar wind as a result of solar flares might also be detected in time to shift power lines to avoid power failures.
Actually, if the MRA is made directional, it could detect any large energy shift from any source, because they are all reflected on the earth grid at near light speed. Here in Texas, we could "see" tornadoes forming. Might just be the early warning system for all natural (and unnatural) occasions.

Message 10172 (12/23/94 20:51)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: The 300 turn secondary and 60W bulbs

There was an error in message # 10148...the MRA tested today was made by Norm for test, and has a two to one step up ratio, i.e., 150 turns on the primary, 300 turns on the secondary. From what I can measure, this is superior to the original one-to-one ratio of the first MRA, which I wound to test theory. Makes sense though, because as the magnet inhales energy, the more secondary you have, the more energy will be collected for the load.

Also, have noticed that when light bulbs (ordinary 60W bulbs) blow, they do so with great vigor and a brighter than normal flash. The filament is exploded off of its posts, and flies around the inside of the bulb with enough force to leave striations on the glass.

In the past, I have associated this with an accumulation of virtual particles on the neutral lines of the house (from other experiments). This accumulation causes the lines to superconduct when a light switch is turned on, because the neutral is no longer neutral but at an elevated virtual potential.  The effect is the same. ~ Joel

Message 10175 (12/23/94 22:08)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA

Bill ~ Since you have been such a valuable asset to us in getting out the word to the Internet and Compuserve I am going to send to you an  "original" piezo and magnet of the type that we are using in our MRA devices. As you have seen by Joel's message prior to this one he has run test on one of my 2:1 ratio MRA units. I have built 6 MRA's to date and all have displayed over-unity to differing degrees. I have been playing with different configurations of magnets and winding  ratios while Joel is doing the "hard core" testing.  Heck most of my equipment is out at his house. Just kidding fro we have duplicate of all test equipment and so does Bert Pool in our group. This way we all three can build independent of one another and compare results. Joel is sending the 2:1 ratio MRA that I built to Harold Puthoff down in Austin for additional testing while Walter Rosenthal is testing the original MRA out in California. I will get your care package off to you Tuesday along with a document that I want you to post to Internet. ~ Norm

Message 10176  (12/23/94 23:56)
From: Joel McClain
To: Bill Beaty

Hi Bill ~ I don't think that all combinations of piezo and magnet types will work. The evolution in the original design was first, the resonating of a magnet, and determining the resonant range of the magnet, and second, adding a piezo which would resonate three octaves above the magnet. The magnets which we are using will "sing" a pure tone at just over 8KHz, and double that is 16KHz, and double that is 32KHz. The freqs that we are applying to our MRAs is beween 34 and 35KHz.  This is also just below the peak resonant range of the piezos which we are using, and which were originally designed for ultrasonic welding.

The lattice structure of the piezo and magnet should also be compatible in order to get the harmonics... cube lattices, which are nested tetrahedrons. First wind a primary and secondary around your magnet, and apply a variable frequency to the primary while watching the secondary on a scope or high freq meter. Where the secondary output peaks, you have the resonant freq for the magnet.

Use that to find a piezo which has a resonant range three octaves higher. The easiest thing would be for you to use the same parts that we are using...they have already been found to be harmonious. If you want to experiment with what you have available, that's fine too, and may yield more and better results, or at least useful data on which combinations don't work until you find one that does. You will have to keep your mass aggregate freq well below 100KHz, or you will be above the alpha cutoff freq of audio xistors and diodes...you won't be able to get DC out, in other words. Let us know what you want to do. ~ Joel

Message 10188 (12/24/94 11:20)
From: Joel McClain
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA as a "solar" device

Hi Bill ~ As Paul Harvey would say, now here's the "rest of the story" on the MRA as an energy pump.  The energy source is the earth magnetic field, which gets its power from the combination of rotation and solar wind from the sun, so the MRA is technically a solar power device.  As the MRA "warms up", it is extending its vortex upward and "linking" with layered fields of the atmosphere.  At each link point, you will see the MRA output increase by a specific quantum interval.

The MRA is attracting the electromagnetic energies, and funneling them back to the magnet, through the coils, which couple a portion of the energy to the load.  Other conductors which are in the path of the vortex also collect energy, specifically the neutral wires. You can reduuce the output of the MRA by detuning it, and within a   few hours, the output will be back up as a result of the quantum linked increases, and regardless of the energy applied to drive the MRA's oscillations.

BTW, the MRA does have max output when the coils are aligned with magnetic north and south...and drops off when the coils are aligned toward east and west. You are going to have a LOT of fun with this! ~ Joel

Message 10191 (12/24/94 12:18)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: MRA has a 'magic square'

Hi Norm ~ I THINK that we have a 'magic square' relationship with the magnet, because when it was resonated in the 'monster' test, it was almost at unity (with no piezo) at 144.5KHz.  If we divide 144.5 by 17.5, we get 8.25KHz, and three octaves up is the mass aggregate frequency of the MRA. Why divide by 17.5?  Because it is the Khz multiple of 175KHz, the ferroresonant frequency.  Another piece of the puzzle is now in place. ~ Joel

Message 10192  (12/24/94 12:34)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Joel McClain
Subject: MRA

Joel:  I built a second 2:1 ratio MRA and began testing this morning after conditioning the magnet and piezo through the night.  Well here are the numbers that by the way have all been verified via scope measurements in addition to meter readings:  Input; @ 34364 HZ, 1.385 VAC @ .000167A for an output of 4.89VDC into 10,000 OHM load @ .000433A on which I have applied no PF correction on the input which according  to my calculations yields a 9.18:1 power gain.  Check the figures and comments are welcome. There seems to be a big debate going on in various minds as to the application of the .707 PF correction when we are not sure of the exact nature of this circuit, i.e., do we have a capacitive leading current circuit or is it an inductive, current lagging circuit? The way I understand PF correction is that you have to know the degree of lead/lag relationship between the voltage trace and the current trace. Am I correct or not in this statement? ~ Norm

Message 10194 (12/24/94 14:50)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: The Rule of Nines...revisited

Hi Norm ~ Connect two MRAs together, with the output of the second connected across the primary of the first.  Get them in resonance, and then turn off the sig gen.  They will become self-resonant exactly three octaves above the freq that you were applying (Rule of Nines again), and the output power will go up 200-300%. Then turn the sig gen back on, and see how long it takes to get the circuit back "under control" of the sig gen.

Because we are resonating each MRA at the third octave of the magnet, that means that we are at the first octave of a greater aggregate, which occurs as the free running frequency. Three octaves above 33.75KHz is 135KHz, the free running freq, which is equal to the ferromagnetic 175KHz minus the magnet res freq and the piezo res freq. Given enough drive, this bird will fly. ~ Joel

Message 10200 (12/25/94 13:30)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: Creactive Effect

The purpose of this message is to introduce a new term to describe the type of components which are used in tuned resonant devices. In the past, "active" has been used to describe switching parts, such as vacuum tubes and transistors. "Passive" is used to describe components such as carbon resistors, and "reactive" to describe coils and capacitors, which react to changes in frequency by altering their impedance to the flow of current. All of these devices consume power in application.

None of these apply very well to components that consume power but which also use resonance to tap the ether for equal or greater power than that which they consume. Therefore, to fill the void in usable vocabulary, I suggest the term "creactive".  The term implies that something is created, which is NOT the case...energy cannot be created...however, the EFFECT of actively resonating material for the TRANSLATING of energies gives the appearance of creating energy.

The components are not creactive unless and until they are in the process of creating the effect. This should not be too confusing, as the same relationship exists with other components. A coil, for example, has no impedance...only resistance...to DC current. It is passive to DC, and reactive to AC. If anyone has a better terms to suggest, or sees any technical problem with "creactive", please let me know. Thanks!

Message 10209  (12/26/94 10:07)
From: James Johnson
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: Chopped Sine Wave

Norm, last month I was plotting sine waves using Mathcad trying to determine what Keely was doing with his destructive use of harmonics. It appeared to me that he was subtracting out the 3rd, 9th, 27th, 81st, 243rd & etc. harmonics from the 1st harmonic. The 6th harmonic may have been added to create a shrinking effect on a molecule however? He kept saying that large impulses were being created when he was plucking his strings. The frequencies that were creating these impulses seemed to be in the terahertz range which he deduced from his vibrating hydrogen bubbles and the refracted and reflected light waves.  Anyway, while plotting numerous combinations of harmonics a pattern started to emerge that blew my mind. There appeared to be the formation of a normal low frequency sine wave that was being chopped into regular occurring parts. These parts were created when large spikes of higher frequencies with fast rise times would shoot up and down from the ends of each part.  As each succeeding harmonic was subtracted, the amplitude of the impulses became greater. I was not able to go beyond the 243rd harmonic because of Mathcad's limitations in plotting points. Keely was dealing with very high frequencies, even though each individual harmonic at these frequencies was not very powerful by itself the combined harmonics I feel produce tremendous pulses that could rip apart most any substance. There appeared also a pattern of smoothing the chopped sine wave as the higher harmonics were being subtracted. You might be seeing these effects on your scope when testing the MRA circuit. The dual trace feature on the scope could be also causing trouble as already suggested. If it is, throw the dammed thing out and use a pendulum or a pair of divining rods! One thing that keeps popping up in Mrs. Moore's book on Keely is that Keely seemed to be using segmented silver, gold and platinum wires as well as some bar stock attached to his devices as band pass filters. This appeared to allow him to pass selected frequencies to various parts of his apparatus in the proper sequence.  The idea that he produced all frequencies at the same time does not seem to be true. There appears to be a very definite sequence of frequencies applied that created the required harmonics. Those using sound boards in their computers should be aware by now that digital producing sine waves are really chunky when dealing with high frequencies.  The Mathcad simulation that I use really brings this home when using less points. Great numbers of points are needed to produce the finer details that are required to observe some of the above sine wave chopping.

Message 10142 (12/22/94 21:28)
From: Bill Beaty
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: MRA

I wonder if your output rectifiers are a necessary part of the device? Have you tried running it with an AC output and using scope measurements? Might it still work?

Message 10144 (12/22/94 22:00)
From: Jerry Decker (Sysop)
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: (R) Capacitor Charging in MRA Field

Hi Norm ~  Sounds like a great experiment if there is truly a field present...it might even have time distortion effects as with the DePalma claims... since the Nieper and some of Townsend Brown's experiments also seemed to 'dilate' time...I never understood if it was TRULY a time dilation or simply an impeding effect on the mechanical clock mechanism and that might apply to digital also via electron flow quenching.... perhaps Joel's NEONDET circuit, using the neon to detect scalar type changes might be useful to 'scan' the area around the device while in operation...and that in turn leads to the gamma emission detector used by Joe Parr in his rotating pyramid experiments where the energy bubble 'grew' from the center of the King's chamber... lots of permutations.... it would make the most sense to stick with the normal measurements first, then go to the spook field theories... a capacitor, being a stressed dielectric might be an ideal collector of such aether interferences.... I really like Bills idea of scanning ley lines and generating some kind of map... I was just talking with Eric Duchaine from Canada and he mentioned that a geologist friend of his told him the ley lines of the planet are shifting from their position due to large crystal and other mining processes... We also discussed whether these were a MAN MADE GRID that was being disrupted by a lack of understanding or whether it was a natural grid based on the earths own geometry.... and what would be the effects once it reached a certain point of anomaly... Eric is a storehouse of interesting information and a practicing acupuncturist who runs his own BBS...he is very with us in the same kinds of studies with an emphasis on Reich's Orgone... he is going to call Ronnie McWilliams about his radioactive element/orgone stimulation experiments... ~ Jerry

Message 10147 (12/23/94 01:16)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: 150 turn MRA test

Hi Norm ~ I tested the MRA which you made per the schematic with 150 turns on primary and secondary, on a single magnet.  It checks out at 4.63 time unity. Also, I have observed the analog current meter reading lower with the MRA in the circuit than when it is out.  Here's the data: (RMS)

Secondary output = 14.3VAC @ 600 ohms = 241mw for a net change in DC current to the amp of zero ma.  Resistive equivalent on the output for zero ma change is 1300 ohms @ 9.75VAC output, so power = 52mw to the MRA. 241mw / 52mw = 4.63 gain.

When the freq was adjusted so that the output of the MRA was 12VAC @ 600 ohms, the input current to the amp decreased by 10ma. It is not possible to calculate gain because this is an effective output impedance greater than infinity. Supply voltage to the amp was 11.89 volts DC from a ten amp regulated supply and did not vary at all. Somehow, the MRA is increasing the impedance of the amp to the DC supply, possibly reducing the conduction of transistors. ~ Joel

Message 10149 (12/23/94 01:18)
From: Joel McClain
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: Diodes

Hi Bill ~ We used a bridge rect. but that was so we could get useful work out of the MRA, i.e., driving a motor, a fluorescent camping lantern, etc., but for measurement purposes, AC RMS is fine...it's sinusoidal output. ~ Joel

Message 10150 (12/23/94 01:40)
From: Bill Beaty
To: All
Subject: internet MRA

Sir ~ Is there a Email address to get to one of the original people who are working this device. There are a couple of concerns I feel that need to be addressed.....

1. MRA should be NMRA as what you maybe dealing with is Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Amplifier. As you are flipping the Magnetic fields in the magnetic core you are producing Energy; the question is at what cost. The following simple and inexpensive procedures may answer a few questions and raise many more.
.
IF possible introduce a low level radio active material close to you device. The radium dial on a watch or any object that glows in the dark when exposed to sunlight or better yet a small amount of a radio active element... record radiation levels before and after a 24 hr exposure to device.  In case of a glow in the dark element determine how long it will glow before exposure to device and than after exposure to device.

Next take 2 equal amounts of water...using one as a control expose the other to device… Have water checked by a chemist for changes...(extra elections or ions) or lack of also see if water is being broken down by electrochemical reaction with device....
.
It is my belief your device may have some rather interesting effects at low power levels and some very dangerous effects as size and power are increased... It is possible to upset the balance of matter only so far before things start to happen… Materials may start changing or in some cases start coming apart in unusual ways...This device may have applications in areas other than free energy which need to be explored and may hold even greater promise...Consider the possibility of reducing or using spent nuclear material or waste as a source of direct energy. Extracting the deadly radiation and turning it into electrical energy. This may also apply to complex chemical chains with high atomic numbers.
.
As has been observed and noted by a number of people who have written about there experience with this device on the internet...They feel that there is a field of influence around this object (flux fields, draws power from surrounding areas).

Message 10151 (12/23/94 01:42)
From: Bill Beaty
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: MRA testing

Here's a couple of suggestions off the internet:

Do you have measurements on the load and the current-sampling resistor values?  Damn shame if they were mismarked and never checked. The circuit may be altered by connecting meters to it and throwing off the resonance peak. So, connect everything once and make simultaneous measurements.
.
If you have not done so, you could put the current-sample resistor in series with the oscillator output terminal that's grounded.  Then you can ground the scope to the same terminal, use one channel to look at the other end of the resistor, and the other to look at the oscillator voltage. A separate instrument would still be needed to look at output voltage.
.
So, any luck with the duplicate versions?

Message 10153 (12/23/94 01:48)
From: Bill Beaty
To: Jerry Decker (Sysop)
Subject: internet arguments

So far it looks like arguing on the internet IS worthwhile. As soon as skeptics hear that actual oscilloscopes are being used, and that the output really is DC, they start asking where to get piezos! Also, the same people who are nasty on the public newsgroups come around later via private mail wanting more info on parts. Interesting...

Message 10156 (12/23/94 08:56)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA

Bill ~ Please relay to John Brock on Internet the fact that since I am also experimenting with "Cold Fusion" and have been doing so since back in 1987 (before Pons & Fleischman), that I have already seen the corelationship with the "transmutation" that is occurring in the cold fusion cells that John Bockris down at A&M is most excited about. I have a Mills Nickel & Potassium Carbonate cell running that gets cooler as it runs instead of emitting heat as normal. If the cell is absorbing energy in an endothermic reaction then the only conclusion is that some sort of "transmutation is taking place. It is my intent to couple the MRA effect to the "cold Fusion" effect to determine exactly what you are implying about "sub atomic activity" that we cannot at this time understand much less detect. There is so much to be learned here that it exactly why Joel and I elected to go "Internet Public Domain" so that researchers all over the world could apply what we have only "skimmed the surface" on.  The implications are more far reaching that any one person can conceive of. ~ Norm

Message 10160 (12/23/94 11:16)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: OHMS versus MHOS

Last night I left a message for Norm describing a decrease in current to an amplifier as having theoretical greater than infinity impedance for purposes of calculating power gain. That has been bugging me ever since, so I went back to the drawing board.

In MRA theory, the phase relationship of harmonics is used to reduce the current flow from the input source. This results in a nonlinear power in | power out relationship, or ratio. This is mentioned in the file MRA1.ASC here on KeelyNet. This is actually done by tuning the input frequency to the MRA for maximum AC output on its output terminals, then DEtuning the MRA for the most favorable power gain.

Detuning causes powerful harmonics to oppose the flow of input current, while continuing to contribute to the circulating current in the primary coil. This alters the EFFECTIVE impedance, and gives the MRA its gain. So far, so good. But what do we make of it when this effective impedance causes the input power of the amp to decline? The lowest level of input, in theory, is in "standby" mode, with no load attached, so that in measurement terms, the amp "sees" a resistor of infinite ohms on its output.

Up until now, the signal input from the signal generator to the amp has not been given serious consideration because of its extremely low power, 0.1mw at the input of the amp. However, this signal biases the transistors in the amp. As the MRA's output power increases, the signal at the output of the sig gen also increases, indicating that the amp's input impedance increases directly with its input and output power. Detuning the MRA causes an exact reversal of this process. It was found that at 3.3VAC @ 600 ohms output from the MRA, the transistors are at only 55% conduction.  So, it is not the power from the signal source that DIRECTLY affects output power, but the PHASE of the input relative to the reflected phase of the harmonics from the MRA that cause the reduction in input current to the amp.

I know that this is hard to visualize without the equipment sitting in front of you, but for those who will eventually build an MRA, this information may be useful. Now, how do we calculate gain when the input current to the amp decreases under the "load" of the MRA? We have to see the MRA as producing MHOS, the opposite of OHMS (yes, MHOS exist in theory... I'm not making this up). Due to the effects of interphase relationships, the load (MRA) crosses the line from being a load to being a source, and the extent to which it reduces amp power is gain IFF a corresponding output gain is seen or if the MRA output stays the same while input power decreases.

The MHOS from the MRA, by forcing the transistors to conduct below standby levels, are using power which is "borrowed" from the secondary circuit. The power at the secondary is not "free" just because the input power to the amp is less than standby. The output power of the MRA also drops, so there is no gain at this point. The reduced conduction below standby crosses a threshold where the harmonic content "cuts off its own nose" by reducing input power below the level where harmonics are beneficial, i.e., to the point where circulating current in the primary is reduced to a level which causes unity or less gain.  Bad Mhos, bad...no dessert for you! Your comments are welcome. ~ Joel

Message 10162 (12/23/94 12:53)
From: Joel McClain
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: (R) internet MRA

Hi Bill ~ Yes, the MRA draws power from outside of itself.  That is because the core is a magnet, and a magnet is in a constant state of collapse which is why it tries to "pull in" materials with similar lattice structures... to fill the energy void which was created when it was first magnetized.

The MRA allows the magnet to attempt to restore its matter/energy balance, or to demagnetize itself...slowly. We are resonating the magnet and it responds by collapsing energy into itself, via the coils which pick up this "surplus" energy and deliver it to a load.

The total energy drawn before the magnet is no longer a magnet will be less than the energy "stored" in its imbalance. If there was a "radioactive" reaction, it would have been immediate and very large in the original magnetization process, yet magnetizing is considered to be safe.

I think that the MRA would hurt you if you dropped it on your foot, but I'll let that assumption ride without empirical evidence. ~ Joel

Message 10164 (12/23/94 15:30)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: MRA Energy Pump Test

Hi Norm ~ I've stated here and in the MRA files that the MRA is an energy absorber, which we have seen evidenced, but which I can now prove. Set up your MRA in 85% mode, and let it "warm up". Then, reset the secondary output to half of the maximum output voltage by further detuning the input frequency.

Put an aluminum foil shield over it (I'm using an old pyramid made of kite sticks and foil). The output will go down as the shield keeps energy from getting to the MRA. Remove the shield, and the output  goes right back up. Because aluminum is non-ferrous, the gain of the MRA can only be affected by the flow of energies external to the device. ~ Joel

Message 10165 (12/23/94 17:56)
From: Bill Beaty
To: All
Subject: Another MRA

I've put together an MRA circuit using a 4" speaker magnet and a 1.5" piezo slug. No o/u effects apparent yet. There is so voltage multiplication when it's run at the piezo resonance freq, but the throughput is only 50% at that point. It's worse at other frequencies. I find no electrical resonance of the magnet/coil, the only resonance is of the piezo. The piezo resonates at 55 Khz alone, 48 Khz when in the circuit. I wonder if something in particular is required to make this circuit go o/u. Maybe location? I hope the device still works when it's sent elsewhere for verification!
.
All the waveforms I've seen so far have almost no harmonics. My numbers come from Vpp readings off a scope, not from any DVMs.  I'm awaiting some ceramic slab magnets from H&R, so I may still find out more. I wonder if the MRA requires its magnet to be free to acoustically resonate? If the coil is wound so as to dampen the vibration and sound, and if things like electrical tape are used improperly, the magnet won't vibrate. Will this mess things up?

Message 10172 (12/23/94 20:51)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: The 300 turn secondary and 60W bulbs

There was an error in message # 10148...the MRA tested today was made by Norm for test, and has a two to one step up ratio, i.e., 150 turns on the primary, 300 turns on the secondary.  From what I can measure, this is superior to the original one-to-one ratio of the first MRA, which I wound to test theory.  Makes sense though, because as the magnet inhales energy, the more secondary you have, the more energy will be collected for the load.

Also, have noticed that when light bulbs (ordinary 60W bulbs) blow, they do so with great vigor and a brighter than normal flash.  The filament is exploded off of its posts, and flies around the inside of the bulb with enough force to leave striations on the glass.

In the past, I have associated this with an accumulation of virtual particles on the neutral lines of the house (from other experiments). This accumulation causes the lines to superconduct when a light switch is turned on, because the neutral is no longer neutral but at an elevated virtual potential.  The effect is the same. ~ Joel

Message 10213 (12/26/94 19:56)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: Retesting for Motor Drive

Hi Norm ~ Went "back to basics" today, since everything had been put away (off the kitchen table) for Christmas.  Retested the 2:1 MRA, and adjusted the input freq to give an even 40VAC across 600 ohms, and the input from the amp was 20VAC to the MRA primary. Disconnected the MRA from the amp and connected the amp to the decade box, and found that the equivalent resistance was 430 ohms. So...

MRA output = 40 / 600 = 0.067A X 40 = 2.67 X .707 = 1.89W
MRA input  = 20 / 430 = 0.047A X 20 = 0.93 X .707 = 0.66W
Gain = 2.86 times unity

However, when the Pittman motor was connected, the piezo became more conductive, and the power gain dropped to unity or less, so I tried six other piezos to find one that would handle the motor load without breaking down...no luck. The first piezo had a lot of miles on it from other tests before we used it to run the motor, and these piezos are fairly new, so it may take a lot of conditioning before they can handle a motor, or maybe an oxide coating has to build up on the surfaces. If the load is too heavy, detuning has no effect.

The piezo that we sent to Walt wasn't "motor tested", so if he loads it very much, it will probably not make unity. However, under resistive loads such as today's test, it is fine. ~ Joel

Message 10214  (12/26/94 23:03)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan

Hi Norm ~ After trying six piezos, the seventh was good.  It went through the resistive test better than the others, and on the DC motor, gave 3X gain, with 801mw in and 2.44W out.  The input is AC RMS, and the output is DC.  Not sure why the difference with this piezo, but will try to find out what is different about it. ~ Joel

Message 10215 (12/27/94 07:32)
From: Norman Wootan
To: James Johnson
Subject: MRA

James ~  Excellent report on the "sine wave chopping". See you are verifying exactly what I have been saying all along about trying to replicate "John Keely's" work with computer generated wave forms. It won't work for you have to have the purest sine wave that is obtainable to achieve the results we are looking for. The MRA circuit is the same effect, you have to use sine wave input to set up the dual resonance required in the piezo and magnet at 3 octave separation or you get "NO CIGAR".  Thanks for the report. I am still looking for the "Hammond organ" sine wave generator before proceeding any further on the "water dissociation". ~ Norm

Message 10216 (12/27/94 07:38)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Joel McClain
Subject: MRA (Bill Beaty Version)

Joel ~ I set up Bill's MRA yesterday before leaving for San Antone to visit my son and daughter. It burned in from 8:00AM till 1:00AM this morning so it is well seasoned now for delivery to Bill. Will jot down the parameters so he won't have any trouble booting it off for his test.  It is a carbon copy of the 12:1 I/O ratio for it has the 2:1 winding ratio like the last one I delivered to you. ~ Norm

Message 10218 (12/27/94 09:19)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: Oxide coating and solder

Hi Norm ~ Now that the MRA has been conditioned with the new piezo, the effective impedance of the circuit is slightly over 2500 ohms, and the power gain is 14.3, with the motor load. It came up within a half hour of powering it up...output and input voltages both climbing until the DC out was 15% less than max, while the voltage applied climbed until there was no drop across the MRA.

I used the decade box across the power in, and adjusted it until the input voltage was starting to drop, which was at 2500 ohms. It is now tuned and balanced at 33.83KHz.

The only difference with this piezo that is visible is in the method of soldering the leads. I dripped a ball of solder on each side, and there is flux around its edges on the piezo. I then tinned the leads and melted them into the solder balls. I think that this works because it doesn't break through the oxide coating. Reminds me of Bearden's concept, the "old wire" idea... only works if you don't scrape through to the copper. ~ Joel

Message 10220  (12/27/94 15:04)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: Ultimate Test

Hi Norm ~ I just did the "ultimate" test of the MRA, proving that it is over unity even if you assume that the amplifier which feeds it is 100% efficient. I measured actual AC current to the amplifier, both with the MRA connected and disconnected.  The difference at 120VAC is 12ma. This means that 12ma times 120VAC = 1.44W X .707 = 1.02W into the amplifier. The MRA is, at the same time, supplying DC output power to a motor of 12VDC at 140ma, for 1.68W.

So, even if you assume that the amplifier is 100% efficient, which it definitely is not, the MRA is still 61% over unity. This is a bottom line number to cut through the haze of "power factor" questions, and end the discussion of whether it is over unity, so we can determine exactly HOW MUCH it is over unity. I don't think that anyone will suggest that the Radio Shack amplifier is over unity, so the gain can  only be coming from one place, and since it's DC off the bridge, it is true power. ~ Joel

Message 10221 (12/27/94 17:26)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan

Hi Norm ~ Went back as you suggested and checked the input from the sig gen to the amp. The output terminals of the sig gen have 1.27VAC across them and measuring the drop with a series resistor, there is .0013W from the sig gen. Actually, you can remove the sig gen return line and the MRA will stay in oscillation with no current from the sig gen except a few microamps of leakage current, as I found out as I was connecting the series non-inductive resistor. For all practical purposes, there is no power being added to the circuit from the sig gen. ~ Joel

Message 10235 (12/28/94 12:05)
From: Bill Beaty
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: mra measurements

This guy Bob Jewett on internet pointed out a measurement problem which I had not noticed. Voltage measurements across a resistor CANNOT be done as two measurements referenced to a third point if phase is variable.  In some common resonant circuits, the voltage on either end of a resistor could be way out of phase with respect to common, yet the peak and the rms voltages on the resistor ends would be identical. So if you measure each end separately, you see the same voltage, and assume the current is zero. But if you measure ACROSS the resistor, you see a large (real) voltage, and discover the current is large.  So, measurements must be done with a floating meter across the resistor, or with a dualtrace scope in differential mode and the two probes placed across the resistor. Or you can always move the position of the resistor in the circuit so that one end is the same as the common point of all the test equipment, then measure from the common point to the 'high' side with less chance of mistakes caused by phase.

Message 10237  (12/28/94 13:23)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: MRA reduces AC line current

Hi Norm ~ I left the MRA on all night and ran the I/O test again, comparing the AC power into the amp with the DC power out of the MRA under a motor load.

The audio amp now draws 3ma LESS line current from the 120VAC input when the MRA is on the output of the amplifier.  The motor is running along with 10.6VDC at 140ma of power from the MRA.  The MRA is forcing the amp's transistors out of conduction, which is seen by the line input as a lower load requirement to the power supply of the amp, or basically as a higher resistance to input current. This means that the MRA is producing Mhos, which it could be using for its own circulating current, but instead is using to drive down current from the amp.

I compared this with the Universal Resonance Curve for series resonant circuits by first changing the input freq until the MRA was out of resonance, then bringing it to full output, then reducing the gain by increasing the frequency. The MRA, out of resonance, causes a 3ma increase in line current just by being connected to the amp.

As a series resonant circuit, the MRA has theoretical zero impedance (limited to copper loss) at peak resonance, which is its max power output point. DEtuning the MRA by increasing the frequency should decrease the input current, which it does.  However, at the 65% point of relative resonance, which is where it is now, the resonance curve intersects with the phase angle of applied current from the amp.

This is the "knee" of the input current phase angle rise. The current should continue to rise, but is being forced down by the harmonic content of the MRA at resonance, as seen by the decrease in input current to the amplifier... not just below the non-resonant load of the MRA, but below no-load. ~ Joel

Message 10238  (12/28/94 14:12)
From: Joel McClain
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: (R) mra measurements

Hi Bill ~ We have tried both methods of measurement, and the problem which we have is that there is very high voltage multiplication across both elements of the series resonant circuit. We are dealing with typical Q's of over 100, which is normal in a series resonant circuit, but which make a voltage drop measurement meaningless. So, we measure the equivalent load using a precision decade box, or as most recently we measure the delta in input power to the audio amp, which will decrease under the output load of the MRA at 65% of the resonant peak. Phase isn't just variable, it's 180 degrees out relative to the
individual components.

No matter where you put a resistor in the series resonant circuit, you will measure a drop which is the result of multiplied voltage. But you can't fool a decade box. When you remove the MRA and put the decade box in its place, and set the resistors to give the same delta in applied voltage, you know EXACTLY how much current is being drawn. If you use a current probe, which we have also done, you also see the multiplied voltage, because the pickup of the probe is a coil. I would think that, based upon his question, Bob Jewett is aware of these considerations. His assumption that you will see a high voltage drop is correct, because you are measuring the difference in multiplied voltages... now IF you want to relate this to actual INPUT voltage, divide this drop by the multiplication factor of the circuit, and you will have the voltage which you can use for current measurement, and which agrees exactly with the decade box.

You can prove this with any series resonant circuit, it doesn't have to be the MRA. ~ Joel

Message 10242   (12/28/94 15:45)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Joel McClain
Subject: MRA

Joel ~ Sure sounds like you have been busy nailing this beast down. I built another 2:1 for Bill and will visit later to discuss the other test. Everyone is asking the right questions for which we already have "plowed the ground" so have some answers. You know I "pinch" myself all the time and ask "is this really happening?". Verification is the answer to all the questions. ~ Norm

Message 10243 (12/28/94 18:15)
From: Joel McClain
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: Drop current and decade current

Hi Bill ~ Here's some numbers taken from actual measurement to help define the primary current drawn by the MRA.

Voltage applied from amplifier = 23.38VAC
Equivalent resistance measurement = 500 ohms
Current = E divided by R = 0.0468 amperes
Series drop across 2 ohm resistor = .380VAC

Voltage multiplication = 4 times input voltage in the series circuit (Note: Combined voltages across piezo and primary = four times the voltage applied by the amplifier. If we're going to apply the current derived by the drop to input voltage for power, then it must be the ratio of the input voltage, not the multiplied voltage.)

Voltage of .380VAC divided by 4 = .095VAC
Current = .095VAC divided by 2 ohms = .0475 amperes
Power in either case is equal to 23.38VAC times 0.47 = 1.098W
RMS power = 1.098W times 0.707 = 0.777W
Measured output from the MRA is 18.4VDC times 0.140 = 2.576W
Power gain = 3.32 times unity.

I don't know what else to do, or what other test to perform at this point, so I'll stop here unless someone can suggest something. If reducing AC line current in the previous test wasn't enough, then I guess nothing ever will be for the "eternal skeptics" on the I-Net. ~ Joel

Message 10253 (12/29/94 06:24)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA

Bill ~ After successfully running the MRA on 12 Dec. Joel and I video taped the original prototype running on his table and driving two loads i.e., light bulbs and DC motors at the same time so that no one could say that this was RF as we have seen when experimenters run small neon tubes. The video of course has date time stamps on the footage. This is normal and prudent procedures when establishing time and place of invention. I have had so many calls now requesting magnets and piezo's  that I cannot possibly supply them. I spent about 3 hours on the phone yesterday talking to people across this country re-MRA. The biggest problem that I have encountered is the fact that all who have called have only the original MRA.ASC file and do not have the MRA1.ASC and the most important RULE9.ASC. Without the Rule9.ASC they do not have the theory that makes the MRA possible. Copies of the MRA.ASC are being sent all over this country to friends and other researchers without the RULE9.ASC. Are you posting the MRA (public "A") messages to Internet each day so that there is a constant up-date as to progress?  ~ Norm

Message 10254  (12/29/94 06:36)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Joel McClain
Subject: MRA (Power Test)

Joel ~ I have been putting a lot of thought into the high power test of the MRA device. Since you have determined that the circuit is creating what we call Mhos and usually this phenomenon is associated with vacuum tubes in operation and going back to the work of T. Henry Moray with his "valve" then I am setting up this 250 watt tube power amp for the ultimate test. Since transistors seem to not be able to take the bucking effect of the "first harmonic" check in the input current into the circuit we should use the vacuum tube for this final stage of signal injection into the MRA series resonant primary. The "finals" tubes then are basically in the series circuit and will survive the punishment brought on by the "hammering" effect of the first harmonic. These large output tubes will display more of your "Mhos" effect than simple transistors. I still believe, (I keep dreaming about it) that the vacuum tube should play a part in the circuit as a "coherer" of the ZPE into the circuit. Certainly worth trying for we are at the point where we need to push the piezo's at their design power ratings of 50 watts at 150 Volts. There will be some serious voltages developed in the series resonant primary for we have already seen nearly 1000 Volts circulating with only 20 volts of primary input. A vacuum tube is the only animal that could survive the punishment in a high voltage circuit like this. Bob Paddock's indestructible transistors won't cut it in this harsh environment. Thoughts and ideas. ~ Norm

Message 10257 (12/29/94 10:22)
From: Joel McClain
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: Testing, 1-2-3

Hi Bill ~ You made a suggestion a while back about going into the amplifier output section and measuring current from an isolated point. That was done this morning, measuring both voltage and current into and out of the isolation transformer. It was easy, because the xfmr leads are wire wrapped to pins on top of the pcb.

The input to the isolation transformer is consuming 2.4 watts, and the output is measuring 1.9 watts, while the MRA is providing 2.3 watts, which is less than the input to the isolation transformer, but more than the output. Since the secondary of the isolation transformer is part of the "voltage multiplied" primary of the MRA, its power at 1.9 watts may be overstated... but regardless, the MRA output is above it by 26%, and that is DC, after a bridge rectifier. MRA primary current was decreasing while the secondary output was increasing, but I took a reading rather than wait all day to see exactly where it would go.

Increasing power to the MRA (went up to 20VDC out on a 19.1VDC rated motor) increased the ratio to 30%. What this is saying is that the gain of the MRA is high enough so that it doesn't matter whether you measure primary current direct in-line across multiplied voltage... it's still over unity.  Now I really don't know what to test next. Suggestions? ~ Joel

Message 10261 (12/29/94 14:30)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Joel McClain
Subject: MRA (Power Test)

Joel ~ Do you think I'm crazy?  I had no intention to just turn the switch on a 250 Watt amp driving the piezo. What I said is that we need to substitute a vacuum tube amp in the circuit instead of the puny transistors we are now using so we can proceed in the power test. I like you agree with caution on something we are not really sure of the true nature of the beast. Don't worry, there is no intention of running very significant amounts of power at this time. ~ Norm

Message 10265  (12/29/94 20:30)
From: Bill Beaty
To: All
Subject: MRA measurements

Norm and Joel ~  About the current-sensing resistor position, I mean you should try connecting it like this:
coils/ magnet       piezo                  _______
______      _________|[]|_________________|       |
|      |    |         |[]|        |        |out    |
|      |    |                   __|____    |       |
load /      C || C                  |      |    |       |
res. \      C || C                  | Vrms |    |  OSC  |
/      C || C                  |______|    |       |
\      C || C         2.0ohm      |        |       |
|______|    |________/\/\/\_______|________|com    |
|              |            |_______|
|              |
|     ______   |
|____|      |__|
| Vrms |
|______|
.
Even if the whole circuit is floating, the oscillator's 'common' terminal will act as a reference point, and the high voltages across the piezo and magnet then should not mess up the input measurements. Simply multiply the two RMS voltage readings, divide by 2.0 ohms, and you'll know the worst case input power (as close as the RMS meter can tell you, that is.) If you've already tried the above measurement, does it give overunity numbers? If it won't, then there may be something screwy with the other measurements. I would trust the above setup. If a dual-channel scope is substituted for the RMS meters (with the scope's common lead going to the oscillator common terminal) you should be able to see the current and voltage waveforms at the same time, so phase can be observed directly, ending lots of arguments. Whaddaya think? ~ Bill

Message 10267  (12/29/94 23:00)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: W. Rosenthal called...

Hi Norm ~ Walter Rosenthal says that the effect of watches running slow in the vicinity of ZPE devices is well known, and says that Tom Bearden can describe it better than anybody. I faxed Walt the most recent message base test data. We also talked about possibly using the MRA as an earthquake warning device, so he may keep it after the tests to try it for that purpose.

He also said that the method of attaching leads to the piezo is very important, and that attaching them closer to the hole would be better because the effect is like putting your hand on a bell... you muffle the sound more as you get further toward the outer edges. ~ Joel

Message 10269 (12/30/94 09:48)
From: Joel McClain
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: (R) MRA measurements

Hi Bill ~  Thank you for the diagram.  I'm going to tell you some things in this message which will make no sense to you in terms of conventional electronics... but I've put in close to 90 test hours with the MRA so far, and these are reproducible constants for the circuit.

Tom Bearden has been quoted as saying "... think backwards" when you are dealing with devices of this type, and in many ways this is true. The MRA primary is a Tesla coil which is being fed by the matching xfmr secondary of the signal generator.  As with any Tesla coil, there is voltage multiplication, and this appears across every element of the completed primary circuit, including the signal generator's output xfmr secondary.

Because of this, you will measure a voltage across the signal generator output secondary which is higher under load than it is at no-load. In a conventional xfmr, this is not possible.

After you turn on the MRA, and for a period of hours afterwards, you will see the DC output climb in increments while the MRA primary current drops in increments and the signal generator output secondary voltage goes above no-load. This is the opposite of a normal power supply.

If you add a resistor anywhere in the MRA primary circuit, the primary current will increase... also the opposite of a typical transformer, where resistors are used to decrease current. While the primary current is increasing, the output DC is dropping, also the opposite of what you would expect.

The MRA can be tuned to drive down AC line current below no-load, and still produce usable power. As far as primary current, the only way that I've been able to measure it is inline, with a meter that has a freq range of 200KHz, and even the tiny voltage drop of the inline meter will increase current and lower output DC.

Very few of the "old rules" apply in a circuit which is adding power to the applied power at resonance. It's like having an external power source in the middle of the circuit, and in fact, that is what you have. The piezo is adding free electrons and the magnet is acting like a generator, and the combination equals unity plus.

You will have to see this for yourself... I still do, every day in fact just to make sure it's real. It is. Have fun! ~ Joel

Message 10271 (12/30/94 13:06)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: Cool Current

Hi Norm ~ Tom Bearden and others have reported the effect of "cold current" in free energy devices, and so the question comes up regarding the MRA, "where's the cold current?" I've taken the MRA's temperature at all inputs and outputs, and everything is 5-10 degrees warmer than ambient air, except for one place. There is one place where the temp is the same as ambient, and it is a path in the series circuit which should read warmer, like all of the other paths... so, there is some cooling, but not a lot of it under low level input and output.

That location is the wires connecting the piezo to the primary, which should be as warm as the other wires in the series circuit, but these wires stay at room temp. That is the location where we should see "blue light" on camera film. Now that Tom has seen the schematic, if we ask him where we should see it, I bet he'll know. ~ Joel

Message 10297  (12/31/94 10:48)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA

Bill ~ Your complete MRA is on the way and should be there by Monday. I downloaded the Internet traffic and saw so much "negative energy" being expended out there trying to discredit something that we offered up in the "Public Domain" for other researchers to take a serious look at. The first counter statement that I will make is that Joel and I agreed that we will not sell or accept any re-imbursement of any kind for anything connected with the MRA device for the very reason sited in the message traffic. No I will not sell off my small stock of transducers. I will give magnets and transducers only to serious researchers for the purpose of circuit Over-unity output verification. We are not seeking any profit from this device thus the reason for offering it as "public domain".  If those out there are so narrow minded that they will not analyze the circuit for what it does, so be it.  They are beyond help. To those who question why we have not "self powered" the device, we are working on the voltage regulator, oscillator and power driver circuit that will make this possible. Everyone thinks this can be done overnight --- "wrong" --- things don't happen that fast. Our intent was to get the fundamentals out for all to see and experiment with. The most important document in the MRA project is the RULE9.ASC file which explains the fundamental theory behind the MRA principle. I will be putting out a paper shortly explaining what is going on in the Griggs and Perkins Hydrosonic Pump for it is directly tied in to the MRA in principle of operation and ZPE tapping effects. More on that later. As to the critics out there saying that measurements of input power are defective. This is what we currently have at our disposal on our work benches between Joel and myself.  2 ea. General Radio Precision Decade Resistor Boxes, 3 ea. Techtronic 465 Dual Trace Scopes, 2 ea. Fluke 87 true RMS meters, 1 ea. P6042 Current Probe, 2 ea P6021 Current Probes, 1 Wavetek 164 Sig Gen, 1 ea BK Precision E310B Sig Gen, 1 ea. HP 200 CD Sig Gen, 1 HP 5383 Freq Counter, 2 ea Simpson Freq Counters, 1ea.  Wavetek DM 27X7 meter & freq counter, and a whole bunch of the old analog Simpson and Tripplet meters that have been cast aside with the coming of the digital world. I realize that we do not have the sophisticated equipment that you would find in an industrial or university lab but it gives us a good idea as to what is fact or fiction. We have the circuit out being tested by those that do have the latest state-of-the-art equipment so time will tell all. Be patient is all I have to say for now. In time the truth will be known to all. ~ Norm

Message 10301 (12/31/94 12:11)
To: Joel McClain
Subject: (R) MRA reduces AC line current

This means that the MRA is producing Mhos, which it could be using for its own circulating current, but instead is using to drive down current from the amp. I almost fell on the floor when I read "producing Mhos". Lecture Mode On: Nothing "produces" Mhos. Mhos are now called Siemens, and given the unit S. [Personally I liked the humor of Mhos (Ohms backwards)]. Mhos are the 'reciprocal' (mathematical opposite) of Ohms.

R = 1/G  or  G=1/R
Where      R = Resistance in Ohms
G = Conductance in Siemens (Mhos)

Conductance and Resistance refer to the same thing but from opposite viewpoints. While Resistance is the Resistance to current flow, Conductance is the allowance of current flow; zero conductance = infinite resistance.

I'm sure you've calculated the total resistance (Rt) of a number of resistors in parallel using this formula:

Rt = 1/( 1/R1 + 1/R2 + 1/R3 .... + 1/Rx)

What you are really doing is adding the resistors Conductance values together as if the resisters where in series. Then converting the series Conductance value back into the parallel resistance with the finial 1/(). Also in this inverted world live: Susceptance, B, the reciprocal of (1/X) and, Admittance, Y, the reciprocal of impedance (1/Z). People at work tell me I have a warped perspective, and tend to look at things backwards [I look at it as turning a negative in to a positive or a 'feature']. Also while I'm in this lecturing mode (I don't like it) is this .707 thing: .707 has NOTHING, ZIP, NO'DA, to do with Power Factor, as I explained in one of my previous messages to Norm. .707 has to do with converting *PURE* sine waves in to the work equivalent of DC (RMS). You keep talking about harmonics so I assume that you don't have *PURE* sine waves? I don't like coming across as the heavy here all of the time, but if you want to be taken seriously by The Rest Of the World then we all need to be on the Their program.... Even if They don't get it... Lecture Mode Off.

Message 10302 (12/31/94 12:13)
To: Joel McClain
Subject: (R) Drop current and decade current

I don't know what else to do, or what other test to perform at this point, so I'll stop here unless someone can suggest something. A heat based power meter, or better yet a Calorimeter. If reducing AC line current in the previous test wasn't enough, then I guess nothing ever will be for the "eternal skeptics" on the I-Net. Don't waste time/energy on the 'eternal skeptics' they'll die off and a new breed will grow up in their place that 'Get It'.

Message 10303 (12/31/94 12:15)
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: (R) MRA (Power Test)

Since you have determined that the circuit is creating what we call Mhos and usually this phenomenon is associated with vaccuum tubes in operation. You are thinking of Transconductance (gm [small G with small subscript m]), also known as Mutual Conductance. There are several people that make Transconductance IC's now (Maxim and Harris for two; good into the hundreds of megahertz). In a given tube, if Eg varies by some amount the Ip will vary by a certain amount. Tubes having the ability of  producing a relatively wide Ip variation with a given Eg  variation have high values of transconductance. Gm = DIp / DEg   (Should be small letters with a subscript)
u  = dEp / dEg
gm = u/rp

Where   gm = transconductanc in siemens (mhos)
u = amplification factor
rp = ac plate impedance

Transconductance (gm) also shows up in JFETs; its ability to vary the output current, Id, when an input-voltage variation is applied (some times this is called forward transadmittance, yf or gf (small y/small g subscript f).
gm = (DELTA id/DELTA Vgs) | Vds constant

No magic in the math here... A vacuum tube is the only animal that could survive the punishment in a high voltage circuit like this. Bob Paddock's indestructible transistors won't cut it in this harsh environment. You're right a normal transistor would never survive this, but check out the IGBT's and MCTs in that Harris book. 1200 volts is no problem. International Rectifier also has some MOSFETs that get up in the 1000+ range, and Motorola's HDTMOS are getting close. I like the TMOS ones myself.  Make sure you use the ones with the Kalvonic contact current sense to simplify your measurements and feedback control. Also you have to watch the dv/dt and di/dt not just the voltage.

Message 10307 (12/31/94 14:13)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: MRA I/O Ratios
Test date:  12-31-94

To measure apples against apples, I've tested the MRA at both of the output levels which are important, Maximum Power and Maximum Gain, using the resistive equivalent load method. The measurements were made to attain the same signal source voltage drop as when the MRA is in the circuit as well as to measure the current in series with the decade box at those voltage drops.

The applied voltage is 23.75VAC from a signal source. At Maximum Power, this voltage dropped to 21.9VAC. At Maximum gain, it dropped to 23.25VAC. At Maximum Power, the equivalent resistance to obtain a signal voltage drop to 21.9VAC is 165 ohms, and the measured current is 132ma. At Maximum Gain, the equivalent resistance to obtain a signal voltage drop to 23.25VAC is 595 ohms, and the measured current is 40ma. Input power is calculated using the above measurements to be 2.04W RMS at Maximum Power, and 658mw RMS at Maximum Gain.

The output power for this test was in rectified and filtered DC voltage applied across a running motor which drew 140ma of current.

At Maximum Power, the output voltage w 18.38VDC, and power was therefore 2.57W. This is a gain of .53W, or 1.26 times unity.

At Maximum Gain, the output voltage was 15.5VDC, and power was therefore 2.17W. This is a gain of 1.51W, or 3.30 times unity.

The measurements were made in the linear output region of the signal source, where variations in the resistive values, either higher or lower, would cause corresponding changes in applied voltage and series current. The pattern of current increases and decreases is the same as is seen when "live" measurements are taken in the MRA primary circuit. However, the live measurements in the circuit when it is reactive and therefore has multiplied voltages present do not conform to Ohm's Law, and are not considered to be reliable.

Any losses which occur as a result of rectifying and filtering the AC to DC are considered as a "cost of doing business", because DC is useful for powering a load, and 34KHz is not. Therefore, these losses are not factored into the power gain measurement. ~ Joel

Message 10308 (12/31/94 14:14)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: Call & Fax from Tom Bearden

Hi Norm ~ Tom Bearden sent a fax (11 pages) explaining much of the effects of the MRA in terms of Whittaker waves and how this is causing phase conjugate pump waves to "slip in" hyper 3-space (aetheric) energy. Because of the materials in the MRA and the use of three octaves of resonance, he says that the over unity effect is unavoidable. Many other circuits can be made using the same principles, but the difference with the MRA is that the energy is CONTROLLED and producing work.

I called him back... I still haven't read all of the fax... and we talked for a while. I want him to have the MRA that I'm using for test now as his evaluation unit, and he will get it certified by "recognized" members of the scientific community. Next time you come over, we'll pack it up and send it to him. ~ Joel

Message 10311  (12/31/94 14:29)
From: Bill Beaty
To: Joel McClain
Subject: (R) Testing, 1-2-3

That's excellent news on the MRA gain measurements. I am very unsure about this voltage multiplying effect as applied to any series resistors or components within the oscillator. In a series-resonant circuit, the voltage across the coil and capacitor will build up hugely because of resonant energy storage, but this will not affect the voltage across the current-sampling resistor or across the driving oscillator, or across the current probe coil (unless the probe coil has a resonant frequency the same as the MRA.) But then again, o/u physics could do all kinds of unexpected things. It sure would be strange if o/u devices are common, but their effects make measurement devices read incorrectly and underestimate actual energy "creation."
.
The only true way to prove that the device works is to make it function as a self-acting black box. If the o/u percentage is high enough, the power amp could be driven from the DC out of the MRA. Or, as someone on the Net suggested, you could connect the MRA output to a 120vac inverter, and feed that back to normal 120v drive equipment. Big losses via inverter efficiency though. It definitely should be possible to build a custom amp/oscillator having very low supply requirements, so that even a low o/u percentage could be made into a self-sustaining energy source. Until this is done, there is a chance that we are all fooling ourselves. The slowing wristwatches and the self-oscillation Norm observed are very good signs this is real.

Message 10313 (12/31/94 15:37)
From: Joel McClain

Hi Bob ~ I'll try to answer all of your messages... very thoughtful stuff, and I appreciate the time you've put into them.

Mhos...hmmm...well, per the books, it was the closest thing I could find to describe the effect... ok, I'll call it by it's proper name: "energy density and energy transport in bidirectional EM wave flux to create massless displacement current via hidden channel (Whittaker Field) phase conjugate pumping"

Call me old fashioned, but I really prefer the humble Mho to describe the effect...  I can wrap my brain around a Mho, but it's still stretching AWFULLY hard to get around that other stuff....

The sig gen is grounded, but its output is off of an isolation xfmr, and the amp is ungrounded... btw, the frequency of oscillation jumps up one octave to over 66KHz when you remove the signal return lead from the sig gen and let it run open.

Thank you for clearing up the power factor "cosine of theta" stuff. It's good confirmation, since we are comparing the input power with output DC from a bridge rectifier... apples with apples. ~ Joel

Message 10343 (01/02/95 08:40)
From: Ben Cobb
To: All
Subject: MRA Other ways?

I came here from the Inet, even though Bill is doing a good job of putting the information up there, he doesn't seem to be getting the messages (the serious, constructive ones) back to you guys, so I have to pay for the LD call. Hope Bill will hear this and change his ways, anyway Bill, I do enjoy your WWW page, keep up the good work.

Guys, Please, Please... Try taking one of your prototypes and put a coil around the magnet to make it "move" like the peizo does. What I  mean is to hang the magnet somehow (with string, rubber bands?) in the middle of a coil so that you can "modulate" it with this coil. This coil would NOT CONTACT the magnet, as your other ones do. This may save you the problems of the Peizo feedback and such... please try it and let me know what happens. I am serious, what would it hurt? Why wouldn't some other sort of stimulation at that frequency work? The idea is to move the magnet at that frequency isn't it?

Also, before you guys go for the "big power" driving this circuit, you better tie it to the bench... Just a warning because this has been done before, and it damaged some equipment real bad.... (a big test)

Message 10346  (01/02/95 11:50)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: MRA Tech Note

Here's another tech. note which may be useful for experimenters who choose to build and test their own MRA. Because we are resonating both the piezo and the magnet physically, it is important that the MRA is not left in a very cold environment before use. I put one out in a cold garage (well below freezing) for two days, and found that the magnet is slow to warm up, and as a result, the DC output voltage is under 80% of where it was when the MRA was at room temperature. Also, it will not detune properly when it is cold. In other words, it behaves like an ordinary series resonant circuit. Actually, I think it's more like the effect a cold car battery, which loses efficiency when it is cold.

If your MRA, particularly the magnet, gets cold, let it warm up overnight before you use it. These are big magnets, and it takes a long time for them to warm up. Even when the surface temperature is warm, the magnet is cold inside, and it takes time for it to transfer heat. ~ Joel

Message 10348  (01/02/95 13:11)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Ben Cobb
Subject: MRA Other Ways

Ben: thanks for the input on suspending the magnet material inside a coil so that it is totally free to oscillate or resonate at what ever freq that "shakes out". We have had several Keely-Netters suggest the same thing but have not gotten around to that phase of testing. We have had a suggestion that there may be a "light" interface also that we have not investigated.  To show that you input is valued, I have just finished winding a 4" diameter air core coil so we can suspend the magnet inside of same so as to be free to resonate. Now the trick, "some experimenting here" is to find the best method of suspension. I keep thinking about the "chime bar in the ordinary door chime" method of suspension.  Support at the "node points" is the terminology  therefore we don't interfere with the resonance or attenuate it. I will get back to you after we have done some testing on this approach. I will deliver this set up to Joel so he can run it through its paces. I want to build one that is a full-blown Tesla coil with a design freq of 174.9 KHZ so we can couple directly with the earth's natural ferro-magnetic frequency.  This approach keeps coming back to "haunt me for some reason so why not pursue it. More later. Thanks again. ~  Norm

Message 10350 (01/02/95 14:38)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA

Bill:  We all get criticism from all directions when we attempt to inform the world of new and exciting energy info.  We value your part in this endeavor (Internet interface and "E" researcher) and look forward to reading all feed back from the "big Net" (Can you really talk to GOD on the Internet ?). I know that there is a lot of positive support out there for I have been receiving calls from some very interesting Engineers working behind "high security" doors for some top defense and industrial contractors who are really pushing the state of the art in electronics research. All have said "congratulations for sharing what you are learning" for this is the only way the word can get out of a very tight circle of research.  The ones out there shouting the "negatives" are really eaten up with the idea of "free energy" or a new form of energy but have not been able to envision the correct approach. Keep the words flowing (both ways) so we can feel the "pulse" of that other world called "ACADEMIA".   ~ Norm

Message 10352 (01/03/95 06:48)
To: Joel McClain
Subject: (R) MRA measurements

The piezo is adding free electrons and the magnet is acting like a generator, and the combination equals unity plus. This reminds me of Joe Newman's idea where the mass of the wire is converted to energy via E = M(C*C). Have you ever put the MRA on a balance scale (A Hooks Law scale might be upset via the operation of the MRA, see the work of G. Hodowanec, the Gravity Wave Guy)?  Is it losing mass at almost immeasurably small rate while operating?

Message 10354  (01/03/95 06:51)
To: Joel McClain

Mhos...hmmm...well, per the books, it was the closest thing I could find to describe the effect...ok, I'll call it by it's proper name: "energy density and energy transport in bidirectional EM wave flux to create massless displacement current via hidden channel (Whittaker Field) phase conjugate pumping"… I think I get it now (?). By your use of the term Mhos, I think you are implying Negative Resistance (Negative power creation), which is entirely different than Conductance (measured in the units Mhos). Sometimes my "education" gets in the way the Mhos being a case in point. Can we come up with a term for Negative Resistance, and Negative Power, and avoid the use of Mhos so as not to confuse others? Also "Displacement Current" has a text book meaning and a "Free Energy" meaning… what do we do there? Tunnel Diodes exhibit Negative Resistance.  Lambda Diodes also do too. Tunnel Diodes are expensive these days (\$50+).  But you can make a Lambda Diode out of back to back P and N JFETs, connect all like leads together (gate to gate, etc).  Also the "Black Hole Antenna" work of Sutton, where he synthesizes -L/-R/-C. The problem here is that none of these really have much to do with Free Energy.  So where does that leave us? I've read Whittakers papers, but the math in them is far beyond my abilities today. What I got out of them was that Whittaker showed than any Hertzen Wave (Transverse Vector Wave) could be broken down into its component Scalar Waves. How does this relate to the MRA? I've never quite "Got It" with the phase conjugate pumping stuff yet, time for more study. The timeless (-t) reflection back to the source point always seemed like a fun way to Zap the Zappers....

Ok I've went and dug up Physics Today/April 1981 "Applications of optical phase conjugation" by Concetto R. Guiliano [Has excellent references listed at the end for anyone that's interested]. Am I correct in assuming that the MRA is acting as the pilot/reference path, and that Aether is acting as the conjugator/source? Still feel I'm missing a connection here, I'll go dig out Bearden's books....

Message 10359 (01/03/95 09:10)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: MRA Tech Note - Wire

From the coils which Norm and I have wound so far, it appears that 22 gauge stranded wire is the best choice. Also, we've experimented with different turns ratios, and a step down to the secondary of two to one, with 300 turns on the primary and 150 turns on the secondary gives good gain ratios, and detunes very well.

However, the transformer was originally wound as a step-up, so the primary is actually on the outside of the secondary, but we don't know yet if this is the best way to do it. Time and more experiments will tell. We do know that solid wire doesn't work.  It will likely take a few months before we have collected enough data to recommend an absolute best design. ~ Joel

Message 10361  (01/03/95 10:03)
From: Bill Beaty
To: All
Subject: MRA

I just received parts from H&R, so I'll be able to try building a version with these other parts using Norm's device as a guide. If it works, then we'll have (temporarily) a parts source to recommend. The piezos are less than 1/4" thick. The ceramic magnets are 1" thick slabs with poles on the faces, but they have TWO poles on the faces rather than one big one. Yet another change to try.  Multiple poles might make the magnet vibrate harder with smaller input, but the poles/coils pattern has to be just right to do this.

Message 10363  (01/03/95 10:05)
From: Bill Beaty
To: All
Subject: MRA/Sweet coil

-  _ _                                _
_ _       S    S   S      _ _ -
/ \         S - -S- ___________ - -S-             / \
|     S   ___------           ------___ S         |
|     __--                             --__       |
|    |                                     |      |
|    |               MAGNET                |      |
|    |                                     |      |
\ /   |             ___________             |     \ /
|    ___------  N   N    ------___    |
|__-- N   N               N   N   --__|
.
If the magnet block is magnetized as above, and vibrates in a bending mode as above, then it's possible that the reports of Sweet's "scalar" coil windings are not scalar at all. If you want to make a magnet vibrate transversly as shown, you should wind two coils, one towards each end, then connect them so the field polarity from the coils is pushing each other, so you end up with a tripole N-S-N pattern. When you power such a thing with AC, the center of the slab magnet will be pushed one way, the ends the other, and the magnet will vibrate transversely (microscopically) like a plucked string.
.
____nnnnnnn_______________________nnnnnnn_____
|    |||||||      N     N     N    |||||||     |
|    |||||||         MAGNET        |||||||     |
|    |||||||                       |||||||     |
|____uuuuuuu______S_____S_____S____uuuuuuu_____|
|     |                       |     |
| Coil|                       | Coil|
|  1  |                       |  2  |
|     |_______________________|     |
|                                   |
|                                   |
o                                   o
----------------------------------------

Message 10365 (01/03/95 11:03)
From : Joel McClain
Subject: Mo' on Mhos

Hi Bob ~ When the MRA was designed, the intent was to create and above unity device based upon earth itself... its magnetic fields and frequencies. We've since seen that it is directionally sensitive to earth magnetic fields, and that it "responds" to sunrise and sunset. For all practical purposes, the MRA at resonance is like a funnel with a vacuum device attached to the narrow end, collecting energy which becomes more condensed as it travels into the funnel, where it is trapped in the windings of the transformer by the collapsing magnetic fields.

This then represents an excess potential, which we see when the signal input voltage is higher under load of the MRA than it is under no-load conditions. We also see this when we can reduce the entire AC power to the signal source below no-load, while at the same time producing usable power from the MRA.

According to scalar theory, the excess potential is a quantum voltage potential which reacts according to known non-linear optical (NLO) laws of physics. Because the Coulomb gauge transverse potential (CTP) exists in all of space-time (also standard physics), small amounts of excess potential occur naturally in all semiconductors. This interferes with applied EM potential, and causes "noise", which is normally filtered out. Thus, semiconductors are natural scalar interferometers which translate low level amounts of excess potential.

When two or more semiconductors are connected, directly or indirectly in a conductive path, a hyperspatial link is formed and the translated excess potential will bounce back and forth between them within this link, which can produce laser beams. Or, the energy may reach the level sufficient to destroy one or more devices, or to destroy the semiconductors in the test equipment attached to the circuit. This is fully documented in the Lawandy experiment at Brown University and described in the March 31, 1994 issue of Nature Magazine. A "ping pong" effect occurs with semiconductors which have "self-targeted" each other, creating spurious bursts of normal EM energy. Credit for all of the above information to Tom Bearden, who kindly provided it after years of study and research.

Now we have two "theories" to describe one effect (likely there will be many more) so we have to find one that works, in terms of being consistent and reproducible. It is, I believe, both. The "earth" theory is the "outer" or normal EM description, since we are dealing with EM to drive a motor load. The Bearden theory is the "inner" description, and provides mathematical exactness to the process. We used the "outer" theory to find the lattice structures, resonant octave ranges and LC relationship of the MRA. That still leaves us with the unseen mechanism by which excess potential is realized in the circuit. That is where Bearden's "inner channel" theory fills the void in understanding with clarity and precision.

It is really neither Mhos nor negative resistance as I understand it, but the translation of low-level CTP energies into usable EM.  The aspect of the MRA which is unique is that it traps this potential and puts it to work driving a load instead of building up and creating a NLO laser effect. I believe that the energies, as soon as they are translated into EM, are "caught" by the magnet and pulled into the resonant circuit, where they are measured as excess potential. I hope that this message ends up on the I-Net, as it will provide the references within conventional, accepted physics that can be studied in order to visualize the functioning of the MRA. ~ Joel

Message 10367  (01/03/95 14:42)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: MRA Tech Notes

Hi Norm ~ I wound (looser than normal) another MRA using #22 stranded wire, the wire with the purple insulation.  It also has a step-down ratio, but with more turns that the first MRA. It is only 1.13 X unity at max power, but detunes to 12.75 X unity under a motor load. This is much better than either of the ones sent to Walter or to Tom. This MRA will push the input voltage up to over 1.5VAC over no-load, while still powering the motor, which means that it has more excess potential than either of the others, and this shows up in the 2900 ohms of effective impedance at the max gain setting.

Also, since some piezos work well and others don't, I'm trying to locate the variable which determines this. In measuring the capacitance of the good piezo in the current MRA, it shows definite variance in capacitance when you reverse the leads from the meter. It measures 5nf in one direction, and 3nf when the meter leads are reversed. Comparing this with other piezos in the "reject" pile, most have lower capacitance and little if any difference when the leads are reversed. I think that this is related to the poling of the piezos... possibly it is lost on some in the process of soldering them. ~ Joel

Message 10371 (01/03/95 17:11)
From : Norman Wootan
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA

Bill: When you get the MRA I sent to you, check the windings for solid wire. If I wound yours with solid wire just strip it off and rewind with fine stranded 22 Ga. with the same # of turns or you could experiment. ~ Norm

Message 10378 (01/04/95 00:38)
From: Bill Beaty
To: All
Subject: MRA Blunder???

I just noticed a big Oooops! in the MRA files. The Fluke 87 True RMS meter specs in the Fluke catalog are listed as 20KHz max. I don't know if this means the tolerance is only good to that point, or whether that is the half-power point. I don't have the complete spec.  This implies that the meter is not good to 200KHz as was said earlier, and its possible that all the readings taken with it are wrong. What say you? Have you tried crude calibrations of this meter versus a scope, when both read the output of a good oscillator that's fairly constant with frequency? Could you do a cross-check to find out where the meter readings get REALLY bad?

Message 10384 (01/04/95 07:41)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Gerald O'Docharty
Subject: My MRA

Gerald ~  Well, "Trace Mountain" is going to get a care package, for we can't have Tesla experimenting with inferior parts. Ha! Ha! Just kidding, will send you the "real" thing to experiment with. We have been using filters on the DC bridge, mine is bigger than Joel's cap for I have been useing 16000 UF @ 60V while Joel is using something smaller. The only problem with a big cap is you have to be a little more patient with changing values and adjustments for it takes a little time for the cap to bleed of or build up with variations in the output but it is "pure" DC. All the measurements are cross checked by scope and the DC out from a filtered bridge is flat line DC. You are correct with the piezo freqs for most of these circuits settle out with a piezo freq around 34600 range which is a fifth (1/5) of the ferro-magnetic-resonant freq that we derived. I wish someone else would do some testing in this area to verify our findings. When you get your "TET" finished you can do the same test we did and see where and how this was done. So far everything goes back to this fundamental freq which I am still convinced that Tesla knew full well when he built his Colorado Springs coil. Sounds reasonable to me that he would use a freq very close to the natural earth ferro magnetic resonant freq to form a beat difference of the 7.83 (that's close enough) which is the Schuman cavity resonant freq. Back then he had it close to 8 Hz and since it has been narrowed down even better. This would have been an "elegant" approach to form an 8 Hz standing wave between his big coil, the earth and the surrounding air. I would like to get the "Corum's" feed back or comments on this idea. Thanks for the interest in the MRA, good to hear from the "attic workshop".  Your friend ~  Norm

Message 10385 (01/04/95 08:01)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA

Bill ~ We are checking the numbers from the meters with scope back-up so we feel comfortable so far with the measurements. Joel's total resistive equivalence to the circuit places everything back on "OHMS LAW" for cross checking and verification. What can you do with an animal that is so non-linear that everything is inverted or does just the opposite that you would normally expect from a circuit. Well, the proof is in the hands of Walter Rosenthal and Tom Bearden at this time and soon will be on Hal Puthoff's work bench so what else can we do other than what is already reported. Your question as to telling all,  that has been the policy all along for Joel and I agree that it is dumb to go "Public Domain" then hold back critical data that would impair duplication efforts of others.  Please share "all" tech notes and comments with everyone for even the smallest clue could turn on the "light" in someone else mind and assist to overall project. Heck, we admit we don't have all the answers, that is the reason for making this a joint project with all interested in a new form of energy. ~ Norm

Message 10387 (01/04/95 11:28)
From: Joel McClain
To: Gerald O'Docharty
Subject: ALSO TO BILL BEATY...

Hi Gerald ~ Yup, we've been using ordinary electrolytic filter caps on the output of the bridge, same as with any other power supply. We can do this because 34KHz is still well within the alpha cutoff freq of diodes and audio transistors. Good that Norm is sending you a kit, because if your magnet is not ringing audibly, you aren't going to get the effect of virtual rotation of the domains, and will have an ordinary series resonant circuit. From what we've seen, you have to have the magnet resonant range in the first octave of a three octave series. The magnet's range is about 8-9KHz, so one octave up is 16-18KHz and the next octave is 32-36KHz, with the piezo right in the middle of its range at about 34KHz +/- a few hundred hertz.

In answer to Bill's question, I rechecked the "Owner's Manual" for the Fluke #87, and it definitely says 200KHz... in fact, while you are measuring voltage with it, you can press the "HZ" button and get an instantaneous reading of freq and if you press it again get a reading of the duty cycle. It's a great piece of gear. Also, since Norm and I have both blown up test equipment with the MRA, it's a lot less to risk for routine measurements.

If you caught that last message for Bob Paddock, you have a better idea of the reason for measuring primary current with a resistive equivalent circuit.  There is a scalar to EM conversion going on which manifests itself as circulating current... Bearden calls it a "ping pong" effect, as the "inner channel" increase is bounced back by the resonant circuit, causing yet another increase, and so on. The components themselves and the amount of load determine amount of this current.  However, adding a series dropping resistor effectively alters the circuit by closing the channel, which is why primary current from the signal source increases, a direct violation of Ohm's Law (increasing resistance should decrease current) and the result is an ordinary series resonant circuit.

I'm going to try to get some of the info from Tom Bearden into a file because he can describe the effects with far more scientific authenticity than I have the knowledge or experience to do. ~ Joel

Message 10392  (01/04/95 17:31)
From : Joel McClain
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: The Fluke ain't a fluke...

Taken from the Fluke #87 Owner's Manual: Introduction, Page 1: "The Fluke 87 True RMS Multimeter is a handheld, 4000 count instrument that is designed for use in the field, laboratory, and at home. The meter combines the precision of a digital meter with the speed and versatility of a high resolution analog display. Frequencies between 0.5 Hz and 200 kHz can be measured with up to 0.01 Hz resolution. How to Use the Meter, Page 12: "In the frequency counter mode, the Hz annunciator is displayed. The frequency function autoranges over five ranges: 199.99 Hz, 1999.9 Hz, 19.999 kHz, 199.99 kHz, and greater than 200kHz."

Hope this clears up the question of freq accuracy... I also ran the Simpson #710 freq counter along with the Fluke #87 and they track well together, and the voltages have been 'scoped for amplitude also.

With the types of equipment that you would find in most good electronic shops, we believe that the data that we have released (which is everything we know, as fast as we know it) is accurate and valid. We are typically measuring voltages at freq's that are in the bottom one fifth of the meter's freq range. ~ Joel

Message 10406  (01/04/95 19:17)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: I SEE THE LIGHT!

Hi Norm ~ To test Bearden's NLO theory, i.e., P-channel quantum potentials forming at light wavelengths, I loosely wrapped a strip of aluminum foil around the windings of the MRA. This will have little or no effect on a conventional transformer, except to shield it from ambient noise as in TV UHF circuits. However, the MRA output dropped from 16.25VDC at .14A to 10.0VDC at .14A... my goodness. ~ Joel

Message 10417 (01/05/95 01:14)
From: Bill Beaty
To: Joel McClain
Subject: (R) The Fluke ain't a fluke...

Whew, sigh of relief. I don't have the specs, but it sounds like your meter is good for voltage up to 20KHz, then is not accurate at higher frequencies to the full number of meter digits. So, accuracy depends on how fast the meter response tails off above 20KHz. And the Fluke literature DOES say 200KHz for the frequency counter, but 20KHz for the Vrms part. I hate to be finding fault with your measurements, but I'm really just trying to get more confidence in what you are seeing (until I get a chance to try it myself.). It still probably would be a good idea to measure voltage of a good source with both the scope and the meter, and find where the meter starts to fail. For example, when does its reading dip 5% below that of a 50MHz scope?  At 21KHz? Probably not. At100 KHz? Could well be.

Message 10428  01/05/95 13:21)
From: Joel McClain
To: Jerry Decker (Sysop)
Subject: Howdy

Hi Jerry ~  I've been getting messages from you...but not returning any as of yet because I've been in constant "test mode" with the MRA.  I'm sure that you have some concerns along with a very full agenda, so I'll not ask any favors at this point. We've really only just begun with the MRA.

I see now that it is possible to add additional quantum coupled stages. Because the coupled potentials are instantaneous in the self-targeting mode, they can be effectively added in 3-space to realize EM power outside the P-channel. What is different in this "mode" is that voltages in parallel will "add", and voltages in series will stay the same, albeit at excess potential.

With one output on the MRA, we are limited to one set of complete Whittaker biwave harmonic pairs. Each load will have slightly different characteristics...and will "attract" other biwave pairs in the MRA, as long as the loads are within the aggregate resonance.

I believe that this is similar to the concept used by Moray, with charge coupled stages, or for that matter, with Keely in his use of sequentially applied vibrations. Each turn of wire around a Tesla coil, or each crossover of a caduceus coil is the same in effect.

The materials in the MRA are all optically active, which engages them in the P-channel via the CTP process. If light is reflected away from the MRA, or if it is optically shielded, it loses all effect. For the record, however, we have seen most, if not, all of the "anomalous" criteria associated with unity + devices. The piezo will lose weight. Clocks and watches run slow. Some wires in the series path stay cool. And, of course, there's the matter of excess potential above no-load.

And still, we've only begun. The design is three weeks old. I've refused to download the I-Net data, because I feel very strongly about keeping focused, and don't need to hear all of CEM "rules" repeated, as if I had never heard them before, nor the condescension of fools in their glory.  Let them enjoy their moment, as Faust did his. ~ Joel

Message 10436  (01/06/95 02:16)
From: John Peters
To: Joel McClain
Subject: (R) MRA as a "solar" device

Joel; your message (10188) made me think of what is in WBSMEMO.ASC. I have been intrigued by this file, and where it speaks of extracting power from the Earth's magnetic field sounds like how you explained the MRA. The actual quote is "The design has now been completed for a unit which should be self-sustaining and in addition provide a small surplus of power.  Such a unit, in addition to functioning as a 'pilot power plant' should permit the study of the various reaction forces which are expected to develop." Do you think that Smith's device is along the same lines as the MRA?

Message 10437   (01/06/95 06:50)
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: (R) MRA/Sweet coil

____nnnnnnn_______________________nnnnnnn_____
|    |||||||      N     N     N        |||||||     |
|    |||||||         MAGNET       |||||||     |
|    |||||||                                 |||||||     |
|uuuuuuu______S_____S_____S____uuuuuuu_____|
|     |                       |     |
| Coil|                       | Coil|
|  1  |                       |  2  |
|          |_______________________|     |
|                                   |
|                                   |
o                                   o

You just redrew Coler's "Magnetstromapparat"!  Very nice art by the way...

Message 10447  (01/06/95 09:15)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: MRA Tech Note

Last night Norm was over and we added another output to the MRA, so that it was driving lights (incandescent and fluorescent) in addition to the usual motor load. This required retuning the MRA for maximum power to match the new load requirement. We were "overdriving" the output of the MRA below unity to "max out" the power to the load.

After the lights were removed so that only the motor was on the output, the MRA was retuned for the motor, but the resonant frequency had changed. Prior to adding the lights, the resonant frequency was 34.28 kHz. After removing the lights, it was 33.43 kHz. Although this is only a difference of 850 Hz, it is interesting as it indicated that the MRA is alterable. This might be useful in some applications.

The MRA still detunes for max gain as before, and still provides surplus potential (1.5VAC above noload) when detuned, but this is the first indication that it can also be REtuned to a new resonant center frequency. Apparently, the magnetic core is more "permeable" than we had thought.

Message 10450  (01/06/95 10:39)
From: Joel McClain
To: John Peters
Subject: mmmmm....could be!

Went back and read the WBSMEMO.ASC file again... memory ain't what it used to be, and never was. I hadn't thought of the MRA within the context of that file, but you are right on the mark with your comparison. The biggest hurdle to understanding the MRA is in seeing it as a new device via existing technology. It is a different technology, actually a very, very old technology using new components. However, because the technology isn't in the "books" yet, it is viewed (at best) as a "new" technology.

The existing "rules" don't apply...but the old, really old rules do. For example, when Heaviside bastardized Maxwell's Theories (you will NOT find the Heaviside interpretation in ANY of Maxwell's published works), Heaviside stripped out all of the references to the ether, which he said was "mystical and should be murdered from the theory", and so he murdered the ether...except that it just wouldn't die!

Maxwell opened the door to P-channel quantum potentials, and Heaviside slammed it shut. Heaviside wanted to provide simple "laws" so that the electricians of that day could vector power and measure current in workable systems. Heaviside never went to college, did not know calculus, and was lost in the true implications of Maxwell's theory. It's time we moved up to the reality of ALL of Maxwell's theory, not just the kindergarten version.

Anyway, I got side tracked...back to your question.  Without having seen the WBS device, it's hard to say for sure, but the effects seem similar. The INTENT of the MRA was to design a device compatible with naturally occurring energies, specifically ferro-resonance as it applies to earth's electromagnetic fields. However, in DOING this, especially with optically sensitive materials, we enabled the MRA to re-open Maxwell's door. What we caused was a link to form which translated etheric energy into ordinary EM in a closed loop resonant circuit. This link is referred to as the "P-channel", because it manifests as excess potential.

This effect has been experienced in semiconductor circuits for many years, and is normally destructive to the devices, so resistive and filtering components are added to effectively "close" the channel. This isn't necessarily bad, because until circuits can be designed to USE the excess potentials, we don't want them going into resonance and burning out. As seen by the Neiper/Seike Ring (the schematic that is on KeelyNet is wrong, btw), you also experience gravitic effects when you allow tetrahedral lattices to self-resonate.

Considering that the MRA at resonance is virtually stopping the spin of particles (like a strobe synchronized to a timing mark), it is very likely that a more efficient MRA could cancel the quadrupole effect of gravity. There are other ways of doing this, such as the Biefield-Brown method of high potential or the Searl method of folding energy onto itself in resonant plasma layers, and possibly the technology of anti-g (for a practical space ship) would utilize some or all of the above.  However, we'll never get "there" from "here" by using the Heaviside "laws".

Conventional science has a "circle the wagons" mentality to this new (old) technology, and insists on trying to hammer the wheel back into a square, on the assumption that it will "work" better because roads are flat. So we clunk along and congratulate ourselves on our "vast" achievements. OK, I'll get back down off the soap box...

We'll drag them by the ear if necessary, kicking and screaming all the way, and force them to re-open Maxwell's door. ~ Joel

Message 10454 (01/06/95 16:38)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: Test Report

To: Hal Puthoff ~ Hi Hal, Yes, you are correct about the motor current. We checked it with an analog meter early on in the tests, and it indicated 140 ma. This was then used as a constant. However, I just rechecked it with the Fluke 87 inline to the motor, and the true DC current varies from 120 ma at max power to 116 ma at max gain.

As for the output switching, we are trying to determine the actual primary circuit current of the MRA. Once we have tuned the MRA, we remove it from the output of the signal source, and connect the signal source to the decade box. Once we measure the amount of resistance required to attain the same drop in amplifier output voltage as the MRA was causing, we then can divide resistance into voltage to determine the current draw of the MRA. We've tried other methods, such as low values of resistance in the primary of the MRA, and the results defy ohm's law. Adding resistance actually increases primary current...which should also increase secondary output, but in fact, causes it to decrease.  As you will see, the current in series with a resistor in the primary circuit is higher than the current with just a meter in series with the primary, which makes no sense in terms of classical EM theory. We believe that the resistor is closing the "P-channel", which removes the source of excess potential. Even the slight resistance of the meter, or of a current probe which contains a coil, will have the same effect in varying degrees. So, we use the decade box as an equivalent load, instead.

Also, Norm and I put a very heavy combination of output loads on the MRA last night to see how much power we could extract from it, regardless of gain. This experiment lasted for about an hour. After we were finished, we found that the center resonant frequency of the MRA had changed from 34.28 to 33.48 with just the motor on the output. Apparently, the magnetic core is more "permeable" than we had thought. So, here are the new measurements, factoring in the measured motor current and the "new" center resonant frequency:

MRA #3 Test Data
Test Date January 6, 1995

Maximum Power Mode:
Resonant frequency = 33.48 kHz
Input signal with noload (MRA not connected) = 26.97 VAC
MRA output load = Pittman DC motor, 19.1 VDC @ 120 ma.
Input signal with MRA connected and powering motor = 25.39 VAC
Input signal amplitude reduction as per above = 1.58 VAC
Measured equivalent resistance to achieve 1.58 VAC drop = 200 ohms
RMS input power @ 200 ohms = 2.28 W
MRA output = 18.35 VDC X 120 ma = 2.20 W

Maximum Gain Mode:
Resonant frequency = 33.34 kHz
Input signal with noload (MRA not connected) = 27.13 VAC
MRA output load = same Pittman motor @116 ma
Input signal with MRA connected and powering motor = 26.88 VAC
Input signal amplitude reduction as per above = 0.25 VAC
Measured equivalent resistance to achieve 0.25 VAC drop = 1600 ohms
RMS input power @ 1600 ohms = 319 mw
MRA output = 15.5 VDC X 116 ma = 1.80 W

Notes:  This data uses inline current measurements for DC output at both the maximum power and maximum gain settings of the MRA.

The center resonant frequency has changed from the previously measured data of January 3, 1995, and was still continuing to change (upward) even as these measurements were being taken. It may eventually rise to the original measured frequency of 34.28 kHz.

The maximum gain measurement of primary current using a decade box was taken in a linear area of potential which would show a voltage drop with the MRA in the circuit. Further decreasing frequency will cause the voltage from the signal source to increase above the no-load voltage, in which case it is not known how to measure input power to the MRA.

Message 10477 (01/07/95 10:04)
From : Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: Seeing is Believing ~  Incandescent lamp test

There is a very easy method for "seeing" the power gain of the MRA, and it does not require power amplifiers, only a sine wave generator. You need two of the tiny "grain of wheat" lamps...if you don't have them on hand, I will send you some. Put one lamp is series with the input to the MRA primary, and put the other lamp in series with the MRA secondary to the bridge rectifier. If you are not using an amplifier, put a 50-100 ohm resistive load on the output of the bridge rectifier. If you are using an amplifier, use more resistance to avoid burning out the lamps.

Using only a signal generator for the MRA input, tune the MRA to peak resonance. The lamp in the primary circuit will not illuminate, but the lamp in the secondary circuit will begin to glow. The glow is bright enough to photograph for your records of this test.

If you are using an amplifier, do not put the lamps in the circuit until you have detuned the MRA for max gain. Then put them in, and you will see that the secondary lamp is much brighter than the primary lamp. You can continue to detune until the primary lamp is "out" (at which point the input voltage from the amp is above no-load) but the secondary lamp is still glowing.

I suggest that light sensitive devices could be used with the lamps to measure gains in terms the output of these devices.  However, I still have no idea of how to measure gain once the primary lamp is "out" and the secondary lamp is still lit. ~ Joel

Message 10492   (01/08/95 11:05)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA Parts

Bill:  I sent a package of MRA info to Don Smith down in Houston for he has a similar circuit to the MRA except that it uses a Tesla coil running at high voltages to interact with the earth's weak ferro-magnetic field to produce over-unity operation. A lot of people have practically given up on Don's device for he has not powered a practical load to date that we know of but his theory is sound as far as I can determine. An incorporation of what we have learned about ferro-magnetic resonance frequencies and his Tesla coil driven circuit could provide another effective method of ZPE tapping. Don has done some research on the piezo material and pinned down three current manufacturers of these transducers. The first is ADDCHEM a spin off from the PENWALT family. Then there is SOLVA and KERRA. He also went to the specialty wire manufacturers and asked about making a piezo type conductor that could be incorporated directly into our circuits. The wire manufacturers were amused to say the least for their comments were "we have been working all these years to make a wire that produced
no noise and you come along and ask for a degenerate conductor that will make maximum noise". They are interested in the concept though and will get back to us with the data needed. I would not be too quick to judge the MRA as a non-reproducable device for between Joel and I we have built 8 of the units and have been able to achieve the over-unity ratios that we are comfortable with. The biggest problem that I see is that no one wants to take the time to do the necessary reading of the messages, tech reports and go out and find the materials. We clearly stated that we do not have all the answers and have not nailed down exactly what will or will not work as to magnet type or shape. The piezo is a big variable for we have a stack of culls which just will not work. We expect that they have lost the poling that was done at time of manufacturer. I know that there is someone out there on the Internet who has experience in this area. Dan Davidson told me that to the best of his knowledge the poling is done at the "curie point" of the piezo material with a capacitive discharge used to establish the required "polarity of charge".  If anyone out there has knowledge in this area please give us some input so we can revive some of these "dead" piezo's. I'm sure others will encounter this problem so we need more knowledge about the piezo element. Since the "Jury" is still out as far as testing is concerned we have to wait but in the meantime Joel and I are still building more working devices…  ~  Norm

Message 10508 (01/09/95 08:12)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Joel McClain
Subject: MRA

Joel ~  Alnico "8"  20.84 Excess @ 36100   P: 48.60 L P: 27.76 NL … Seems that the harder the magnet material the closer we get to the natural resonance of the transducer. The MRA cannot tell the difference between materials. Sorry, "Mother Nature" made all magnetic flux the same "hyperspatial" frequency therefore the boy scout cannot tell the scout master that the reason he got lost was because his compass was not tuned to the right frequency. The MRA is capable of extracting or pair coupling in the "P" channel no matter what the source of magnetic flux be it the earth's natural flux or some "exotic" mix of elements we call super magnets. Don Smith is going to love this for it vindicates his valiant efforts which appeared to be dashed on the rocks of failure. "RESEARCH" is the key.  ~ Norm

Message 10515  (01/09/95 11:45)
From: Glenda Stocks
To: All

Stewart Harris created a device about 19 years ago, which he believes raised a mass via magnetic power (this is as I understand it). Stewart understand how to make his device based on a dream that he had, and so, he is also interested in discovering exactly how this information came to him.  Nevertheless, he has the experts confounded as to why/how his device does what it does.  This file TMIDEVIC.ZIP contains a series of message threads about his device and a video he has that demonstrates it.  I will be happy to convey to Stewart any comments or remarks. ~ Glenda

Message 10543  (01/10/95 12:08)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: MRA lamp Z test

This report is here is because of the problems with measuring the primary current of this beast. The MRA adds voltage to the circuit, which is nice, but it creates ALL KINDS of current measurement problems.

So, I have appended the "grain of wheat" lamp test to give real numbers instead of just seeing the difference in light.  I put one
of the lamps directly on the signal generator output, and measured its impedance at the frequency of the MRA under test. Why? Well, because the lamp can thus be put into the primary, and when you measure the voltage drop across it, you can divide that by the impedance and KNOW the actual primary current... no need to worry about the excess voltage, because if any of it "adds" across the lamp, primary current will appear HIGHER, which would reduce the gain of the MRA, and help to disprove it as an overunity device. I'll take that chance, as long as I know the exact impedance of the lamp. Also, where there is a difference in measured versus calculated output current, I've taken the lower number, also to be ultra-conservative. So, here goes:

The "lamp test" of the MRA has been further used for the purpose of standard "ohm's law" tests and measurements. The "bottom line" figures are 470.0 mw input to the primary of the MRA and 751.0 mw output from the secondary. This is a gain of 1.6 times unity at the low power end of the resonant range. The measurements and calculations are given below:

AC signal in = 28.94 VAC under load of the MRA
AC signal in = 28.54 VAC without the MRA connected
AC excess potential provided by the MRA = 0.40 VAC
AC signal at secondary = 8.64 VAC
Measured secondary current = 123 ma
Voltage drop across lamp = 2.92 VAC
Calculated current = 2.92 VAC \ 20.77 ohms = 140 ma with an error margin of 17 ma from measured current
Secondary power = 8.64 VAC times 123 ma times .707 = 751 mw

Bulb impedance = 20.77 ohms at the freq input to the MRA
AC voltage drop across bulb in series with primary = 0.470 VAC
Primary current = 0.470 VAC \ 20.77 ohms = .0226 Amperes
Primary power = .0226 Amperes times 28.94 VAC  times .707 = 462 mw
Lamp power = .0226 Amperes times 0.470 VAC  times 0.707 = 7.5 mw

To cross check these numbers, the total primary impedance was calculated, and the impedance of the lamp was subtracted from it. If accurate, the difference in power should equal the power which is added to the primary when the lamp is not connected:

Primary impedance = 28.94 VAC divided by .0226 Amperes = 1280.53 ohms
Subtracting lamp impedance of 20.77 ohms = 1259.76 ohms
Primary power with lamp = 462 mw
Primary power without lamp = 28.94 VAC divided by 1259.76 ohms = .02297 Amperes times 28.94 VAC = 665 times .707 = 470 mw
Calculated power of lamp = 7.5 mw and under cross check  it is equal to 470 mw minus 462 mw = 8 mw, with an error margin of 0.5 mw

Because:
A. The lamp impedance was measured out of circuit at the frequency used in the circuit
B. The same lamp impedance is used for both primary and secondary current measurements
C. Primary power tracks on cross check.
Therefore,
D. Primary power = 470 mw

I THINK that nails it...at least as far as can be measured with a low power lamp, and assuming that the MRA should eat any differences in measurement versus calculations which would reduce its gain. All of the measurements are in series for current, as per ohm's law, and all other calculations are ohm's "to the letter". As usual, my coffee got cold, so I'll stop here. Thank you for your continued indulgence. ~ Joel

Message 10548  (01/10/95 14:53)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: Lamp Z test followup

Just an addendum to the lamp impedance test report. Found that the circuit would not stay at unity + indefinitely at that very low level of input. After about an hour, the voltage drop across the lamp in the primary went up to over a volt, and that knocked the MRA down below unity. I think that the low level of input wasn't enough to sustain the harmonics that had built up as the MRA was warming up. ~ Joel

Message 10551 (01/10/95 17:31)
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: (R) MRA (Power Test)

Re: A vacuum tube is the only animal that could survive the punishment in a high voltage circuit like this. Bob Paddock's indestructible transistors won't cut it in this harsh environment. Thoughts and ideas: I've come across a couple of more transistors for  crummy environments. Motorola's TMOS Smartdiscret Products. For example 400V/10A IGBT, MGBP20N40CL/MGB20N40CL, "designed primarily as ignition coil drivers to withstand high current in a pulsed mode with out latching." Or more interestingly the 60V/1A MLP1N06CL "device that has integrated on-chip current limit capability, drain-to-source voltage clamping and gate voltage protection." Also National Semiconductor "Overture" [TM] Audio Power Amplifier Series with SPiKe [TM] Protection.

"The performance of the 876/LM3886/LM3875/LM3876, utilizing its Self Peak Instantaneous Temperature ('Ke)   (SPiKe[TM]) Protection Circuitry, puts it in a class above discrete and hybrid amplifiers by providing an inherently, dynamically protected Salve Operation Area (SOA). SpiKe Protection means that these parts are completely safeguarded at the output against over voltage, under voltage, overloads, including shorts to the supplies, thermal runaway, and instantaneous temperature peaks."

Specs are 25W to 150W (Depending on part number) of continuous average power to 8 ohm load with 0.06% (THD+N) from 20 Hz-20KHz.

Message 10553  (01/10/95 17:35)
To: Joel McClain
Subject: (R) MRA Tech Notes

I think that this is related to the poling of the piezos... possibly it is lost on some in the process of soldering them. I talked with some one who was familiar with Ultrasonic Welding. They said that the piezos where typical compressed with a rubber compression setup, and contact was made with brass springs. Would this work better/worse than soldering? Yet another point to experiment with...

Message 10569  (01/11/95 07:35)
From: Norman Wootan
Subject: MRA

Bob ~  Thanks a million for the package and the schematics. I'm very interested in the "high performance" transistors so I really appreciate your search efforts. The magnets are bonded together so don't try to separate them for they break very easily. As to the transducers Joel and I have not figured out the .07 figure. In the batch I bought they were sorted out and grouped under that number, i.e., all the .07's were together then there would be a group of .09's etc. Some sort of matching they did at manufacturing. I guess they were installed in the welders in matched sets so as to have the highest performance. The brass strip method of providing electrical contact works for I have several mounted this way in between two pressure plates so I can torque them down to about 100 # pressure which Dan Davidson recommended I try. The other train of thought is to make the contacts in a way as to allow the piezo to freely resonate in free air with minimum contact at any point. Soldering directly to the silver surface is detrimental to the piezo as evidenced by our stack of "dead transducers". They are in effect almost a pure capacitive device and will give off a very loud "squeal" when they go "sour" and quit working. I know that someone who works with these devices will eventually "jump in" and educate us about these animals. The sooner the better. These "OEM" items are always like that for they are manufactured for use in a specific piece of equipment with precise specs. We come along and try to adapt this device to one of our experiments out of convenience sine we picked them up surplus. This is OK for experimentation and all out there should realize the facts behind what I said.  When questions arise as to data on the  transducers I would say that we really don't know what we are dealing with but they work. When we get further along and get some "optimum" numbers we may be able to go to the original "OEM" source and have some super piezo's designed that will target the performance curves that we develop through trial and error. It would be nice if there was a computer program that could analyze the MRA parameters and design the optimum piezo characteristics we need. Right now all we can say is that in a circuit that does everything "contrary" to accepted electronic and physics theory we can't get a handle on exact and optimum design characteristics. It will eventually take a team of specialized engineers to figure out how to take this MRA idea and make it do useful work. All we have done is open the "door" to the fact that tapping the Zero Point is real and can be demonstrated. Where and how this is developed remains to be seen. Once the fundamental theory is proven then very large sums of capital will be thrown into research and all this will become reality. All we could do was give the info to the world and let smarter folks run with it to it's useful application in solving our energy problems. What more can I say. Thanks again Bob and good luck with your MRA. ~  Norm

Message 10590  (01/12/95 09:20)
From: Bill Beaty
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: (R) MRA Parts

I got your package Monday, and have spent a few hours messing with it. THANKS!  Excellent packaging job, nothing  damaged at all. It seems that my signal generator can't put out a high enough voltage to get the effect to kick in. Next I'm going to get a friend's Carver amp. My Wavetek at work puts out 20 Vpp, but it gets pulled down to 8Vpp at resonance, and the energy throughput is totally conventional: exactly 100% at resonance, and falling fast at other frequencies. The magnet does NOT make any noise, and all the signals in the circuit are pure sine waves, without any other frequencies.

I have brochures on the way from five separate PZT manufactures, so I should get some info on "poling." Speaking of which: the piezos themselves behave very strange near resonance. All kinds of pure tones appear, and turn on and off when frequency or voltage is varied. The best freq for this seems to be a bit higher than the resonance peak.  I saw signals start small and slowly grow, then vanish when the piezo is touched, only to slowly grow again. I got the "death" effect, when the piezo makes a screech and then the sounds vanish for about a half hour. Very similar to that TVQ opto-isolator device. Also similar to nonlinear optical crystals illuminated with laser light, where conventional phase conjugation creates closed reflection paths, optical resonances, self-organized hologram elements, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the innards of the piezos were doing the acoustic version of this. I notice that when a piezo is being silent, sometimes I can get it to sound weakly by applying slight pressure to the leads. It seems that tiny bending forces have a great effect on piezo audible "subharmonic" sounds. I wonder if your piezo "culls" could be made to work by pulling or pushing just right on the lead wires. Also, the "culls" may generate a set of frequencies that just by coincidence miss the magnet resonant frequency, so they are too far off for the piezo and magnet frequencies to grab each other and start talking. The cure for this might be to grind little flat areas on the edges to retune them.

I have a couple of ceramic slab magnets, so I built a plexi form and wound a coil around it, with the magnet suspended inside. With an extremely tiny signal applied to the coil at 11KHz the magnet rings VERY loud (and annoying!) If I touch the corners of the magnet slab, the ringing goes way down and the tuning is much broader. Instead of suspending the magnet, I found that soft foam rubber does not interfere much with the ringing of either the magnet or the piezo. This makes sense, since foam is mostly air, so the magnet thinks its hanging in air. More soon...

Message 10595 (01/12/95 10:22)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA Parts

Message 10630   (01/13/95 18:01)
From: Joel McClain
To: Bill Beaty

Hi Bill ~ I almost missed the P.S. after your message # 10589. The source of the harmonics is the same as the source of the surplus potential. From Keely, we learned the importance of three octaves in order to link up with the ether. From Bearden, we learned that the harmonics are (Whittaker) biwave pairs, and that the ether conforms to the Coulomb Transverse Potential.

So, when the requisite criteria is met, the biwave pairs vector into 3-space energy at the harmonic frequencies.  That's it.

The rest of the MRA theory is resonance theory, as is the Rule of Nines, and exists to describe how to use naturally occurring lattice structures to mimic earth (and any other EM generator) in terms of the nested tetrahedral relationships.

Why three octaves? Because we exist in 3-space, and we are creating a 7-space effect, with the fourth dimension, or p-channel, acting as a conduit into (and out of) 3-space.  Now, a trained observer will want to see exactly where the harmonic biwave translation occurs, and ill go nuts looking, because the wave pairs exist simultaneously with our space-time and translate instantaneously...no speed of light required.

Why nested tetrahedral relationships? Because they are the geometric relationships which embody PHI, and PHI is the pure mathematical constant to create resonance... musical, or any other type. That is why you see the excess potential at the load and source simultaneously, and it is load dependent to the extent that the load affects harmonic interaction of the magnetic core.  That is why you have to lower gain of the MRA to close the p-channel by removing the excess potential first.

You can't see the translation, only you can only see the effect. I look forward VERY MUCH to your tests and comments. ~ Joel

Message 10634  (01/14/95 08:25)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Joel McClain
Subject: MRA

Joel ~  New winding set up: BaFe magnet, AWM style 1860 1/4" ribbon braided tinned conductor for secondary, AWG 20 Ga. stranded primary yielded, 49.20V @ 28.55V sig for 20.65 excess potential @ 36.18KHZ. We will find that correct wire type and turns ratio yet. I'm using 100 T on P and 100 T on Sec. I have several more combo's yet to try so will keep you posted. ~ Norm

Message 10640  (01/14/95 10:49)
From: Joel McClain
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: PHI and the MRA

Hi Bill ~ The last message wasn't as clear as I would have liked with regard to PHI. I once worked out the harmonic and octave relationships as PHI (and PI, since PI = PHI squared, times 6/5... thus PHI squared = PI...also, 1 + 1/PHI = PHI, which is also known as the Fibonacci Series).

The file PHI&RES.ASC has some of this information, and because the "notes" harmonize perfectly and the octaves double exactly, this conforms to "standard" musical scales as are used today. Using the Fibonacci series as a starting place for note frequencies is not an arbitrary decision.

Today, we see PHI as a methematical constant, ie, 1.618, for use in plane geometry. To the ancient Egyptians, it was math but had a much deeper implication… it was the symbol of rebirth throughout eternity just as the Fibonacci series "perfects" at higher number intervals. Also, because the use of PHI in art is very "harmonious" to view, PHI coordinates (nested tets) were used by Michelangelo in the dome of the Sistine Chapel, as well as by Veronese, Raphael, da Vinci, and was even used by the architect Le Corbusier in the design of the United Nations building.

In retrospect, I think that this must be a perfect validation of the resonance based chart of the elements as created by Walter Russell, although he certainly doesn't need any validation from me. The fact is, music is math and geometry, and geometry is the yardstick for three dimensional existence. It's all one nested relationship, and the singular constant is PHI. If you want to create resonance and balanced harmonics in octave groups, you must use PHI. Because we tend to separate "music" from "science", we don't HEAR nature, and we trust our intellect to create unnatural yardsticks. Fact is, when computers were invented, and IBM needed programmers, they hired musicians to train for the positions.

In an electronic circuit, semiconductors are made of silicon or germanium, both of which are tet lattice structures, and both of which will occasionally break into free oscillation, rich in PHI based harmonics... that is how the Nieper ring works, because once the material has three octaves of resonance, the particle spin is virtually stopped... like a timing mark under a strobe...and the effect of gravity is suspended.

Three octaves are necessary in 3-space because the each of the octaves "fills" one dimension. The octaves interact with each other to make harmonics at 90 degrees of phase separation, effectively "filling" a 3-space object. This is mass aggregate resonance, and it allows you to couple biwave vectorless energy into a circuit.  It also allows you to overcome temporal effects as well as gravitic effects. That is why I said that when you nest two tets, you have the keys to everything.

The MRA uses materials which are cube latticed, and a cube IS a nested tet sitting on its "flat side". So, when you trap the harmonics on one side of a phase reversed series resonant circuit, you develop a potential which is higher than the no-load voltage of the device which is supplying the circuit. That's half of ZPE. The other half is having ferrite in the resonating core to provide electrons to match with the excess potential to create power to a load. And that's the MRA.

Part of the resentment to this information is simply due to the fact that all of this was known to and possibly discovered by very ancient peoples...and we are lagging behind them today in our comprehension of science as nature, by the division of music and science, etc. Well, all I really wanted to do was to provide correlations to help tie in the octave relationships with the lattice geometry, and I hope that this information helps. You can see how well it is received by most people, but you can also measure the excess potential on your own MRA so you'll have to decide for yourself.

Message 10666  (01/15/95 13:21)
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: (R) MRA (Power Test)

Re: A vacuum tube is the only animal that could survive the punishment in a high voltage circuit like this. Bob Paddock's indestructible transistors won't cut it in this harsh  environment. Here's a new one just out form Hitachi:  "Robust 50W power MOSFETs help reudce EMI  For safe electronic power switching for lamps, solenoids, electric  heaters and motors in automobiles and industrial control systems, the HAF2001 power transistor is fully tolerant of short circuits and practically indestructible. Under conditions where traditional power transistor would fail and perhaps cause fires, it can turn off and remain off until reset, just like a circuit breaker. The 10A silicon N-channel MOSFET also offers the tuning flexibility that is essential for reducing EMI. Tailoring device's rise time to the characteristics of a system achieves low EMI levels... HAF2001 has a 10A (ID) capability, 6V VDSS (Drain-to-Source breakdown voltage), +16V/-2.8V VGSS (Gate-to-Source breakdown voltage) ratings, 50mOhm on-resistance, and switching times (tON/tOFF) as fast as 29us/26us."

Message 10678  01/16/95 02:56)
From: John Peters
To: Joel McClain
Subject: (R) mmmmm....could be!

Joel ~ Thanks for the insightful commentary. I've asked some math professors about Quarterions and they haven't heard of them. As I am now attending college fulltime, I will poke around for some info on them. I have a couple of more things for you on the MRA: After studying the schematic for the MRA, I noticed that the Ultrasonic transducer would have a very high electrical "Q". To get maximum power out of the circuit, I think the magnet and coil combination should also have as high a "Q" as possible. Can a magnet have a "Q"?? I understand that magnets seem to produce (resonate) an output near 175 KHz.  Would a stronger magnet put out a higher amplitude signal at 175 KHz? I suspect the stronger magnet (higher gauss) would have an effectively higher "Q", thus possibly getting more out of the MRA. For a given transducer, has anyone noted a leveling-off of output for increased strengths of magnets

Message 10680  (01/16/95 06:28)
From: Norman Wootan
To: John Peters
Subject: MRA

John ~  Since I have been doing the testing of different winding combo's and magnet material while Joel is doing the performance testing I may be able to answer your questions as to a more powerful magnet material giving a better performance. That ain't the way it works as far as we have been able to determine. We are dealing with a phenomenon here that is hard to grasp in that we are generating in the primary of the MRA circuit what we term as excess potential. This means that the voltage across the primary input to the MRA as coming from the signal source is driven up as much as 1.9 X.  Example: I have a MRA running as we speak that has a signal source from the amp of 20.95 VAC @36KHZ no load (MRA out of the circuit). When I connect the MRA to the signal source the voltage goes up to 38.27 VAC for an excess potential of 17.32 V.  While stronger magnet material such as alnico 8 and neodymium increase the excess potential seen in the circuit we have not been able to translate it into a useable output. Still some matching problems that we may be able to work out and be able to utilize these other magnet types. We believe the answer lies in the looseness of the domains in the magnet and their ability to oscillate so we get the "virtual rotation" we are looking for. I'm sure that all this will be worked out and it may be possible to use anything that has a magnetic field including the "old mother earth". The whole idea of going "public domain" was to get others to experiment with the circuit so we could sort all this out faster. If Joel and I can find this phenomenon then others should be able to help us "flesh it out" into something useful. My friend Mike down in Clearwater FL (one of Don Kelly's group) has a MRA running at unity but he has not seen the excess potential that I described therefore this is an indication that his piezo is not up to "snuff". We have found that the piezo is very sensitive in that it can lose it's poling when you solder the input leads to it.  Joel and I have a stack of piezo's that just will not show the over-unity we are looking for while others work just fine. For this reason we have gone to Internet in search for someone who has extensive knowledge of piezo's and their applications. Thus far we have had no responses. Please experiment and help the cause. ~ Norm

Message 10685   (01/16/95 11:28)
From: Joel McClain
To: John Peters
Subject: (R) mmmmm....could be!

Hi John, ~ Going to college full time and still finding time to ask questions outside of your designated curriculum? I'm impressed. I'll try to make the answers worthy of the questions.

The Q of the circuit, like any series resonant circuit at resonance, is very high. The MRA output follows the contours of the Universal Resonance Chart for series resonant circuits, except for the point of intersection with input current.  The current is forced low while still in the area of its linear rise according to the chart, and is at minimum at the 65% point where it should be at the "knee" of its peak rise. That is manifested as a very high circuit impedance, for as you know, a series resonant circuit is supposed to be a dead short at resonance except for copper losses.  Because there is excess potential, i.e., the voltage level across the output terminals of the signal source which supplies the MRA is higher when connected to the MRA than it is with nothing connected to it, the MRA is not behaving like a dead short or even like an impedance, but more like a voltage supply...which, as you will see, is what it is.

The magnet is merely a saturable ferrite core, except that it is also a magnet in resonance, and its harmonics are being reflected, or fed back into the primary by the piezo. Here is where we have to figure this out ourselves, because there is no "prior art" that this has ever been done before. The result is the creation of a potential which is applied to the piezo in opposition to the supply potential, and which literally pushes back supply current which increases supply voltage. In the process of doing this, this created potential is converting flux into electrons to keep this "new" current circulating in the series resonant circuit, so that the output power from the MRA is higher than the power consumed in the primary. This is non-linear operation, which will be described further into this message.

The saturation point of the magnet as a ferrite core determines the gain of the MRA. For a given load, the MRA will saturate as seen by increases in supply potential above the saturation point which result in decreases in the MRA output.

The three octave range of the MRA is related to the 175 kHz resonant frequency of magnetISM, not of magNETS. In other words, the resonant frequency of flux particles, which are universally constant regardless of the type of magnet, its size, etc., is 174.925 kHz.

Having determined that the magnets which we use will resonate most audibly at 8-9 kHz, we double that for an octave separation of 16-18 kHz, and again for 32-36 kHz, and apply approximately 34 kHz to the piezo. After the MRA "warms up" for about an hour, building up its harmonics, it rings at its 8-9 kHz magnet resonant frequency. Some experimenters keep aspirin on hand because the pure ringing sound over time will really give you a wallbanger of a headache.

Now, here's how that relates "upward" to the 175 kHz. Once again, we are in new territory here, so please feel free to disagree, offer new ideas, etc. The 34 kHz mass aggregate frequency will double if the MRA is allowed to run open, and that will double if two MRAs are tied together and allowed to run open. Each doubling = one octave, so at the third octave, the frequency is 136 kHz. When you subtract this from 175 kHz, you have 39 kHz.  If you subtract 136 kHz from 170 kHz, you have 34 kHz, which is the MRA mass aggregate frequency. Either the frequency of flux is 170 kHz instead of 175 kHz, or the 5 kHz difference is due to component variations, which seems more likely.

Based upon the results which we have seen, I believe that we are using multiples of flux resonance in the MRA, in which case the earth, or more directly the sun, is providing energy which is sympathetically resonating and adding energy to the circuit.  However, the weak flux potentials would not provide unity, much less several times unity. For this, we have to go back to Maxwell's Quaternions, as well as to Whittaker 1903, the Stoney/Whittaker/Ziolkowski description of the decomposition of CTP (coulomb transverse potential) into bi-directional EM wave pairs, and analyze the nonlinear operation of the MRA using known, already accepted NLO (non linear optical) functioning.

According to NLO, the piezo and primary of the MRA are connected by their CTPs, which causes slightly amplified PCR (phase conjugate replica) waves between them, which skews the energy density of the CTPs. This (most importantly) alters the ordinary isotropic distribution of potential with respect to radial direction. Each component becomes a pump for the PCR waves until the saturation point of the circuit is reached. That's standard textbook NLO, applied to define the quantum step potential increases which occur as a result of the principles of interferometry, as described by Whittaker, 1904.

The MRA applies principles which were know 90 years ago, to create effects that are defined by currently accepted NLO theory. Because these effects include over-unity, more than a few people are less than courteous in their assessment of the circuit and its inventors. However, YOUR generation can use this information to make real changes in this tired old world.  Thank you for your excellent questions. Good luck with your studies!

Message 10697  (01/16/95 18:17)
From: Jerry Decker (Sysop)
To: Joel McClain
Subject: (R) mmmmm....could be!

Hi Joel ~ I am told there is a prior art MRA patent by a fellow named Richardson...I will pursue the patent number and get it and/or the actual details of the patent online... it is supposed to be almost exactly the same circuit... ~ Jerry

Message 10731  (01/18/95 09:19)
From: Joel McClain
To: Gerald O'Docharty
Subject: MRA Test

Hi Gerald ~ If you insert a resistor or other device in series with primary, it will interfere with the biwave translation which is occurring, and effectively shut down the p-channel. After you have tuned the MRA for max output, let it cook there for about an hour to build up harmonics.

Then, reduce the frequency, and as you do, you will see the input voltage to the MRA increase above the no- load voltage of the signal supply. You can "stop" anywhere in this region, and after you do, the output from the MRA as well as the input voltage will begin to step up incrementally as the harmonics once again begin to build up.

If you can measure AC current into your signal supply, you will see it decrease below the standby level. This assumes that you have an amplifier which will provide about 25 VAC to the MRA, because it sinks voltage (the piezo does) below a threshhold of about that level.

The best way to determine primary current is to detune as above but stop before your amplifier voltage goes above no-load.  While you still have a voltage drop across the MRA, remove it from the circuit and replace it with a decade box, and find the resistance value which will give you the same voltage drop. This is the effective impedance of the MRA, and can be used to determine source current. Then when you compare the power as determined by IE X 0.707 with the output power, either AC or DC from a bridge, you will see your power gain. If you add a resistor to the primary, and measure current inline with it, you will find that current is greater than if you measure inline current without the resistor... which violates ohm's law... and which demonstrates the activity of the p-channel. Hope this info helps. Enjoy! ~ Joel

Message 10735  (01/18/95 09:51)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: MRA

Bill ~  The dead piezo's make a very loud "screeck" sound around 2KHz when they go "sour" and will not drive the MRA circuit. I have wound some turns ratios that produced the same effect from a very good piezo though so it could be a condition of the piezo not liking the reflected excess potential being shoved back at it. Normally, when the piezo goes bad it is "clinically dead" which is the reason for needing more info on the possible "poling" loss. I can't believe that someone out on the I-Net has some valued input on this subject but has not come forward to help us out in this "vague" area. The biggest problem is that these piezo's were designed for very special applications at precise specs and it is not something you go down to "Wal-Mart" and purchase. I had a call last night from a guy who wanted to build a MRA and was fussing about a price of \$100 for a new piezo of the type we are using (quote from the manufacturer) minimum purchase \$200 for R&D sample. Thanks for the "scan" job, will get back to you later. ~ Norm

Message 10737 (01/18/95 11:57)
From: Joel McClain
To: Terry Bastian
Subject: Flux Frequency

Hi Terry ~The frequency of 174.925 kHz was found while testing the Nieper Ring. Because I believe that gravity is a quadrupole effect in which the spin of particles is reacting to EM fields, I felt that signal injecting the Nieper Ring would create field stability as seen in the scope display of the Ring's harmonics at the resonant frequency of flux. The center freq of the Ring is about 1.3 MHz, and is a complex waveform with a real 'soup' of harmonics.

At 174.8 kHz, the Nieper Ring waveform became synchronous. Norm tested this using a magnet/coil combination and found that it locked on at 174.925 kHz.  Norm's test equipment has a higher degree of accuracy, so I believe that his measurement is closer.  If you want to try this yourself, and to verify the ability of the Nieper Ring to 'lose weight', build a Nieper Ring.  It's only three audio power transistors and some passives, so it's cheap and easy to put together in one afternoon.

The reason that you get 1.3 MHz from audio xistors is because they are biased on with no signal input, and they break into self resonance as a result of their tetrahedral lattice structures. The PHI of the lattices determines the center frequency and harmonic relationships. Silicon and germanium both have tet lattices.

I think that Norm's method is closer to the one used by Tesla, but I don't have the details on it. Enjoy! ~ Joel

Message 10749 (01/18/95 18:26)
From: Joel McClain
To: Gerald O'Docharty
Subject: Resistor is OK...

Hi Gerald ~ Yes, you can use just a resistor as a load...I forgot to answer that in the previous messages. Regardless of whether you measure output power as AC across a resistor, or as rectified DC across a motor, light, resistor, etc., you first need to be in the operating range of the MRA.

The first MRA that was built could provide gain with only a HP-200cd signal generator to drive it, which we have not been able to match since, except with the most recent MRA in tests with the little grain-of-wheat lamps...and that falls off after about an hour, as the harmonics die out.

As you can see from the data, it takes a couple of watts in to prime the pump (waves), after which you can back off on the frequency and achieve nonlinear gain on the output.  We use a Radio Shack amp to drive the MRA...just about any good audio amp with 25 VAC output will do.

We use DC output because we believe in demonstrating the output power in useful applications, such as driving motors and lights. If you just want to measure the power I/O ratio, rectification is not necessary.  Our measurements "eat" the loss caused by the rectifying and filtering, because we want to show gain in usable power, and DC is far more usable that 34 kHz. Just give a holler if we can be of any help. ~ Joel

Message 10761 (01/18/95 21:49)
From: Jerry Decker (Sysop)
To: Ed Wall

Hi Ed! As to barium ferrite magnets, Radio Shack still supplies them and they can be tested with an ohmmeter... if it reads <20Mohm, it is NOT  barium, if >20Mohm, it probably is... as to the Piezo's, most of us got ours from Tanners in Carrollton, a suburb of Dallas, Tanner Electronics... I don't know if they have any left but they run about \$3 each... they are also sold in the back of most electronic mags... good luck... ~  Jerry

Message 10765 (01/19/95 01:57)
From: Bill Beaty
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: piezos

Norm & Joel ~ I wonder if the MRA effect requires that the piezo be imperfect, so multiple resonances can start out in the first place. If so, then it might be required that they have a dead spot from the heat and solder in order to work right.  Sort of similar to the heart requiring a dead muscle area to start multiple waves of fibrillation, rather than one single strong beat.  Have you seen overunity in unsoldered piezos that have terminals taped to the plating?  I have a few unsoldered thin ones I'll try.

Here's a partial table of PZT materials sold by Piezo Kinetics Inc., PO Box 756, Bellefonte PA 16823  814-355-1593.  Their brochure shows custom shapes, so they may not have standard stock sizes.
.
Material #             Curie temp (c)   Max Field (V/mm)   K
PKI400 (Driver)           310              350           1240
PKI500 (Sensor)           350              300           1700
PKI550 (Hi-K Sensor)      200              200           3200
- More - [C]ontinue, [S]top, [N]onStop? n
PKI800 (Lo-loss Driver)   320              400           1000
.
They mention that 'poling' is done above Curie temp with high voltage. This sounds suspiciously like the 'electricizing'  process with electret materials (as opposed to magnetizing of magnets). If you want to experiment, you might try simply placing the piezo on a metal plate on an electric stove, and applying a couple of KV between the plate and the top terminal. If you have broken ones to sacrifice, you might try heating them up to see at what temp the plating oxidizes. If you run them with an audible signal while slowly raising the heat control, you might be able to get a reproducable heat setting for the Curie temp of your units (when the audible sound goes away) which is below the temp where the coating is damaged.

Message 10772  (01/19/95 10:01)
From: Joel McClain
To: Jerry Decker (Sysop)
Subject: Barium

Hi Jerry ~ Been doing a little studying regarding barium. It is never found in pure form due to its reactivity. It's usually processed out of barytine, and has to be stored under kerosene to keep it pure after processing. It also has a cube (body centered) lattice structure which consists of ten tetrahedrons.

The reactivity of the barium atom causes the ether in the area of the nucleus to become semiconductive, so in a poled device, like a piezo or a magnet, there is always a certain amount of potential "slippage" occurring. Barium alloys seem to be ideal for Sweet and MRA types of devices. When you combine that with titanium, which is also optically active, you can get a lot of energetic reaction.

For this reason, there is always some time distortion or p-channel activity around these piezos and magnets, if they are poled, and regardless of whether they are energized by external potentials or not. Using resonance just widens the existing channel and skews the potentials in such a way that more subharmonics can react with the ether to translate more of the biwaves, which are there anyway, into EM. A barium ferrite magnet will cause a clock or watch to run slow, not due to magnetic fields, but because the magnet is in a constant state of self oscillation with the ether...so will a barium piezo, to a lesser extent.

If you use these features to create an open system in a closed loop, you can keep the potentials moving faster than the load device can use the energy, and that is unity plus. I think maybe Sweet knew this and knew how to use it.  The VTA, however, is an open system in an open loop, in that it uses the ether itself to reflect as well as to provide subharmonics, with the effect that you can't "load it down". It just keeps bouncing back with more, because the energy is only limited to whatever is available in the entire universe.

We are using the piezo as the reflective element, which contains the potentials within the series resonant closed loop, and does not allow the MRA to "run open" if you load it heavily...it just drops below unity. Actually, the ferrite, not the barium,  determines the gain by reaching the point at which it becomes a saturated core, and can't add any more power for additional increases in excess potential.

Barium is curious stuff. There are probably other elements which will work as well or better, depending on their reactivity and optical characteristics. Will keep researching this and report back. ~ Joel

Message 10773  (01/19/95 11:00)
From: Joel McClain
To: Bill Beaty
Subject: Piezo Poling

Hi Bill ~ I THINK that the piezos have to be good, poled parts in order to work properly in the MRA.  The DEGREE of poling may alter the gain, because the gain of a MRA will vary from one piezo to another, when using the same magnet and output load.

A quick test has been with the Fluke 87 to measure capacitance, and the "good" piezos measure about 5 nf, but if you reverse the leads, measure 3 nf.  The "bad" piezos have less capacitance and no difference when the meter leads are reversed. Also, even the "good" piezos need to be "conditioned" at low signal input for a day or two before they will hold up under an amplifier and a load of any wattage. Conditioning seems to improve the poling by increasing the dielectric strength of the piezos.

I really need some mfr's spec's on these parts to be any more specific about their characteristics.  It seems reasonable that poling will result in a standing potential, and this is necessary before the inner, or "p" channel subharmonics can translate into EM. Same effect with the magnet...the process of creating the magnet places the barium into a poled environment, and the inner channel activity will occur whether there is externally applied potential or not. Hope this is helpful. ~ Joel

Message 10790   (01/20/95 14:42)
From: Joel McClain
To: Jerry Decker (Sysop)
Subject: The McKie PODmod...brilliant!

Hi Jerry ~  Just finished reading the McKie patent, or PODmod as it is called. As you know, there are two parallel resonant circuits running at 20 kHz, alternately powering a series resonant circuit running at 40 kHz.  Because each tank discharges twice as fast as it charges, the power is amplified because the output current is doubled for half the charge time, with two tank circuits, so the output is constant.  The tank circuits offer maximum impedance to source current while the series resonant circuit offers minimum impedance to the load.

Of course, there's more...there is an LR circuit and an LC circuit in the load, so the LR causes voltage to lead current by 90 degrees, which charges the inductor while minimizing current BEFORE the LC circuit "sees" the potential and charges the LC circuit.  Remember "Eli the ice man?"?  McKie is driving his load almost exclusively on potential ONLY.  I read the comparison with the "Tesla Switch" in the KeelyNet file, and by golly, this is what it is happening.

While the LR is discharging into the LC, the next "wave" of potential is getting ready to switch to the LR.  As soon as the LC USES the power, the LR replenishes it.  Virtually current free potential, made even better with the use of tunnel, or negative resistance, diodes. PODmod is a brilliant application of theory.  The patent number, as you mentioned, is # 5,146,395 dated Sept. 8, 1992.  We SHOULD be buying these at Wal-Mart by now...do you know if they are in production?

Message 10802 (01/21/95 13:09)
From: Joel McClain
To: Woody Moffitt
Subject: still going...

Hi Woody ~ The drop off in over-unity can occur at either of the "ends" of the operating range, and seems to define the boundaries of operation.

By either increasing load on the secondary beyond the saturation point of the permeable core, or by decreasing frequency until the subharmonics ring out, you can force the MRA below unity. There is an optimum range of output load and input frequency, wherein the nonlinear increase in input impedance creates an effective reduction of primary current, hence input power, for a disproportionately higher amount of output power. The dimensions of this range appear constant in relative terms for differing MRA configurations, although the actual parameters of center resonant frequency and output power will vary with the components. Within the optimum range, the MRA hasn't "rang out" through extended testing to date.

Now, the effects of impedances in a circuit do not relate directly to pure resistance, but the average value of each has the same effect on circuit current.  This is especially true of a series resonant circuit because the reactances cancel, leaving only resistance. While this is true within the resonant range of the circuit, the individual effects of Xl and Xc become more pronounced as you move either above or below the center resonant frequency. We wish we had the type of equipment which would allow millisecond-by-millisecond analysis of the MRA with simultaneously monitored voltages and currents, so that we could then plot the coordinates as vectors... lacking that, we turned the MRA over to those who have knowledge superior to ours, and the tools to test the MRA properly. Obviously, we have a great respect for these people and we anxiously await their reviews and analyses.

If there are hidden variables which "average value" testing cannot see, they will be found, and the effects will be clearly defined in terms of power. You know as well as anyone that there are always hidden variables in anything, so it remains to be seen how much they will affect the power gains which we measure as average values. We can use (and accept) Thevenin's Theorem, but we also know Murphy, so reality is somewhere in between. Thanks, dude! ~ Joel

Message 10818    (01/22/95 15:02)
From: David Wyland
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: MRA Experiments

Sources:
Digi-Key (1-800-344-4539) is a great electronics and semiconductor mail order catalog company.  Just call the 800 number and they will send you a catalog every month or two.  They take credit cards, and they ship in 24 hours. I have used them quite often, and they are good. You already know about these guys, but I thought I would give them a plug anyway.

Newark Electronics (1-800-298-3133 ext. 48) is another good mail order catalog company. Their catalog is much bigger, more industrial and has a wide variety of parts, particularly transistors. Their catalog comes
out yearly and is about 2 thick.

Edmund Scientific (1-609-573-6250) in Barrington, NJ, carries magnets and other scientific equipment for the experimenter and industrial market. They are well known and have been around for a while.

Electronic Engineers Master (EEM) is a four volume set of reference books supplied yearly for free to engineers. The EEM publishers number in NY is (516-227-1300). They list the manufacturers of just about anything that has wires hanging out of it, including crystals and magnets. If you want more info on these, let me know.

EEM shows Morgan Matroc as an ultrasonic crystal transducer manufacturer, pg B-1971 of the 1995 edition, volume B. The pictures and text say they make these type of crystals. You might want to check them out. Their address is:

Morgan Matroc, Inc., 232 Forbes Road, Bedford, OH 44146; 216-232-8600; 216-232-8731 (fax)

McMaster-Carr Supply Company (310-692-5911) is a big industrial supply catalog. They sell everything for the factory including magnets. They have a 2700+ page catalog with 5 pages of Alnico, ceramic and other magnets for industrial use.  Alnico rectangular bar magnets go to 1x1x6, for example. These people do quite big, industrial business. The problem will be to get their attention for a small order.

High Power Devices:
You need some high power transistors?  They are available. The International Rectifier IGBT (Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor) devices should do for most anything. The IRGPF40 is rated at 1200 volts at 29 amps for \$9.00 in quantity of one from Digi-Key. That's about 35 KW switching in one device. Modules with these voltage ratings at currents into the hundreds of amps are also available. This is overkill as an example. A wide variety of bipolar and MOSFET devices, both NPN (N-channel) and PNP (P-channel) are available for a few dollars at voltages up to 450 volts and several amperes.

Self Powered MRA:
The final proof of the MRA pudding will be self sustaining operation without external power input. If you can get a clean DC Watt out of an MRA from nowhere, you will have something tough to deny. (I know, I have a firm grasp of the obvious.) By pumping out an excess watt = 1 Joule/second, you will quickly eliminate other explanations of where the power comes from, such as using up the energy of magnetization of the magnet, for example. Each day of operation would yield about 90,000 joules. You can compare this against the energy of magnetization of the core, or even against nitroglycerin in terms of
joules/kilogram.

Here are two direct ways for self powering the MRA that I can think of: 1) Make a DC powered sine wave oscillator and amplifier combination to drive the MRA, with the DC power for the oscillator/amplifier combination coming (eventually) from the MRA output.  First, you power up the MRA using a battery or other external supply. When the MRA is up and running, you switch over to MRA power.   ~  David C. Wyland

Message 10820  (01/22/95 15:52)
From: Jim Uban
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: MRA design ideas w/r/t VTA

Hi Norm ~  I have been avidly following the MRA updates since being alerted to it's existence by Mr. Don Kelly.  Congratulations on your and Joel McClain's success! Over the past 2 years I've also been studying Mr. Sweet's VTA system (also with the information help of Don K).  The MRA is reminiscent of the VTA and I would guess probably draws from the same energy source, but using a different engineering realization which is much more reproducible. However, Sweet was able to get out much higher over-unity gains.

Perhaps I can offer some design insights from my VTA studies?  Two main issues are apparent now. First is the output windings.  Sweet was able to get his outputs using what's called 'bifilar' winding for the output coil(s). At the INE conference last May, Sweet's setup was replicated and verified by Mr. Don Watson. I spoke with Don at length, and obtained his design specs (which he has freely given for public domain usage). He also used bifilar windings on the output. Bifilar windings are basically two identical and independent windings cross-connected at the output. One can make elaborate windings where first one layer is wound with one wire, then another layer wound (even in the opposite turn direction) with the second wire. But Don W took a simpler approach of winding from 2 solid-wire spools at the same time. This way, the same amount of identical wire is put on the coil in two independent (and insulated) strands. The outputs are cross-connected.  From normal E-M theory, it should not be possible to get any effect in this sort of winding, since any kind of magnetic induction effect would set up a current in each of the two output windings, which would cancel each other due to the cross-connection at the terminus of the wires. However, this is what Sweet and Don W used. Don says his circuit worked well, similar to Sweet's setup. It occurred to me this could well be why you were able to get the MRA only to work with stranded wire.  The stranded wire would be acting like a bifilar winding.  In that case, the fact that the wires are continually shorted must not make a difference, which goes along with the hypothesis that a different energy than surface-wire electron motion is what we are dealing with here. However, it may be that a directly bifilar wound output coil would work better than the stranded wire. So I mention it here for your
consideration.

The second issue is the magnet itself.  The big stopping point for replicating Sweet's setup has been that it requires 'conditioned' magnets. The specs for this had not been forthcoming from Sweet in clear form. (He apparently has given out grains of truth along with a lot of nonsense, perhaps due to legal restrictions or his own inclinations). Anyway, Don Watson has done a lot of work with magnets, and was able to put together an approach that seems to replicate the needed conditioning.  Your 1/16/95 note about "looseness of the domains in the magnet" plays directly to this conditioning process. What Don W basically does is mostly demagnetize the magnets using powerful capacitor-pulsed coils around the periphery of the flat slab magnets. He alternates the magnet from top up to top down (talking about the large flat side here), and also varies the tilt of the magnet up to about 30 degrees on the two major axes, giving a pulse or two at each orientation.  The goal (as measured with 'magnet paper' which shows the domain boundaries) is to end up with a weakly magnetized magnet that has about 1/2 to 3/4 inches of one polarity (N or S pole perpendicular to the large flat surface) around the outer edge of the flat surface of the magnet, and then the inner section being the other polarity (6"x4"x1/2" magnets). In this way, a 'magnetic bubble' is formed, which is quite visible in the magnetic paper. The second step is to place this magnet between two copper hand-built capacitor plates and charge it to a few KV for a while (I have more specific specs on all this). Don found that doing this step loosened up the magnetic bubble such that a small magnet could easily move it around, as evidenced by the magnetic paper. So, the drive coil (wound normally) could easily wiggle the magnetic bubble (and therefore a lot of magnetic grains in the magnet) to a large degree with a minimal input.

Don Watson's work was only with Barium Ferrite magnets which he found at surplus houses. He found that a VOM can show the difference, where touching any two points on the surface of a BaFe has almost infinite resistance; whereas the now available SrFe has a few megohms resistance. One theory is that the low resistance wipes out eddy currents which dampen the effect. Also, BaFe has better magnetization curves than SrFe for the demagnetizing, bubble-forming process.

Sweet (and Don W) runs the system completely at 60HZ. (The final conditioning step is to pulse the demagnetizing coils at a 60HZ peak a few times). He probably needs the very loosened-up magnetic domains to get the system to work at that frequency.  You and Joel have hit on the idea of resonating the magnet at it's natural frequency, which perhaps gets the domains shaking nicely without being so loosened up. However, applying some of these conditioning techniques might loosen up the magnet domains further for greater-output operation at your frequencies also.

I've just received some of the Lead-Zirconate piezos from H&R, and hope to proceed with experimentation here as well. Let me know if you want more specifics on the Watson/Sweet conditioning process.

Message 10831 (01/23/95 03:53)
From: Bill Beaty
To: All
Subject: MRA fm internet 2

Re: Actual test data

Input signal with no-load (MRA not connected) = 27.13 VAC
MRA output load = same Pittman motor @116 ma
Input signal with MRA connected and powering motor = 26.88 VAC
Input signal amplitude reduction as per above = 0.25 VAC
Measured equivalent resistance to achieve 0.25 VAC drop = 1600 ohms

Joel ~ The .25 volt difference mentioned above is only 1 % of the voltages that you are measuring the difference between. Considering that this is in all likelihood about the precision of the meter you are using, it could be out by as much as 100%. Therefore these calculations are meaningless. Furthermore, you do not give any information about waveform, or phase. Although I appreciate that phase between input current and voltage are difficult to determine, if you can't measure input current! Personally for the sake of experiment, I would risk including a small resistor in the input circuit, even if it means reducing the gain somewhat, just to be sure of what is going on. Then once you are sure (i.e. you have measured wave-form, phase, etc., with over unity operation), you can remove the resistor again, for the rest of your experiments. As it stands, your input circuit must already have some ohmic resistance, therefore it is not a priori fatal to the operation of the circuit. A good scope should be able to measure milivolt voltage drops across a small resistor (And with much better accuracy than subtracting two almost equal high voltages). On another point: I was wondering if you could tune the frequencies of your piezos, but putting them under pressure. e.g. clamped between rubber blocks in a small vice. Alternatively, you might  include a small adjustable capacitor in series in the circuit, to tune the tank frequency, as is done in digital watches. I suspect
that best results will be obtained, only at very precise frequencies. (Perhaps improving asymptotically as THE frequency is approached). Another thought, if the piezo frequency is a multiple of the magnet frequency, then you might try mechanically coupling the two, to ensure that they resonate on exact harmonics (I suspect that this will further improve the Q factor of the primary circuit). It occurs to me that if this is not the case, then the input impedance will  not rise as high, and the gain won't be as high as it might. Next point: I got the impression that Keely was talking about the third harmonic, however you seem to be operating on the second, i.e., 4 times the frequency, rather than 8 times. What happens if you use a magnet frequency of about 4 kHz, OR a piezo frequency of 64 KHz? ~ Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au

Message 10835  (1/23/95 07:21)
To: Joel McClain
Subject: (R) MRA Test

If you insert a resistor or other device in series with primary, it will interfere with the biwave translation which is occurring, and effectively shut down the p-channel. One of the designs I've been toying with uses SENFETS (MOSFETS that have Kalvonic Current Mirror outputs) which should not 'interfere' like a series resistor.

Message 10858 (1/23/95 12:56)
From: Joel McClain
To : Bill Beaty

1.  We believe that barium is a singularity.  It is highly reactive, it has a cube lattice structure, and it has a weight of 137. As such, it most easily engages the Coulomb Transverse Potential with the aether, resonates more easily, and can translate more biwave pairs into EM energy.

2.  We haven't found any correlation with the physical location of the piezo relative to the magnet, in terms of performance.

3.  The shape of the magnet might matter. We don't know because we have been working with the same generally oblong rectangular shape all along.

4.  The dominant frequency is the frequency applied. There are other frequencies apparent, similar to the "noise" that you see in a transistor circuit. This "noise" is "riding" on the dominant frequency, and becomes more apparent as the MRA "warms up".

In operation, the MRA is energized at peak resonance for an hour, and then detuned by approximately 140-160 Hz, which causes the effective impedance of the primary to increase by ten or more times, while only slightly reducing the output power.  We use an audio amplifier to provide the input, with a signal generator feeding the amplifier. The amplifier has an impedance matching transformer for its output, and we use the highest impedance tap of the transformer secondary.

A sine wave input is necessary, as is stranded wire. We wind the secondary first, and the primary over it. We are using step down ratios of 2:1 from primary to secondary. All of the above is not to say that there are not better ways of doing it...these are only how we are doing it, and other methods may yield better results.

A friend is in the process of building a low power sine wave generator which we plan to use for a self-sustaining mode of operation. We believe that the generator should be able to provide 20-30 VAC at 150 ma maximum (for the warmup), and be tunable within 30-40 kHz. We will use rechargable batteries to start and maintain the circuit.

Good luck to you in your studies. ~ Joel

Message 10880   (1/24/95 10:40)
From: Joel McClain
To: All
Subject: MRA Evaluation by IAS

Late yesterday, I received a fax from Hal Puthoff and Scott Little at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin.  Hal confirmed the measurements which we had documented for both load and no-load operation of the MRA.  However, different conclusions were reached with regard to interpretation of the measurements which do not support over-unity gain.

While we are still in dialogue with Hal and Scott with regard to the interpretation of the measurements, I felt it best to share this information with all interested KeelyNetters, along with a sincere "thank you" to Hal and Scott for their kind and generous assistance in the test of the MRA.

As is often the case, especially with ZPE devices, correct data can lead to incorrect conclusions... this may be the case with the MRA as well, in terms of Norm's and my testing. Looking back, I'm very glad that we shared our data with everyone, as this may help others as a "case in point". Alternately, however, we have requested that Hal and Scott try testing the MRA without adding series resistors in the primary circuit. We think that the addition of resistors might have the effect of blocking subharmonics, which would cause an increase in primary source current. When components are added, it is no longer the same circuit, i.e., it is no longer the MRA, in our opinion.

We will be continuing our work with the MRA, as the most difficult measurement for us to verify is that of primary current.  We hope to perform the ZPE "litmus test" with an oscillator to test the ability of the MRA to self-sustain. As with all tests, we will share the test results. My personal thanks to all of you as well, especially Jerry and Bill, for helping to share this and all previous information. ~ Joel

Message 10885 (1/24/95 17:07)
From : David Wyland
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: 2nd half of MRA message

Sorry I got cut off half way through the last message. Here is the rest of it, with some thoughts and data. Here are two direct ways for self powering the MRA that I can think of:

1)  Make a DC powered sine wave oscillator and amplifier combination to drive the MRA, with the DC power for the oscillator/amplifier combination coming (eventually) from the MRA output. First, you power up the MRA using a battery or other external supply. When the MRA is up and running, you switch over to MRA power.

Note: the sine wave oscillator/amplifier output voltage must be set by some reference voltage independent of the MRA DC voltage output to prevent unwanted positive feedback.

2)  Make a DC powered AC amplifier to drive the MRA, with the DC power for the amplifier coming from the MRA, as above.  Have the amplifier input driven by the signal generator through an opto-isolator (or even a fiber optic cable, if you want to spend a few dollars more.)  The opto-isolator prevents any power flow from the oscillator to the amplifier. It consists of a LED and a photodiode. Current in the LED causes current in the photodiode. These devices cost about \$1.00 and are available in wide variety. This method allows you to use the signal generator for control but totally eliminate it as a source of power. Eventually, you would replace it with a low power sine wave oscillator on the MRA board.

The amplifier will probably need both + and - DC voltages if you want the sine wave to be symmetrical about ground. (No DC component.) In addition to using a full wave bridge at the MRA output for output power, use two half wave rectifiers and capacitors to generate + and - DC voltages. For the MRA’s discussed, this means about +12 & -12 out to the amplifier. A low output impedance amplifier capable of putting out 30 VRMS (~90 V peak to peak) is not to tough to make. You need transistors rated at probably 150+ volts to be safe. The TIP31C NPN and the TIP30C PNP may be good choices. Each are rated at 140 volts Vcbo at 3 Amps with an fT of 4 MHz. If the amplifier voltage output to the MRA is to be 2 to 5 VRMS (~15 V peak to peak => +/- 7.5 volts peak from the MRA power supply) when running, the MRA should be able to power it with no problem.

Instrumentation Thoughts: To measure high voltages, use a 1000:1 probe, such as a 10 Meg and 10K resistor pair. One end of the 10 meg goes to the measurement point, the other to the 10K; the other end of the 1K goes to ground.  Have the scope measure across the 1K resistor. This protects the scope, keeps the load on the test point small (0.1 mA at 1 KV) and allows the 1KV+ voltage to be in range on the ‘scope. You might want to use a high voltage 10 meg or a string of 2 or more resistors so they don’t arc over.

Another approach is to use a 10 pF and a 10,000 pF (.01 uF) capacitor pair, since you are looking at AC. This would eliminate any DC load. Use a high voltage 10 pF cap.

Watch out for the current probes: they add some inductance because they act like a ferrite bead around the wire they measure.  They measure current by transformer effect. What you are clipping around the wire is a split ferrite core.

If you are not sure about whether the scope is chopping your signal, cut it back to one channel, unchopped. By the way, chop rates of 100 to 500 KHz are common, and so are chopped scope artifacts if your signal happens to be near some phase locked harmonic of the chop rate.

I hope I have piqued your interest and that we can work together. It looks like fun!  ~ David C. Wyland ~

Message 10903  (1/25/95 13:32)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: More testing, Igor!!

Hi Norm ~ I had a most illuminating conversation with Hal today. I've asked him to keep the MRA for as long as he feels that it has anything to offer him as a device for testing. At this point, he may be about done with it, as it appears not to be above unity. The key to this is not in the reduction of current, which occurs as we have seen, but in the cosine of the phase angle, which changes as the circuit is detuned. Thus it is possible to have a vastly reduced current in combination with a measurable increase in terminal voltage and still have a relative increase in input power. Reactance, which alters the phase angle, becomes more prominent as the MRA is detuned. Now, I THINK that this is minimal as long as we are within the bandwidth of the Universal Resonance Chart, but I could be wrong.

If this is what is happening, and Hal's test provides data which indicates that this is the case, then the phase angle changes should be directly measurable. I'm not completely convinced, and won't be until we have quantified this. The other indications which we have seen, such as the reduction in output current from the driver xistor of the amp, and the net reduction in AC current to the amp, and the tests with the grain-of-wheat lamps, and other tests, lead me to believe that there is something more going on here.

I mentioned that we are going ahead with the plan to build an oscillator to test the MRA in self-sustaining mode, and that the oscillator must be inductively coupled to the MRA. I've asked Hal to test the MRA using inductive coupling via an isolation xfmr and to omit the series resistor. This would eliminate the local value of impedance, i.e., the resistor, which is replacing the distributed resistances in the tuned circuit. The inductive coupling will provide the same E&I lead-lag relationships which we have in our own tests.

I hope that everyone is aware that I have the utmost respect for and confidence in Hal and his staff. Sometimes typed messages are subject to wrong interpretation, and I really DO NOT want that to be the case here. I genuinely respect them and the efforts which they have given in the test of the MRA. I understand the conclusions which they have reached, and am gratified that they have verified the accuracy of our measurements. Hopefully, this will put to rest all of the doubts concerning the accuracy of our measurements, frequency range of test equipment, etc. We differ only in the interpretation of those measurements as related to input power. I would hope that any inventor of a device of this type would have the advantage of a review by Hal Puthoff. Regardless of the outcome of the review, it is an honor.

As I told Hal, to paraphrase Yogi Berra, "we agree differently"... and that is all. The burden of proof is, as it should be, on the inventors.  So we'll prove it;  it works or it doesn't...and we'll quantify it either way, and share the results.  C'ya. ~ Joel

Message 10936  (01/26/95 09:08)
From: Norman Wootan
To: Norman Comparini
Subject: MRATEST1 Response

Norm:  In regard to your question as to our response to the MRATEST1 Report I will go on record with the following comments. First there is a strange "paradox" here that thus far has eluded even the best instrumentation in attempts to explain this circuit. Let say before going any further that I as does Joel personally appreciate the efforts of Hal and Scott in their analysis of the MRA device and look forward to working with them in the future in further testing when we can nail down what is really going on in the circuit. This project is not going to just die out. I personally have 3 ea. "Super MRA devices" on my bench which do some rather interesting things which defy all explanation by conventional "EM" theory. I will stand by my statement that there is a phenomenon here that has eluded all attempts to explain the circuit even with the most sophisticated "digital equipment". Case in point: MRA that I call "big coil 1"; Input is 80.2VAC @ 798HZ across a "grain of wheat" bulb (glows very dim) with an output of 52.7VDC into a load of 2 ea. (parallel) 48V panel lamps drawing 3.42 Watts at a current of 61.5MA. Will some "electronics engineer" out there tell me how a tiny grain of wheat bulb with 80.2VAC applied across it in series with the MRA circuit pass enough current to drive the observed load of 3.42 Watts? Any and all explanations will be accepted and considered. Wouldn't you agree that something real strange is going on here? To show you that this "DOG" is not going to lay down and die is evidenced by my latest MRA that I constructed last night which does the following: Input, 53.5VAC @ 33,600HZ with an output of 120.2VDC into a resistive load of a standard light bulb rated 120V 13.5 Watts burning very brightly.  Input current? Well let's put it this way, I placed a small miniature Radio Shack lamp rated at 6V @ .025A in series with the MRA input and the tiny little lamp was burning very bright while sustaining the output load. Keep in mind that we are dissipating power in the form of heat and light in the series resistive load in the input side of the circuit therefore the question arises as to what is the effective voltage and current across the piezo and primary coil of the MRA circuit. Does conventional "bridge" or series resistance calculations apply. If so then will you figure it out and get back to me as to your explanation. I told you it wouldn't be easy. ~ Norm

Message 10938  (01/26/95 09:46)
From: Joel McClain
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: Circulating Currents

Hi Norm ~ Those are some very impressive figures on the Magnum. Actually, the input current IS as low as it seems...but the phase angle is altered by the reactance (capacitance) of the primary. Since the power factor is the cosine of the phase angle, the input power may be greater than it would appear...even with the lower current. That is the basis of Hal's conclusion, as I understand it.

However, comma, if the phase shift is occurring and is ISOLATED from the source, as with the autotransformer example, then the power increase as a result of phase shift is affecting the power in the MRA only.  Therein lies the rub.  It APPEARS that this is the case because of the net reduction in AC power to the amplifier (below standby), and because of the extremely high impedance of the primary as seen by the tiny amount of current in the grain-of-wheats, and none of that even considers the effects of mass aggregate resonance.

Now, when the autoxfmrs would short out, the effect would be the same as if either half of the autoxfmr was connected to a one ohm pure resistance:  00000^^^^^^^^00000.  With 480 VAC applied, the current coil 1 ohm  coil would be 480 amps, and the I*E is 230,400. However, the line fuses still see a net inductance. These fuses are rated at 480 VAC and 100 amps, so their I*E is only 48,000, but they will not blow. The windings heat up and burn out. The massive current in the shorted turns is referred to as "circulating current", because it circulates in the windings as a result of the phase shift across a pure value of resistance. If the line were "seeing" the power in the shorted windings, the fuses would blow...but the line can't see it. There exists a ratio of five times the power which the line "sees" as opposed to the power being dissipated.  Is that above unity? Well, to a fuse or a watt-hour meter it is. Because the MRA drives the amplifier below standby current for the same line voltage, I'd guess that the effect is related.

The isolation is the key...with the autoxfmr, the shorted windings are isolated from the line fuses by the net inductance of the coil. With the MRA, the isolation xfmr of the amplifier is the key...as long as resistances remains distributed... I think. Testing with a self-powering MRA will prove or disprove it, one way or the other. Adding a pure resistive value in the inductive path of the MRA may represent the shorted turn in the autoxfmr...maximum circulating current which the source does not see, but which gives the appearance of a lot of power into the MRA from the source. Hmmm again.

Come to think of it, the autoxfmr example sounds like Russell's device, doesn't it?  And the shorted winding seems like a caduceus turn. Anybody can feel free to jump in here!  Ideas? ~ Joel

Message 10971  (01/27/95 11:30)
From : David Wyland
To : Norman Wootan
Subject: MRA Testing

Norm ~ Here are some thoughts on MRA testing. I think a critical test is to measure the input current.  You could do this by putting a 1 ohm resistor in series with the return lead of the MRA and measuiring the voltage across the resistor with a scope. You can make the 1 ohm resistor out of ten 10 ohm resistors in parallel, which you should get able to get at Radio Shack.  Even 5% carbon comps should work to begin with because you are looking for an order of magnitude.

If you have grounding problems between the scope and the amplifier, you could a) float the scope with an isolation transformer (a very handy thing to have for this function), b) run the amplifier off a 12-volt battery if it is the Radio Shack PA system dual voltage amplifier. You could use a lantern battery or run a length of 14 gage Malibu garden light zip cord to the cigarette lighter of a car, or c) make a differential isolation amplifier from an op amp, four 10K ohm resistors and a pair of 9 volt batteries.

Almost any op amp will do: OP-07, OP-27, LF411, LM324, etc. Connect the 9 volt batteries to the +V and -V power terminals. Connect the output to the amplifier (-) input through a 10k resistor, and connect the amplifier (+) to battery common. Connect the remaining two 10K resistors between the 1 ohm resistor and the amplifier (+) and (-) inputs. The scope ground goes to battery common and the amplifier output goes to the scope input. The result is a gain-of-1 differential amplifier, which will eliminate ground loops. (Reference: National Linear Applications Handbook, etc.)

When you check the current, also check the applied voltage to the MRA and try to estimate the phase angle between them.  Power = V*I*cos angle.

I got the impression that when you got the MRA in its low input power mode, you could reduce the input drive voltage from 30 VRMS to 3-5 VRMS and still maintain the output voltage.  True, or am I dreaming? Good Luck! ~ Dave Wyland

Message 10975  (01/27/95 13:38)
From: Steve Thatcher
To: All
Subject: MRA Piezos

I have been following the MRA development and was searching for sources for piezo crystals. To those that are looking for a source, you might try contacting Morgan Matroc Inc.  They are in Ohio and have been in the piezo business for 50 years according to their ads. Their phone # is (216)232-8600 and the address is 232 Forbes Road; Bedford, Ohio 44146. I haven't built the device and haven't dug enough into yet to know what you all are looking for.  It appears that this company may have some high power-high stress capable piezos off the shelf so to speak. Let me know if you find anything. ~ Steve Thatcher

Message 10981 (01/27/95 18:17)
From: Norman Wootan
To: David Wyland
Subject: MRA Testing

David you were correct to assume that we had thought out the testing procedure and yes (to answer your question) we knew exactly what the outcome of the test would be by adding a "lump" resistance to the circuit. It kills the over-unity effect "dead as hell". All three of the testing parties were told that this would happen.  Now if you would please go back to the starting point and read the whole thing over then you will not come back and suggest placing a "lump" resistance value anywhere in the input circuit to derive a current value. It just cannot be done this way for it completely alters the MRA into as Hal stated "an ordinary series resonant transformer circuit".  Put you thinking cap on for there has to be a method of determining input current and not "close the P channel".  What would you say if I told you that Joel and I fine tuned a MRA last night and had the voltage and current wave forms exactly 180 degrees out of phase at the input of the MRA?  See there is something real peculiar here for between the piezo and the coil the phase angle was 90 degrees.  Comments?? ~  Norm

Message 10994 (01/28/95 01:15)
From : David Wyland
To: Norman Wootan
Subject: (R) MRA Testing

I hear you about the lumped resistance. However, some resistance insertion must be possible: at least of the order of the DC resistance of the wires, perhaps 0.01 ohms. This can be estimated by wire tables for 20 gauge wire.  With a very small resistance plus an amplifier you should still be able to get a current waveform reading. Having the voltage and current 180 out seems strange… Could be, but I would check by substituting a DC resistance for the MRA to check polarity to be sure. Strange things happen to phase with high Q resonant circuits near resonance.

Note: the MRA circuit must have some effective resistance in it. Real amplifiers have some DC output resistance, closed loop or no. It sounds like the trick is to measure the current without disturbing the circuit. You can still try the current probe too. The ultimate test will be to measure the DC current into an efficient, low power drive amplifier. If the current to the amplifier drops, as (and don't forget to decouple it with a cap to make sure the current you are measuring is DC) you move into the good region, then you are in good shape. The amplifier current method is the ultimate method: the DC output current must be enough to drive the amplifier with some left over for the system to be over unity as a whole. Say again what drive voltage, peak-to-peak you are using? Good Luck ~ Dave Wyland

Message 11037   (01/30/95 00:55)
From: Joel McClain
To: David Wyland
Subject: Black Box Test

Hi David ~ The MRA starts out below unity, and builds up "steam" over an hour. It takes time for the harmonics to reach their peak.  You can watch it happen it increments.

The secondary side of the input amp xfmr "belongs" to the MRA, so if you need to add resistance, add it to the primary side.  When you add it to the secondary side, you modify the device under test. Look at it this way...if your car starts rolling down a hill, you can stop it with very little resistance at first. You can also stop the MRA with very little resistance at first. That's how transistor circuits are designed so that resonances won't build up and croak them... add a small resistance to stop them when they are still small, so they can't grow.

You don't have to be IN the circuit to measure the power TO it. If you want to "black box" the MRA, don't put anything extra in the box...put it outside (ahead) of the box.

Look at what is going on in your amplifier... transistors forced near cutoff, AC line current dropping below standby. Then look at the nice robust DC power off your bridge. Then go ahead and build the circuit to make it power itself. ~ Joel

Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Amplifier (MRA)
Institute for Advanced Studies / EarthTech International, Inc.
(4030 Braker Lane, Austin TX 78759  ~  512-346-3848)

H. E. Puthoff & Scott Little
20 January 1995

Abstract ~

An MRA device provided by Joel McClain and Norman Wooten was tested for power efficiency.  The MRA is essentially a power converter, driven by an audio frequency AC voltage and producing a DC output.  Our tests included meter measurements, made in the manner employed by McClain and Wooten, and digital oscilloscope measurements, which provided high-resolution recording of input voltage and current traces. Our meter measurements duplicated the results reported by McClain and Wooten which would appear to indicate over-unity (>100% efficiency) performance at certain frequencies, but only because the reactive behavior of the system is not properly taken into account by this measurement procedure.

The digital oscilloscope measurements, which correctly account for the effects of circuit reactance, yielded a nearly constant 50% efficiency at all frequencies.

Introduction ~

The MRA device we tested consisted of a piezoelectric transducer connected in series with the primary of a specially constructed, hand-wound transformer. The transformer has a ferrite core and the secondary is connected to a full-wave bridge whose output is connected to a load.

McClain and Wooten computed AC input power by determining an equivalent resistance R of the MRA, and then substituting that value R, and the closed-circuit MRA input voltage V, into V^2/R to calculate an input power. They determined this equivalent resistance by substituting a decade resistance box in place of the MRA to find the resistance that would yield the same connected-circuit driving voltage. (Such a procedure is appropriate for purely resistive loads.)

In their most recent tests McClain and Wooten used a small DC motor as a load for the MRA. We used the motor initially to confirm proper operation of our MRA test bed, but replaced it with a 130 ohm resistor to eliminate commutation noise for the tests described below. We also attached a 30,000 microfarad filter capacitor across the load resistor to smooth out the DC to ensure accurate measurement with common digital meters. We used two Micronta 22-185A meters, one in series with the load to measure current, and one connected across the load and the other meter to measure total voltage delivered to the load and current meter.  Total output power is the product of these two quantities.

To generate the 34 kHz signal needed to drive the MRA we used a TEK FG504 Signal Generator amplified with a Pioneer H100, a modern solid-state 160-watt audio power amplifier without output transformers. To duplicate the performance of McClain and Wooten's Radio Shack MPA-45, 35-watt amplifier, we had to add series L (34 microhenries) and R (11.68 ohms) to our amplifier.

Without the series R we only observed a 0.10 volt droop when driving the MRA at resonance (McClain and Wooten's amplifier exhibited a 1.58 volt droop under this loading).

Without the series L the anomalous effects were still present but substantially lower in magnitude than those observed by McClain and Wooten.

With our amplifier thus modified by the addition of these elements, we have duplicated the McClain-Wooten driver amplifier setup precisely.

We used a LeCroy ScopeStation 140 100MHz digital oscilloscope with simultaneous sampling on 2 channels to measure MRA input voltage and current. Current was sensed as the voltage drop across the 11.68 ohm resistor placed in series with the amplifier output.  This resistor was made by placing two 22 ohm, 2 watt carbon comp resistors in parallel to provide the desired resistance with a minimal inductance.

Procedure ~

We conducted a series of measurements at different frequencies. At all times the MRA was connected to the 130 ohm load resistor. At each frequency we made the following measurements with the MRA connected to the AC signal source:
f         source frequency (measured with a Fluke 87)
VinMRA    voltage across the source terminals with the MRA connected (Fluke 87)
Vout      DC voltage across the 130 ohm load resistor and current meter (Micronta)
Iout      DC current through the 130 ohm load resistor (Micronta)
Vin       digital recording of the input voltage trace covering about 4 cycles (LeCroy)
Iin       digital recording of the input current trace simultaneous with Vin (LeCroy)

At each frequency we also disconnected the MRA and measured:
Vopen     the open circuit voltage of the source (Fluke 87)

We then connected a decade resistance box across the source terminals and by trial-and-error determined:
Requiv    the resistance required to produce the same driving voltage as with the MRA connected

Results ~

The following table shows these measured quantities for four different frequencies, beginning at resonance and then decreasing.

f (kHz)      VinMRA       Vopen       Requiv     Vout      Iout
33.84        21.06        23.36        140      18.68     .1324
33.56        23.84        24.04       1900      15.02     .1068
33.34        24.20        24.10     negative     9.75     .0696
32.47        24.58        24.26     negative     5.28     .0377

The first entry in the table is at resonance and is characterized by the highest Vout value. The second entry has Vout at approximately 85% of the maximum value as suggested by McClain and Wooten.  The digital data for Vin and Iin are not presented in this table in the interest of brevity.  The several pages of digital data generated for each line in this table are, however, available upon request.

The next table shows the results of  the power calculations, both by the V^2/Requiv method used by McClain and Wooten, and by the averaging of Vin times Iin using the digitized data.  Also tabulated are efficiency figures for each method (i.e., output power divided by input power).

f     DC output  V^2/Requiv  avg Vin*Iin   Mc-W eff   Vin*Iin eff

33.84   2.473      3.168       4.566         .78        .54
33.56   1.604       .299       3.265        5.36        .49
33.34    .679    negative      1.467      negative      .46
32.47    .199    negative       .401      negative      .50

The figures in columns 2 - 4 are in watts.  The last two columns contain ratios. The column labeled "Mc-W eff" is the power efficiency calculated by dividing the DC output by the McClain-Wooten input power V^2/Requiv.

Discussion ~

The second row in the table shows the condition that McClain and Wooten interpreted as over-unity performance (e.g., an efficiency of 5.36).  The problem lies in the value of 1900 ohms for Requiv.  This value was obtained because of the small voltage change between open- and closed-circuit conditions (24.04 to 23.84) measured at that frequency.  Note that at even lower frequencies, the source voltage was observed to actually increase above the open circuit voltage when the MRA was connected... a condition that McClain and Wooten also observed but did not attempt to analyze. At first glance this could be interpreted as evidence that the MRA was now feeding power to the source.

However, this behavior is exactly what is predicted by classical AC circuit analysis when a load with a net capacitive reactance is driven by a source that has a net inductive reactance.  Since the MRA is essentially a series LC circuit, at frequencies below resonance it will exhibit a net capacitive reactance.  The audio amplifier used by McClain and Wooten has an output transformer which, at the MRA operating frequency (substantially higher than the middle of the audio range), will exhibit a noticeable inductive reactance in its output impedance.

With such a combination of reactances one cannot, using only the magnitudes of voltage and current, determine the actual power being transferred to the MRA device.  In particular, the Requiv method fails as one detunes from resonance because it ignores the effect of reactance.  Such reactance creates a phase shift between voltage and current, a fact well-known in the electric power industry as "power factor."

For example, if both voltage and current are sinusoids, true power is given by V*I*cos(A) where A is the phase angle between the voltage and current waveforms.  An equivalent method, which is more general because it is applicable to any waveform, is to average the product of the voltage and current waveforms over an integer number of cycles.  This is the method we used to obtain the values in the second table in the column "avg Vin*Iin".

Conclusion ~

Based on the results of our experimentation and analysis we find that the MRA device provided by McClain and Wooten does not produce over-unity-efficiency results.  The MRA circuit behaves instead as one would expect of a loaded transformer with a series capacitor in the primary circuit.  When the MRA is detuned from resonance to frequencies slightly below resonance, the observed changes may give the impression that the MRA then draws unusually little power from the source while nonetheless maintaining a healthy output. This impression is false.  True power measurements show that the MRA continues to draw about twice as much power from the source as it delivers to the load.

Error Analysis of MRA Test Results

Institute for Advanced Studies / EarthTech International, Inc.
Scott Little & H. E. Puthoff
1 February 1995

Introduction ~

This analysis refers to MRA test results we presented in a separate report dated 20 January 1995 (MRATEST1.ASC on KeelyNet).  These results were based upon measured values of voltage, current, frequency and resistance. In this addendum, the magnitude of experiment error associated with these measurements is discussed and quantified. As will become evident below, the error analysis does not detract from our original conclusion, but rather strengthens it.

Data ~

f (kHz)    VinMRA   Vopen     Requiv     Vout      Iout
33.84      21.06    23.36     140        18.68    .1324
33.56      23.84    24.04     1900       15.02    .1068
33.34      24.20    24.10    negative     9.75    .0696
32.47      24.58    24.26    negative     5.28    .0377

f      DC output   V2/Requiv    avg Vin*Iin   Mc-W eff   Vin*Iin eff
33.84    2.473      3.168          4.566       .78         .54
33.56    1.604       .299          3.265      5.36         .49
33.34     .679     negative        1.467    negative       .46
32.47     .199     negative         .401    negative       .50

Analysis ~

The data in the second line in these tables is of particular interest. That is the frequency at which the input power determination suggested by McClain and Wooten yields an efficiency of 536% whereas our input power measurement yields an efficiency of only 49%.

Let us examine the individual errors that contribute to the total error in our efficiency measurement (i.e., the 0.49 value that appears in the column labeled "Vin*Iin eff" in the second table).  This value is the ratio of the DC output power (1.604 watts) to the AC input power (3.265 watts in the column labeled "avg Vin*Iin").

The DC output power value was obtained by multiplying Vout by Iout. Both of these measurements were taken with Micronta 22-185A digital multimeters. The Vout meter was connected across both the 130 ohm load resistor and the current meter so as to include the voltage drop across the current meter so that the power dissipated in that meter would be included in the DC output power determination. It should be noted that a small amount of power, not included in our original determination was dissipated in the Vout meter itself. This meter has a 10 megohm input resistance and, at the15 volts present in the 2nd observation, was dissipating 22 microwatts. This should be added to the result of Vout*Iout to obtain the total output power.  For the 2nd observation, this omission results in a 0.001% underestimation of the output power, an error that will be seen to be insignificant when compared to the errors in Vout and Iout which directly affect the DC output result.

The mfgr's literature on the 22-185A meter indicates that our Vout measurement accuracy was +/- 0.8%  relative and the Iout measurement accuracy was +/- 1.5% relative.  These errors are independent so they add in quadrature to yield a +/- 1.7%  uncertainty in the computed DC output (Vout*Iout).

The errors in the avg Vin*Iin values are more difficult to characterize.  The digital scope manufacturer's stated voltage measurement accuracy does not completely describe the errors that occur when two different waveforms are recorded by the scope and multiplied together.  There is a finite amount of non-simultaneity (i.e., jitter) in the sampling of the two channels.  When the two traces are multiplied together, the resulting error will be highly dependent on the actual waveforms being sampled.

Therefore we elected to determine the error in the avg Vin*Iin value empirically.  Ten sets of current and voltage waveforms were taken from the MRA device after it had been operating for about an hour to ensure thermal equilibrium.  The operating conditions were similar to those in the second line of the data tables. The results of the Vin*Iin averaging for the ten sets were as follows:

3.26
3.24
3.25
3.20
3.20
3.29
3.16
3.24
3.18
3.27

The observed standard deviation in these values is +/-0.042 watts. This is 1.3% of the mean value.

Combining (in quadrature) this error with the 1.7% error in the DC output power, we get a 2.1% relative error expected in our "Vin*Iin eff" values. That is, the 0.49 in line 2 should be interpreted as 0.49 +/- 0.01.

Therefore, there is virtually zero chance that the conclusions presented in the original report were wrong due to experimental error.  Our measured efficiency is 0.49 +/- 0.01.  The McClain-Wooten value of 5.36 is 487 standard deviations away from our value.  The probability of our reading being a chance observation, assuming that such readings exhibit a normal distribution, is astronomically small.

Clarification of MRA Test Conditions

Institute for Advanced Studies / EarthTech International, Inc.
Scott Little & H. E. Puthoff
3 February 1995

A number of persons have commented upon one particular aspect of the test conditions we employed to generate the data presented in our original report, namely the resistor we placed in series with our amplifier output.

It should be noted that this resistor is controversial because the inventors of the MRA device have repeatedly claimed that, when they add such a resistor, the over-unity performance of the MRA is significantly diminished.

As we emphasized in our original report, we conducted our tests with a Pioneer 160 watt power amplifier that had a much lower output impedance than the 35 watt Radio Shack amplifier used by McClain and Wooten. The resistor we added should be considered only as a modification of our power amplifier to make it match McClain and Wooten's amp.

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

MRA2:  Magnetic Resonance Antenna?

Further research by Norman Wootan, Joel McClain, Robert D. Taylor and Tim and simplified version.

28 Aug 1995

Tapping A New Ambient Power Source By Resonant Ecitation ~

It has been discovered that an apparently hitherto unknown or unexploited source of ambient power exists everywhere on  earth (extrapolating from experiments in Atlanta, GA and Austin,  TX!)  and from which essentially "FREE" energy can be  extracted at almost no cost, merely by using  the Key Concept in the Wootan/McClain discovery, namely external  armonic excitation of a saturable core transformer, which causes it to act like an Antenna that extracts ambient energy in amounts 19 times or more than the energy required for the harmonic excitation. Indeed, the original MRA design continues to work and to exceed all original expectations.

In the MRA2 configuration, even when the piezoelectric capacitor has been removed and even when the primary resonant circuit has been cut, it still continues to produce verifiable output power! All that is required is a single wire from the AC Signal  Generator to the saturable-core transformer of the original MRA disclosure in order to cause useful power to be generated in the secondary circuit in amounts vastly greater than the power input from the harmonic Signal Generator.

This appears to be an electrical analogue of the chemical phenomenon of Catalysis, namely the periodic pulses of energy into the transformer 'catalyze' the transformer's nature so that it operates in an apparently hitherto never before seen mode, namely it behaves like a novel 'Antenna' which is extracting AMBIENT ENERGY from "somewhere"! It is not necessary to understand completely at this time what the source of Ambient Energy may be, in order to exploit the phenomenon in an environmentally benign way for the benefit of mankind.

Numerous maverick scientists and engineers have suggested that there may be hitherto unknown aspects of electromagnetic radiation not comprehended in the standard Maxwell's Equations, such as the controversial "scalar  waves" postulated by  retired Air Force Colonel Tom Bearden.

Retired physicist Greg Hodowanec, who duplicated the MRA independently after learning about it from the New Energy News newsletter, which reproduced the internet announcement of Wootan and McClain, suggests that the ambient energy  comes from the earth's gravitational field and is somehow being converted into electrical energy.

Former BYU professor of Physics & Astronomy, Dr. Bob Bass speculates that MRA2 (as was the original MRA1) may be somehow tapping the ambient electromagnetic energy known to exist in the Earth-Ionosphere Cavity in the form of Schumann  Resonances which are continually resupplied every time a lightning bolt from a cloud strikes the earth. "As explained in the Second Edition of Jackson's classical book on Electromagnetism, the great genius Nikola Tesla discovered the Schumann resonances experimentally 50 years before Schumann predicted them theoretically," says Bass, who adds that he once calculated that "every cubic meter of space near the surface of the earth contains on the order of one kilowatt of standing waves, similar to those in a microwave oven except at vastly reduced frequencies, which no one knows how to extract efficiently." Or do they? The late Utah inventor Moray, author of a book entitled "The Sea of Energy in Which the Earth Floats", astounded famous scientists in the 1920s and 1930s with never-explained demonstrations of his ability to extract 3 kilowatts from 'nowhere' at will, anywhere (even randomly selected points in the desert), using his unexplained Moray Valve.   Moray submitted a Patent Application, but withdrew it and his secret died with him. Admirers of Moray point out that his  writings included the words "Germanium triode" decades before the Transistor was discovered by Bell Labs scientists (who won a Nobel Prize) and who had been directed into solid-state physics by the late Harvey Fletcher, who had earlier witnessed Moray's work and been shown every detail except the secret of the vest-pocket-sized Moray Valve.

A recent controversial theory of Austin Institute for Advanced Study physicist Hal Puthoff and his collaborators Haisch and Rueda appears to explain gravity as not an intrinsic property of matter but as an indirect consequence of Maxwellian electromagnetic radiation, namely that (as earlier suggested by the late Russian dissenter Sakharov) gravity is a "shadow  effect" similar to the accepted Casimir Effect of quantum electrodynamics. Bass points out that if the Haisch-Puthoff-Rueda theory is correct then Hodowanec's idea of tapping the earth's gravity field in some electromagnetic way not hitherto suggested is conceivable.

Whatever the Ambient Energy Reservoir into which the MRA is tapping, the novel phenomenon is real and deserving of exhaustive further investigation, according to elated inventors Wootan, McClain, Taylor and McCracken, who urge independent investigators to seek to replicate their discovery.

Parts Sources For The MRA

Joel and Norm now report that stranded wire seems to be required in order to see the strange effects.

The transducer used in the Keelynet device was obtained from a surplus source local to Texas.  We're trying to track down more of them. They apparently came from an industrial plastic welder.

A Lead Zirconate Titanate piezo transducer can be had from H&R Corp, but its dimensions are: 2" dia x 0.1" thick, not the same as the original Keelynet device. It has a 45KHz resonance. Will it work? Dunno. They have several hundred in stock.

H&R also carries numerous ceramic magnets, but it's unknown whether or not any are close enough to Norm's original that they will work. They offer one large ceramic magnet, 4 x 3 x 1", and have only about 50 in stock. This magnet has its poles on the flat magnet face, and has TWO poles on each face.

At least two kinds of ceramic magnet exist: Barium ferrite and Strontium ferrite. It is not known whether both types work in this device.

H&R Co.,18 Canal St     <---- This place has a GREAT surplus mail order catalog!
PO Box 122, Bristol, PA  19007-0122
800-848-8001

Your Support Maintains this Service --