RankingsPrimerArbiterPhysicistMathematicianContrarianQESites logClaimsSourcesResearch notes

JLN Labs (J. L. Naudin) MEG pages (2026-10-05)

Previously blocked: the arbiter recorded that jnaudin.free.fr "refused connection" (scripted fetch). In Chrome the pages load. Pages read: - MEG index, "Last update 03-22-03": http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm - MEG v2.1 project page, "Last update 05-10-02": http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm - Tektronix note on THS720P power measurement, posted 05-10-02: http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/ths720p.htm - "The MEG Notes" by Jon Flickinger: http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megnot01.htm Not opened: MEG v4.0 cross-flux page (meg4cf.htm), the later builds Bearden reported at COP 1.3 and 7.3, Cyril Smith and Dave Squires analyses, Cyril Smith's 2003 critique of Shawn Bishop's paper "In Disdain of Garbage Physics".

Findings [web, URLs above]

  1. Naudin's own status (12-06-00) of his MEG v2.1, which used ferrite magnets, Honeywell Metglas C-cores, a TL494/BUZ11 driver at about 16-20 kHz, and a 10 ohm non-inductive current shunt on a Tektronix THS720P: - Control board alone draws 1.75 W with no load; with a 9 W lamp as load the DC input is 3.25 W; he credits 1.5 W of input to the lamp against "a measured OUTPUT = 6.76 Watts". - He states the output signals are "really measured" by several instruments "but unfortunately measurement artifacts remain possible". - A "conditioned" 100 kohm carbon resistor or a MOV (metal oxide varistor) load "is REQUIRED for getting the output datas measured above". - "in most of cases the 'apparent' power measured seems greater than the heat dissipated by Joule's effect in the RLoad"; he attributes the difference to EM radiation (2.8 mT near the load at 16 kHz; 1250 V/m at 50 cm). - Not yet checked: core saturation, hysteresis, and "calorimetric output measurements"; the apparent-vs-heat gap "makes me pessimistic about the calorimetric tests results". - Conclusion: his replication reproduces "the MEG signals" in line with the inventors' claims; the best verification, converting the apparent power into light, heat or motion and closing the loop, "has not yet been done today". - He did not have "the original electronic and core diagrams from the Bearden's teamwork".
  2. Tektronix note (posted by Naudin 05-10-02 under "Risk of power measurement error with non pure sinusoidal waves"): a MEG builder, Jon Flickinger, forwarded to the MEG_builders list a reply from Tektronix customer support stating that "the RMS measurement on a math waveform is bogus and has no value", with a 1997 Tektronix application note: the formula Vrms x Irms x cos(theta) is valid only for pure sinusoids, "THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS RMS WATTS", true power must be the mean of the point-by-point product v(t) i(t). Flickinger's own comment: "Did you ever wonder why you couldn't make any sense of Bearden's and JLN's THS720P scope readings".
  3. Flickinger's "MEG Notes" (an independent builder; date not shown): with linear resistive loads "it is a waste of time ... if one expects to see any excess energy"; COP > 1 appears only with nonlinear loads (MOVs; "Panasonic ZNR10K621U's for COP's ranging from 1.75 to 5"); he asks: "If anyone should experience valid COP's >1 with standard linear loads, please speak out!"
  4. Index page: lists Bearden's 4 July 2001 message about the Evans review; the Found. Phys. Lett. 14(1) 2001 author list, which includes T. E. Bearden among 15 AIAS authors (confirms the arbiter's [memory, medium] Check 10 that Bearden is a co-author); a Bearden "MEG patent status, manufacturing update" of 30 Oct 2001; Bearden status report of 15 Aug 2002 (read on the mirror, see cheniere note); a list of related flux-switching patents (Starr 1957 US 2,802,170; Toffolo 1963 US 3,087,108; Garron 1968 US 3,368,141; Galley 1975 FR 2,312,135; deRivas 1977 US 4,006,401; Richardson 1978 US 4,077,001; Kunel DE 3024814; Volkrodt DE 3501076; Bramanti US 4,675,615; Boday CA 2172240; Keiichiro US 5,926,083; Flynn WO 00/07285, Magnetic Revolutions / "Parallel Path Technology").

Bearing on the claims

  • Claim 5: the arbiter called the excess power an artefact only as its own inference, "no full-waveform analysis of any MEG has been published either way". These pages give the builders' own evidence on that question: (i) the instrument maker's statement that "RMS power" from a scope math channel is not valid for non-sinusoidal waveforms, and the patent says its power figures "agree with RMS power measured using a Textronic THS730"; (ii) the excess appears only with nonlinear (MOV / "conditioned") loads, not with linear resistors; (iii) Naudin's apparent output exceeded the Joule heat in the load. These are the builders' reports, not a controlled test, and nobody here reports a calorimetric result either way. They are pertinent evidence on the measurement question and should be weighed beside Naudin's reported COP 1.75 (v2.0) and the patentees' numbers.
  • Related work (priority 3): Flynn's Parallel Path Technology (WO 00/07285) and the flux-switching patent list.

Not done / next

  • meg4cf.htm (v4.0), the pages for Naudin's later builds, and whether Naudin ever reported a calorimetric or closed-loop result after 2002.
  • Nothing downloaded.