Good point Ron!
Allow me to quote that critical "debunking" report (
http://www.nuscam.com/pdf/garbage_physics.pdf),
chapter 6: "Comparing Power In to Power Out":
P(in) = ... = 2.47 Watts
P(out) = ... = 1.25 Watts (for one output coil)
Total P(out) = 2 x 1.25 = 2.50 Watt
"... which is in complete agreement with the Power input."
Right. So in their mind 2.47 Watt = 2.5 Watt, and the difference of 0.03 Watt is equal to zero?
Well, that proves it all then, doesn't it?
Ok, it does show that perhaps Naudin was being a bit overoptimistic and slightly careless
in his input/output diagrams. But it also shows a little bit more output than input, doesn't it?
And though they do show how average power per AC cycle should be calculated,
namely using V(0)*I(0)/2, they do not use that calculation later on to calculate
power output. Instead, they take the resistor value and calculate fom there.
For guys who make such a fanatic point of doing things exaclty by the book
to get exact power calculations, I find it very strange that in this crucial section
of their critique they do not follow their own stringent guidelines of doing things
exactly by the book. Why don't they calculate the average cycle power like they
indicated they were going to do?
Looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. They like to insist that
Bearden and Naudin did not calculate the output efficiency correctly, they
tell us how it should have been calculated correctly, and then they don't do it
that way but they do it differently, and still claim they are the ones who
are being consistent?
Then, in the critique on Betavoltaic (
http://www.phact.org/e/z/betavoltaic.htm) they
claim all kinds of information on the websites of Betavoltaic (
http://www.betavoltaic.com/research.html)
which simply is not anywhere on that website.
They also give a url for "PlasmaVolt/Betavoltaic" as
www.plasmavolt.com, but there is no such website.
Oh, there is a url, but that's not a site and certainly not one about betavoltaics or nuclear reactions.
I do know of a device called the "PlasmaVolt", which was invented by late inventor Arie M. de Geus,
was tested and found to work and produce output of 80 Watts with a 50 Watt input through fusion
of certain noble gases. Here's a picture and some more info on the guy:
http://www.rexresearch.com/degeus/degeus.htm If that is the device these debunkers are debunking, they must try a bit harder. The entire concept was
to use unconvnetional noble gas fusion induced in a plasma vortex, and so it is not at all surprising
that the theory behind it is also unconventional. Duh. But it did work.
Indeed it seems these guys are out to debunk anything. As long as it gets them publicity
(and money probably).
I find their attitude similar to that of environmental activists: they do fulminate against
the "bad guys" all the time and constantly oppose them shouting "this doesn't work!",
but they never come up with a good alternative that does work and is commercially
viable.
That said, I still haven't seen any working MEGs yet.
The development group appears to have gone silent,
the "closing the loop" can apparently not be achieved,
and there are also still zero "open loop" versions out there...
So there is good reason to doubt the validity of the MEG claims.
