# Motionless Electromagnetic Generator **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 26, 2002, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motionless-electromagnetic-generator/100234 "2002-03-26T20:46:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motionless-electromagnetic-generator/100234/1 "2002-03-26T20:46:17Z")
According to [this](http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm) site it produces 500% more power than it takes in, and somehow its gotten a patent. I know we’ve got a few electrical engineers on the board, can any of them make sense of this stuff enough to tell if the thing’ll actually work? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motionless-electromagnetic-generator/100234/2 "2002-03-26T21:09:55Z")
I don’t need to read it to tell you it’s all crap. There are plenty of “free electricity” out there. So why are we still paying for electricity? > [@](#): > > [“All the coal, oil, natural gas, etc. ever burned, and all the nuclear fuel rods ever used, and all the hydroelectric dams ever built, have directly added **not one single watt** to the power line. Not one!”](http://www.cheniere.org/foreward.htm) Yeah, Sure, whatever. By the way, getting a patent on something does not mean it works. You are not required to prove it works. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motionless-electromagnetic-generator/100234/3 "2002-03-26T21:28:53Z")
> [@](#): > > By the way, getting a patent on something does not mean it works. You are not required to prove it works. Yeah, I know, but I thought that the patent office automatically pitched patent applications for such things into the trash when they got them. That’s why I was curious about it getting one. ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motionless-electromagnetic-generator/100234/4 "2002-03-26T22:34:45Z")
The first thing that went through my head when I visited that page was, “Hey, that thing looks like a transformer.” But I downloaded the paper, read the claims and skimmed some of it to see what it really was. Finally I got bored and figure I’d skip to the end and see their results, diagrams, whatever. To be honest, I was a little disappointed to find out that, really, it isn’t anything but a transformer. I’d have thought they could at least have come up with something to add to it. They are, after all, throwing out the old Maxwell-Heaviside U(1) Electromagnetics and replacing it with the NEW Gillette Triple-Bladed O(3) Electromagnetics! And they’re using the “Sachs Unified Field Theory” and Drude Electron Gasses! And don’t forget, it’s a _nanocrystalline_ magnet in there, not just some ordinary run-of-the-mill magnet. If you did happen to download the paper and are wondering how I even managed to understand it’s just a transformer, check out their diagram of ‘laboratory set-up’ which shows the input coils (a.k.a. primary) and output coils (a.k.a. secondary). And look at their impressive chart, showing ‘power out’ increasing with ‘voltage in’. Well, that’s really not surprising. Notice they don’t have any ‘power in’. (Of course not, the power in comes _for free_ from the active vacuum!!). They get points for using a lot of terms without sounding too crazy. Yet they still have enough humorous passages, like : (italics original, bolding added by me) > [@](#): > > This is a profound change to the implicit assumptions used in applying the work-energy theorem. **In short** , the present work-energy theorem (without replenishment) was found to be a special case of a much more general and extended _energy-conversion-of-form-with-intermediate-work-performed-upon-the-converter_ process. Conversion of the form of energy is rigorously what we call _work_. The energy is not consumed in the process, nor need it be “lost” in doing work upon the converter. So to speak, the well-established principle of gauge freedom has been arbitrarily overlooked in the conventional view of the work-energy theorem. As a **short way** of stating what we found, _the conventional form of the work-energy theorem applies only when there is no simultaneous regauging/replenishment involved_. Hey, thanks for shortening that up for us! Apparently ‘in short’ means, “_put in italics and maybe run-it-all-together-with-hyphens-so-it-sounds-like-you’re-talking-fast-which-means-you’re-taking-less-time-to-say-it-so-it-must-be-shorter_.” > [@](#): > > For the magnetic vector potential, some preliminary comments are necessary. First, for over a hundred years it has been erroneously advanced that the magnetic vector potential A is “defined” by the equation > **B** = [symbol]Ñ[/symbol]× **A** [2] > This is easily seen not to be a definition at all, since an equation says nothing about the nature of anything on its right or on its left, but merely states that the entire right side has the same magnitude as does the entire left side. For an expression to be a definition, it must contain an identity ([symbol]º[/symbol]) sign rather than an equal (=) sign. Hence in seeing what is attempted to be defined, we rewrite equation [2] as > **B** [symbol]º Ñ[/symbol]×\*\*A \*\*[3] > Now it is seen that it is the magnetic field B that is being defined as the curl of a swirling A-potential, … You’re right!! Suddenly I see it! How could I have been so blind! I’m ready to give Negentropy a chance! The only really funny thing is that this group is calling themselves “Magnetic Energy Limited” on the front page. Maybe it really _is_ a joke. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motionless-electromagnetic-generator/100234/5 "2002-03-26T23:11:58Z")
I did not find the part where they ask you to send money. I wonder if this is new technique where they expect people to volunteer to invest in their scheme.