Michel Meyer experiments

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

ASKER

hdhondt, thank you for your input, a critical view is always very welcome.
When comes to “free energy” devices, it rings a bell to me too and I become suddenly suspicious.
Nevertheless, I am not so suspicious as you are hdhondt, generally speaking, especially when I look at the pdf file from d-glitch or the peswiki site.
I personally think and believe – so you may call it subjective and faith instead of science – after I went several years through different ideas seen on internet, that many, if not most, are either fake or a lost investment without any happy end, just waste of time and resources. Nevertheless, among them I think may be some which can be successful, but there is no wish and resources to invest in that direction. I never think about “free energy” in terms of perpetuum mobile or contradicting the laws of physics, conservation of energy. The concept is wider and refers to just converting the energy, maybe of different known fields, in open systems, into the known energy – a converter with less 100% efficiency, losing energy, but also converting, so it will be also with limited lifetime. I strongly believe it is possible, but is not encouraged. And the reason why, it is very obviously for everyone: if, theoretically, such kind of device will be manufactured and appears on market for common user, that will lead to independence of electrical energy, out of the grid. What country is ready, economical speaking, to encounter such shock? No one. It will be a disaster. Maintaining people connected to the grid, dependent by the system will allow the existing system to survive and continue. This is one reason why billions of dollars were invested, international investment, during the last years at ITER. There is a lot to say about it, from my point of view, but lets’ come to the subject above.

How do I know about this experiment?
Many years ago, I was in the army for some training and one guy, physicist, after having some discussions came to me with a piece of paper and asked my opinion about it. He had home that French magazine “Science et Vie” and he was a French speaker. I did not know what to tell him at that time, but I promised him that such simple experiment I can do anytime easy after we finish our military preparation. Just happened that my life changed drastically, right at 2 weeks after I finish the army training, with a very stressful job up to 12-14 hours of work per day. I got the copper bar, but never had time to make the test. Then the time passed and I forgot about it, even the name. I just remembered the concept behind vague. Some weeks ago, by chance I remembered and searched again on internet and found it and I decided to ask you guys.
What is my opinion about it? I will post in a comment below.

ASKER

What is my opinion about it?
The frequency around 173Khz was strange for me too, how did he know about it, how did he found it? Just sweeping a frequency range? How fast? With what intensity? Too many questions.
At that time I knew about wobbuloscope, a combination of oscilloscope + frequency generator with sweep possibilities, used to tune the RF side from TVs, so somehow theoretically there is a chance to understand how a frequency is found, by tuning and observing the max. value in a given resonant circuit.
Besides that, some other young fellows at that time from army, also with physics background, told me about an experiment done in the school in which is shown how to find the metals from a mixtures of powders, even determine with a certain tolerance the quantity, using resonance with frequencies specific for each metal.
These 2 ideas made me think that it may be possible to find a certain resonance frequency specific for copper.
The experiment itself – I am skeptic too, but I would like to try it when I have time. It is not enough to be skeptic.
Since I have read and heard 1st time the story, it is something that draw my attention:
-      The frequency is specified with a high precision, a lot of decimals. That is a problem. A big one.
At the moment when I found 1st time about this experiment, and the internet was not at my hand and en-vogue like today, I searched all the information that I could find about the highest precision oscillators, but something that I can have access too.
I found out that the common high precision are crystal (quartz) oscillators/resonators, but even these depends how they are cut in order to get high stability of frequency. Then the circuit must be compensated for temperature. And even so, the requested precision for frequency, with so many decimals cannot be archived by the crystals, not even in our days.
Then looking at his simple oscillator circuit – which is more like joke – I see the oscillation frequency may be adjusted in a small range with its trimmer, an adjustable capacitor. Well, what kind of precision can you have by turning by hand with a screwdriver a variable capacitor to sweep a frequency range? The answer is: almost zero when we look at those decimals. He is not even close to what a crystal quartz can do and the crystal resonator is not even close to what he mentions as figures. Everything was logic to me and that added more skepticism to the experiment. I mean, stability in frequency or frequency range you do it also with dedicated circuit as PLL, temperature compensation, noise reduction…it is not so simple. In the end the crystal oscillator is a mechanical deformation, so depends by dimensions and cut.
Well, next step in stability seemed to be only the atomic clock. Only atomic clock can provide such high precision. And at that time I knew that atomic clocks are not for everyone, they belong to institutions or companies/organizations and cost a lot, require special place. With these being noticed, I concluded at that time that the precision needed for frequency high stability requires a clock (atomic) and the energy needed to have that clock working is a lot higher than the energy produced by such circuit, no matter if is scaled up to a big version, so I closed partially the subject for my mind.
What frustrated me , when you read the French version of the text, is the fact that the accent seems to be put on how expensive are the instruments (at that time) thousands of francs- quite a lot at that time indded, and the stability of the frequency with so many decimals is only mentioned briefly. He never explains why and how he came to those numbers, or at least I cannot see it.
In case for the Michael Meyer was not a fake and what he could see on instruments was for real, I try to imagine him like this:
-      Assuming he calculated the frequency first and then he made the experiment, then of course he was aware that he cannot get that stability at his time, so he made a variable resonant circuit, very simple.
-      Then he played slowly with the variable capacitor looking at the instruments.
-      When a max value was seen, then he tried to adjust more precisely around a given point, but the max. was not stable, there were just short moments, pulses when the instruments could indicate.
-      The max. values read were only for short time, very instable, and his conclusions of more energy at output than input are based only on those short pulses of max. values. From here his mention that high stability for frequency is needed.
Then I have a set of observations comparing with that time:
-      We have now lots cheaper and better instruments to measure the frequency.
-      We have the possibility to generate that frequency stability with the requested precision .
-      The experiment can be remade any time, but not too many seem interested, probably because could not see any logical explanation of what he claimed, so most are skeptics.
-      The main problem that I see for his frequency at his time is the impossibility to measure the frequency with such high precision, so he was only guessing playing around, and the value seen must be theoretically calculated somehow – no idea how.
-      Today we have atomic clocks at small size, cost around 1500$, made by Microsemi (http://www.microsemi.com/products/timing-synchronization-systems/time-frequency-references/chip-scale-atomic-clock )
-      The frequency counter with such high precision are based also on atomic clock chips and cost from 5000§ and above: http://www.thinksrs.com/products/SR620.htm , http://www.thinksrs.com/products/SR625.htm
-      The oscilloscope and probes and multimeters are also some thousands of dollars. So all these put together does not make the experiment accessible to everyone, not even today, if must be done with such high stability of frequency, but at least it can be done today.
From my point of view, even I am partially skeptic, I could remake the experiment with crystal and sweeping the frequency, compensating the temperature, measuring the signals, better than Michel at his time, everything controlled digital with microcontrollers, eventually using GPS signals (which in fact are atomic clocks) for frequency stability, PLL , noise reduction, but I do not have now access to atomic clock chips and such high precision frequency meters.
The idea is: if he had seen a max. of energy/current during his simple setup circuit, then we should be able today to see it too with crystal oscillators digital control of frequency, automatic measurements done by microcontrollers and definitely better instruments. With 1000$ today we can have 10 times better setup than at his time, so in the end is no need for expensive atomic chip and expensive frequency meters, unless there is a similar result, even for a short moment with cheaper crystals lots better than his oscillator.
We just need someone to try it despite the skepticism. Then we can conclude that is a fake for sure.

Why don't you try it? The circuit as described won't cost more than a couple of dollars. Just make sure you have a good circuit breaker when you connect it to the mains. And don't stand to close to it, as things are likely to blow up big time.

ASKER

I would like too, but I have no time for it. I keep it in my mind.
The experiment works with 9V or low DC voltage, there is no need of safety measures or circuit breakers - unless was an ironic apropos.
I do not trust that experiment as it is shown.
Coming back to frequency, the explanation was given here:

But I am not so sure the calculation makes sense and if it is right.
Can you double check that?

The need for circuit breakers is because you are going to connect the secondary of that "transformer" to the mains. Given the silliness of the circuit, that is very dangerous!

Re the frequency, as I stated earlier, the orbital frequency of electrons ranges from 10^13 to 10^22 Hz - a LOT higher than the ~10^5 Hz we are talking about here. I believe the formula comes from the Bohr model of the atom, where electrons were "orbiting" the nucleus at frequencies that produce standing waves. That model was abandoned long before 1976!

The last statement "through resonance, the metal atoms are converted to electron emitters" makes no sense at all, it is meaningless.

ASKER

On page 5 here we see the secondary going to load load and not to the mains, never. It is considered a high frequency signal in secondary and has nothing to do with 50/60Hz of mains. It is low voltage and low amps.
http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Michel%20Meyer%20-%20NMR%20Generator.pdf

But he mentioned a harmonic of the main frequency, so it can have any other lower value.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2010/reviews/rpp2010-rev-phys-constants.pdf
http://www.iupac.org/publications/analytical_compendium/Cha01sec5.pdf

With certain tolerances due to calculations, decimal point trimming, we have:
Vacuum permittivity is ε0 = 8.854 187 817... × 10−12 F·m−1
electron mass = 9.109 382 15(45) × 10-31 kg
Speed of light through vacuum is C = 299792458 m/s
Planck's constant is h = 6.626 068 96(33)× 10−34 Js
Electron charge is e = 1.602 176 487(40) × 10−19 C

But about r0 I have no idea what he considers. Perhaps if we calculate backwards from the given frequency and we see the value of r0 then we see what value he had chosen.
Can you give a hand here?

r0 is the radius of the outer electron orbital. For copper it is approximately 75 x 10^-12m. However, it has many different values, all in that neighbourhood, depending on how you measure or calculate it.

If the secondary of that "transformer" does not connect to the mains, how is he going to get power out of his copper transformer core? Remember, that core is where it is all supposed to be happening. Come to think of it, why does he even need that core? All the wiring is copper as well. Notice that the drawing above the circuit show a connection "aux consumateurs", which means "to the consumers" , i.e. to the mains.

Harmonics are higher frequency than the fundamental, so the harmonics of 50Hz are 100Hz, 150Hz, etc. The utility companies do not like you putting harmonics onto the mains as it upsets their power regulation systems.

But, of course, the fundamental objection to this idea is the thermodynamics one: he's getting energy from nothing, just by somehow stimulating the electrons in copper. He claims:

for 1W power consumption to maintain the frequency, he collected an output of 30 to 40W, which was directly usable

That is impossible.

ASKER

Now that we have all the factors we can calculate the frequency to see if we get the 172KHz value or around it. There is also a set of calculations done here at the bottom on French:
http://www.rexresearch.com/meyernmr/meyer.htm

„Notice that the drawing above the circuit show a connection "aux consumateurs", which means "to the consumers" , i.e. to the mains.“

No. „To the consumers“ means any load as a simple bulb, a resistor, but not tot the mains. „To the consumers“ means the output of the device where he supposedly measured 2 parameters: the voltage and the current. Now, here is a tricky point. The voltage you measure with a voltmeter as open voltage circuit or with a load connected, but for the current you need a load, as for instance a resistor to measure the current flow at the output. He did not mention the value of the load as impedance, or simple case a resistor and its value. He only mentions 12Vdc and 0.1A at input, so 1.2W and then at the output 20V and 0.36A so he calculates 7.2W. From here we can calculate back the resistor value in DC as 20V/0.36A = 55.5 ohm. Well, you multiply voltage and current to get power only on DC circuits, so we suppose the output is DC, but the oscillations on the copper bar are high frequency, therefore I expect the current in the copper bar, which acts as the secondary of a transformer, to be also high frequency. In such case the power is more complex calculated. Well, his claim is that are a kind of radioactive transformations and is not a simple transformer. That is the claimed trick.

„or 1W power consumption to maintain the frequency, he collected an output of 30 to 40W, which was directly usable”

That is strange and indeed hard to believe, that’s why makes the experiment attractive.
Trying to imagine somehow a different situation where a lot of energy may be produced from less input energy in a given open system related with resonance effects it crosses to my mind another situation. Remember that he already mentioned 2 cases:
- “One case is of the bridge that collapsed because the soldiers crossed it too quickly” – well, I would say marching with a specific frequency.
- “Another case is a crystal glass will break when the tenor launches his/her tenor clef”.
These show that a low energy but very well timed increases the amplitude of the main oscillation and may come close to its self-resonance frequency. That may me think that even that copper bar must have a certain dimension for a certain resonance frequency, but of course he refers only at the copper atoms and seems that did not care about dimensions, which must not be less important from my point of view.
Another comparison that cross to my mind is the self-destructive runaway state of a series DC motor, which without load attached to its shaft, from a low energy state, it starts to fast auto-accelerate itself, because the magnetic field is not constant anymore and ends up with mechanical destruction, because tends to the mechanical resonance and is similar with the failure of the bridge. Have a look here (https://www.wisc-online.com/learn/career-clusters/stem/iau12508/series-motor-run-away )
It is nothing to be used for us in terms of energy in that process as it is, but thinking at the energy developed in that process: mechanical and electrical and heat, it is amazing. If that process would be somehow controlled, maybe some good energy may be extracted too, of course with penalty of having mechanical weariness during time.
Of course these are only ideas to imagine, nothing else, at least for the moment, but may help us to understand that are situations when from low initial energy, through a process, very well timed, we may bring a device/system close to its resonance when high energy is developed, more than initial energy. We only need to control the process to make sure does not destroy itself (as Chernobyl), in these cases with precise timing.

SOLUTION

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

ASKER

100% agree with both your observations above.
I realized from beginning that 9 digits precision is a hard job, probably done only with atomic clock chips available today, but expensive.
And trimming capacitor is just impossible to set intermediary frequencies by hand. We can do it digital today, but not by hand analog at that time.
Because of these 2 observations I was skeptic from beginning too and I wanted to see other opinions.

Unfortunately, mine is the only opinion you got, but at least I feel very definite about it: it's BS.

SOLUTION

BigRat

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

ASKER

Well, the electronics behind is not complicated at all, but how he arrived to that frequency formula is a big mystery even if I follow the calculations in french, which I can understand that too, below the circuit.

ASKER

And by the way, can someone, is it allowed to make patents on crap?
Or that happen only due to low technical knowledge at that time?
After all, patents cost money and what would be the outcome of such investment?
Does anyone know what happened with Michel Meyer afterwards? What was his life and achievements?

SOLUTION

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

ASKER

I do not want to deviate into a broad discussion about free energy, but about Andrea Rossi and his "energy catalyzer" I did not investigate enough, I only know that some 3rd party guys from 2 universities claim that made next report:
http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf
with the next conclusion:

But if there is one guy who amaze me and I 100% consider a forgery and I cannot explain how can he convince so many people and gather so much funds, then is Keshe.
Below are the “secret” documents released to the public some years ago:
https://mega.co.nz/#!F4AjwKwA!EQxkmXOZNkIJiWiDAVudfzd2Suh1sU7lcpAXyRQfflQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paiZFEeRows
http://www.keshefoundation.org/shop-et-livres/product/view/7/147
http://www.keshefoundation.org/shop-et-livres/kf-products/150706104205
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/612076/MEGA-EARTHQUAKE-will-SPLIT-continents-killing-40-million-with-tsunamis-THIS-WEEKEND
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oIKgvZYFkI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqwxKwG93Hg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2euHRgZaTGc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oydYwKWi8OQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm61NHWOOLs

Who sponsors this guy? A bunch of stupid, credulous people, ? Or is it really a hidden business behind?

Coming back to Michel Meyer experiments, it just seems impossible theoretical, no matter what new unknown process is claimed, to make the measurements and get the results looking at the simplicity of the circuit, a simple trimming capacitor, precision required for frequency with so many digits, instruments used, load not specified. Nevertheless, who wants to spend some time around it, I consider it easy to replicate it even with an improved version.

I only clicked on 1 link from the above list and saw this piece of gobbledygook:

This system nano-coates the vehicle and produces a plasma field around the system first and as more demand is put on the system, the entire vehicle.

That proves it's pure, unadulterated garbage. I'll let you decide why I am convinced of that.

ASKER

Assuming that blind leaded by curiosity and the nice story behind despite all the rational explanations why it may not work, I feel myself blocked if I want to replicate the experiment with such simple oscillator and a bar of copper.

1) What is AF unit at the capacitor from left side? F comes from Farad, but A???
2) What are the values of the coils used by him? He mentions in the text 0.4 mH, but for which coil? What about the other coils?
Assuming a wonderful oscillator with 9 digit stabilization frequency – which nowadays it is possible – then how is it “bobine” made? What inductance? How many turns? What conductor, diameter?
3) What about the copper bar dimensions? What diameter and what length? It really does not matter?
If it is a real patent, then beside the calculations, you show a particular type with ALL the values for which you got "fabulous" results.
What was the trick? Only his imagination? Or was he really paid to try something and ended without any results?

That’s why I really would love to know a bit more about his life and achievements, because it seems he patented this at a young age.

Sorry, but I cannot really help you with that. As the capacitor is just there to smooth the supply rail, as is the coil (why? it's a 9V DC supply) I assume it's microFarad. The coils and "transformer" are anybody's guess.

I think your last paragraph nailed it: it's in his imagination.

ASKER

Then is time to close this question. In case of any extraordinary discoveries, you will hear about it :)

BigRat

I have no idea what the value of the capacitor is, but it is there to stabilize the resistor chain which supplies bias to the transistor. Looking at the emitter load of 100 ohms and 10 micro farads I suspect that the same value is used again. The capacitor could be a solid tantalum or electrolytic type.

The device where you have pointed in red with "Value ???" is in fact a choke which stops the oscillations from going back into the power supply. At the frequency indicated this ought to be some device with an iron core, which is what the straight line under it denotes.

The 2N706 transistor has a maximum collector current of 200milliamps.
http://pdf.datasheetarchive.com/datasheetsmain/Datasheets-X2/DSA1207000-7.pdf
which at less than nine volt operating voltage would only produce around one and a half watts.

I fail to see how one and a half watts at an ultrasonic frequency is going to have any effect whatsoever on the electrons in the copper, particularly so as the " inventor" claims that it is the over-frequencies which in fact produce the effect. These overfrequencies would then be in the micro-volt area - which is the sort of stuff you get from satellite TV.

ASKER

He mentions somewhere in the text the output voltage is not DC but with a frequency between 100-1000Hz.
That is another strange value, because we supposedly have oscillations around 173KHz.
The “Value???” chocke is clear used as filter to block the high frequencies going back into the DC rail and to not affect the oscillator, only that such simple filter is not enough, unless you want a minimum feedback from copper “transformer” to influence the oscillator.
In fact “AF” is not important as well most of the circuit. We can make any other better oscillator if that is the key. Maybe the adaptive impedance between oscillator and the copper rod with “bobine” is important, because tells how the energy is transferred, but that part is not described.
Seems crap to the end.

ASKER

“I fail to see how one and a half watts at an ultrasonic frequency is going to have any effect whatsoever on the electrons in the copper, particularly so as the " inventor" claims that it is the over-frequencies which in fact produce the effect. These overfrequencies would then be in the micro-volt area - which is the sort of stuff you get from satellite TV.”

He gave next analogy:
The example that has remained famous is the bridge that collapsed because of soldiers that had crossed it in step. Like a crystal glass that breaks at the moment where the tenor throws his C note from his chest. Thus, any vibrating system can he put into forced oscillation until the breaking point: it is only necessary to give it a small amount of energy at its own. frequency. Since the atom is an oscillatory system, we imagine that it is possible to separate the electron through resonance. The difficulty came from extremely high frequencies associated with electrons: they are counted in billions of oscillations per second, which is much more than what we know how to produce. Fortunately, the resonance phenomenon takes place not only at the natural frequency of the oscillator but also at any frequency that is a multiple or full sub-multiple of the natural frequency. In other words, if a standard tuning fork gives the note "A" at 440 periods per second, we make it resonate at the frequency of 440 Hz, and also just as well at 880 as at 220 or 110 - what we call the harmonics of a fundamental frequency.

Well, even if the analogy seems nice and logical, the way how I understand it is next:
- Let’s imagine a simple children swing set. You start the swing (oscillation) with a certain initial energy, then at the right timed moment you give a small push and after several swings the amplitude indeed increases. In the end will turn 360° and theoretically we should be able to make a “propeller like” device. With increase amplitude the swing chair should break. I never tried that :), but this is what he suggest and that seems in accordance with the examples proposed above by him.
-Well, coming back to the harmonics, multiples and sub-multiples, I think we really have a problem with that. If the swing set will be pushed with a lower frequency, lets’ say 50% or 33” of initial frequency, which in terms of harmonics, usually in electricity are still high values, then the system, in our case the swing set, will tend to come back to initial state - we give enough time to reduce the oscillation amplitude, in our case gravity and friction will help, but I imagine similar-other forces inside the atoms, and will lose from the amplitude gained, if it was full/main frequency reduced to a harmonic value, and in order to gain the same amplitude you must increase the force that you use to push, even if it is exactly timed. I do not think the lower value of frequency, any harmonic order that you want, will work. And if you start with low values for frequency, in fact will never reach any high amplitude for any system, including bridge with soldier or an opera singer with a vibrating glass.

Subharmonics can contribute to resonance. It is easiest to see in the case of a child on a swing.
You can keep the swing going if you push every cycle, every other cycle, or every five cycles.
If you add more energy with each push than you lose between pushes, then the amplitude will increase. But even if you add enough energy to go over the top or break the swing, you are not generating energy.

You can make an electromagnetic field around a copper conductor. You can make current flow in the copper and heat it up. If the field is large enough, you can ionize (remove an electron) some of the copper atoms and make a spark. But heating and ionization consume energy, they don't generate it.

Other phenomena that don't generate energy are resonance, vibration, subharmonics, electron emission, magnetism, sparks, and gravity.

The original paper does not suggest a plausible mechanism for energy production. Later papers mention NMR and isotope transmutation, but they are really not plausible either.

BigRat

All of this is very true, but you are forgetting LOSSES. Every system has losses and the problem with resonance is to ensure that the energy absorbed exceeds that lost.

But ignoring all of this - which is simply rubbish - there is a much more important point which is totally crap. He talks about "releasing the electron BINDING energy" (by resonance at the required frequency). This is complete rubbish since when elements bind they release energy. The best example is hydrogen which when making H2 (a diatomic molecule) releases energy. Electron capture in atoms or molecules always release energy. Thus the electrons surrounding a copper atom are in a minimal energy state. It takes energy to release them and when they are released they do not have any "hidden" energy to "give up".

The man is very keen on quoting his extremely limited knowledge of quantum mechanic - orbitals indeed. Electrons do not whizz around an atomic nucleus like planets in a solar system. They exist in clouds of various patterns - some are spherical, some are dumbbell shaped and so on. They do not pick up bits of energy until they have enough to leave orbit. The absorption of electromagnetic energy is all or nothing. If the field has the correct energy the electron will change state. If not NOTHING will happen. There is no "build-up". The field just propagates into space.

Another point to remember: resonance cannot increase the total energy of the system. In the example of the bridge, the energy is still provided by the footsteps, NOT by the bridge. The same is true for the swing, it's the total energy in all the little pushes that provide the output.

The same will be true for this silly system: you cannot get more energy out than you put in. It's the laws of thermodynamics again. The only way out is by coming up with a new, previously unknown source of energy (like nuclear energy explained the power of the sun) but he has not even attempted that, all he's done is to produce some gobbledygook about "core electron binding energy is converted into electricity".

ASKER

I would like to bring into attention 2 more associative effects of using waves and having impact over the materials, but of course none of them will produce energy:
- Ultrasound machine/devices used to break stones in kidney, named ESWL machine from - Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy.
- The microwave oven to heat up the H2O molecule:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BXZ_j4jMEk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169362/why-do-microwave-ovens-use-radiation-with-such-long-wavelength

To break up kidney stones, the sound waves are focused on the stone, to deposit as much energy on it as possible. In a microwave oven, the alternating field of the microwaves shakes up water molecules.

Neither of them has anything to do with resonance - and, as you say, you don't get out more than you put in. In fact, as always, there are losses instead of gains.

I went back to the original paper to check the equation for the critical frequency.
There are some obvious problems with the equation, that might have been mitigated with parentheses or better typography, but probably not.

For example, there seems to be a c² term in the numerator and denominator that are crying out for cancellation. And I note that the term in the radical is the Rydberg constant for heavy atoms. But the relevance escapes me.

But I have tried to evaluate the expression anyway:

One final note on the bench tests for the Meyer Device described on pages 7 and 8 of the NASA report.

The input power is 100 mA at 12 volts. This is 1.2 watts. You can actually measure this quite well with a single multimeter.

The reported output parameters are 20 volts and 0.36 amperes at frequencies from 100 to 1000 Hz. Even if I believed any of these numbers, it is not possible to calculate AC power without accounting for the phase between the current and voltage.

If anyone ever has an opportunity to revisit a Meyer-like demonstration:

1. Use the meter to check input current.

2. Trust the battery voltage to stay reasonably constant.

3. [b]Don't multiply the output current and voltage together to get power.[/b]

4. Divide them to get a load impedance.

20V divided by 0.36 A is 56 ohms.

5. Just put a 56 ohm, 1 watt resistor across the output and stand back (or not).

If the current monitor stays put and the resistor starts to smoke, then you may have something.

ASKER

If you look on NASA server pdf document shows at the bottom e² instead of c²:

The footnote in the NASA document says that the equation in their copy of the document was not legible. That's why I went back to the original.
Note that e^2 doesn't make any sense either. The e^2 in the denominator would cancel with the 1/e^4 inside the radical.
You are welcome to download Mathcad and play with the equation.

ASKER

hdhondt and BigRat,

Could you provide any help on the next questions?
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/28956290/Q1-Magnets-and-Electromagnetism.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/28956077/Magnets-and-Electromagnetism.html?anchorAnswerId=41697789#a41697789