______________________________________________________________________________
|  File Name      : MRAFLUKE.ASC     |  Online Date     :  11/18/95          |
|  Contributed by : InterNet         |  Dir Category    :  ENERGY            |
|  From           : David Forbes     |  DataLine        :  (214) 324-3501    |
|           KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187         |
|        A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences      |
|              InterNet email keelynet@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Decker)          |
|      Files also available at Bill Beaty's http://www.eskimo.com/~billb     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
The following are some observations relating to the MRA and particularly to
the Teledyne verification (MRATLDYN).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 18:17:57 -0700
To: keelynet@ix.netcom.com
From: BoboForbes@aol.com (David Forbes)
Subject: MRA stuff

Jerry,

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad to see that you're out there handling the
traffic of this controversial topic with open-mindedness and perseverance.

You can feel free to post the following stuff on your BBS if you like. If you
do, please list a reply-to address of BoboForbes@aol.com instead of the reply-
address of this e-mail message. I don't want this e-mail address (at my
office) to be inundated with the sort of responses I would expect to see from
this subject.
------------
I am not affiliated with Don Lancaster, although I have read some of his books
and enjoy his engineering style. I think he lives in Thatcher AZ, which is in
the mountains a couple hours to the east of Tucson. His company is Synergetics
or Synergistics, I believe. Not quite Synergy, but real close.

I am a college dropout who designs high-speed industrial computers for a
living. I am not really into mechanical things, mostly just electronics.  But
I enjoy crackpot literature, and the Free Energy field is rife with crackpots
since most all of the 'rational scientists' have long ago given it up.

I have noticed, from reading several issues of 'Extraordinary Science', that
most of the articles published about electrical Free Energy devices are
written by people who seem to be unfamiliar with basic electrical principles.
They tend to use a unique language to describe the theory behind their
electrical inventions.. a language that is foreign to 'establishment'
electrical engineers but similar to that of New Age crystal healers.

At any rate, I found the Magnetic Resonance Amplifier to be an amusing if not
wholly effective Free Energy device. I showed the articles to my co-workers
one at a time, and the first thing each of them said was, 'You can't measure
AC power with a Fluke meter!'
-----------------
I built Greg Hodowanec's Mini-MRA circuit (described in Jul-Aug-Sep '95
Extraordinary Science magazine) and found that it works at about 50%
efficiency if the input current is measured with an oscilloscope. Then I saw
that his measured input current was much lower than mine. I found that he used
a Fluke 87 DMM to measure the input current but not the output current. He
calculated output current from the load resistor, so his output current value
was more or less correct.

I then called Fluke to ask about the frequency response of the AC current
function of the model 87, and they said it's only accurate up to 2 KiloHertz.
He was using it at 75 KHz! No wonder he measured such an efficient circuit...
he was badly misusing the test equipment. And he was measunring in such a way
that the bad reading increased the apparent efficiency.

The reason I built this circuit is that it is a textbook circuit that exists
in millions of consumer electronic items with <100% efficiency. So I knew it
was a bogus Free Energy device before I built it. I just built it to
demonstrate to myself that I understood the author's error.
---------------------
Just in case you haven't realized this yet:

The file you got from Joel McClain about the Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical
'verification' is NOT a verification of over-unity operation of his MRA. It
is simply a duplication of McClain's erroneous efficiency measurement. Note
the wording of the following statements by TRA:

  4)  The input current was then calculated PER THE CUSTOMER as the voltage
      (rms) across R1 & R2 divided by the resistance of R1 + R2.

  6)  The output current through R3 was calculated PER THE CUSTOMER  as the
      voltage (rms) across R3 divided by the resistance of R3.

  7)  The CUSTOMER DEFINES the MRA gain as the output voltage (rms) D to E
      times the output current through R3 divided by the input voltage (rms) A
      to B times the input current through R1 & R2.

The people at TRA did *not* analyze the circuit or the measurement techniques.
They simply used McClain's techniques, as they stated above.  That doesn't
prove that the circuit works. It only serves to lend false authority to a
flawed measurement - one that was shown to be erroneous by both Puthoff and
Frode.

So please change your MRA score to: 2 against, 1 irrelevant.
------------------
One thing to keep in mind about the MRA. The underlying principle of the whole
thing as stated by Norm Wooten is that it taps the energy locked in a
permanent magnet and an piezoelectric crystal. (I don't have the source handy,
but he says this in his Extraordinary Science article of Jul-Aug-Sep '95.)

I don't know if you're familiar with the operation of a peizoelectric crystal,
but it doesn't have any energy locked in it. It just has the ability to
convert electrical energy into mechanical energy.  That is, if you put in
electrical power, you get out mechanical power, or vice-versa.  Nothing magic
in that. An electromagnet does the same thing. And they have both been shown
to do this with less than 100% efficiency by thousands of researchers over the
years.
----------------
My view of the Free Energy field is that there probably won't be a real,
working device discovered any time soon. But I have no doubt that people will
keep trying to make such a device for eternity.

And you are right to require anyone claiming to have such a device to
demonstrate it powering itself plus a load in order to convice the world that
it actually works. You can't prove over-unity operation with a Fluke meter.

But if you do witness a real, working device, let me know.

Enjoy,                                      -- David Forbes
                                               Synergy Microsystems
                                               Tucson, AZ 520-690-1709
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason David said he was not affiliated with Don Lancaster was because I
noted the Synerg* and Tucson correlations, which led me to ask if he worked
for or with Lancaster.  We have always freely shared information and I
wondered if there was some reason for trying to get information as if it were
hidden or something.  I was just curious.  Lancaster periodically slams those
of us who are actively seeking a working over-unity device and did so again in
a recent issue of Electronics Now.

In the December 1995, Electronics Now, in the 'Hardware Hacker' column by Don
Lancaster, entitled 'Pseudoscience Strikes Again';

   "It's now our monsoon season out here in Arizona, for some weird reason,
    this seems to bring the perpetual-motion folks and pseudoscience
    enthusiasts out of the woodwork.  I've recently been seeing one a day.
    One was a 'motors and magnets' drop in.  Uh, sure, a magnet offers a
    repulsive force.  But only a few permanent-magnet developers seem to pick
    up on the fact that you have to think CYCLICALLY.  The energy you will
    need to get your magnets into a position where they can do the repulsion
    ALWAYS exceeds any possible output.

    ...Meanwhile, all of the cold-fusion diehards appear to have gone into a
    'circle the wagons' state.  They also seem to be running critically low on
    ammunition.  They are now centered on an INFINITE ENERGY magazine and an
    CFNET online resource.  The fact that they have now allied themselves with
    pyramid power (now renamed TETRAHEDRAL SUPERSCALARS) does not bode well.

    ...The latest perpetual-motion flap on the InterNet involved the usual
    screwup: You can not measure AC power with a voltmeter and an ammeter!
    You never could and you never will.  As usual, their 'over-unity energy
    gain' was in fact nothing but awful labwork..The SKEPTICAL ENQUIRER is a
    good source for pseudoscience debunking.  All of the latest new
    pseudoscience developments show up in the KEELYNET BBS.

    (Don Lancaster shows to have logged in to KeelyNet on April 1st, 1994.)

    ...The sad thing about WASTING YOUR TIME on ANY pseudoscience is that the
    odds of success ARE ZERO.

             Ah, but ONE SUCCESS in free energy or gravity control
             and the whole world CHANGES!!...............>>> Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------