AOH :: NORMRA.TXT|
Norwegian MRA research
| File Name : NORMRA.ASC | Online Date : 09/05/95 |
| Contributed by : Frode Olsen | Dir Category : ENERGY |
| From : KeelyNet BBS | DataLine : (214) 324-3501 |
| KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187 |
| A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences |
| InterNet email email@example.com (Jerry Decker) |
| Bill Beaty's Alternative Science Web site http://www.eskimo.com/~billb |
The following excellent file also has two diagrams. The files are listed on
NORMRA.ASC - text description
NORMRA1.GIF - circuit diagram
NORMRA2.GIF - magnet layout
NORMRA.ZIP - all of the above files
Frode and his associates in the Norwegian Free Energy group are to be highly
commended for their initiative in trying to quantify free energy by actual
experiments. Ideally, if many people would take this experimental approach
and share their findings (positive or negative) through a common, open
information exchange forum, we would progress at a MUCH faster rate.
Many people have equipment, knowledge and/or funds to to carry out various
experiments. The problem is getting them inspired enough to do it. Why
should we all waste time and money in chasing projects which have been proven
unworkable and openly shared with everyone to eliminate that path?
Thank you Frode and other members of the Norwegian Free Energy group for
sharing the results of your experiment!
To : ALL
From : Frode Olsen
Comments to sysop:
Jerry, could you please place this as a message if you think it would be of
interest to anyone. I uploaded it as a file to save time. I don't like to be
the bringer of bad news, but you encourage experiments to validate/refute the
different claims, and so we did. Our group will continue to systematically
experiment to check out designs. The next may be the TOMI or the HUMMEL disk.
This file/message was put together by the Norwegian Free Energy group, for
The background, or reason the experiment was conducted was to clarify whether
or not the claims made for the MRA would hold.
The experiment was conducted by one engineer, and two persons with a Masters
degree in Radio Electronics.
Date : 8th of July - 1995
Equipment : 2 channel - 20 Mhz Oscilloscope
LF (low frequency) generator
The MRA was made up of a core made of 4 BaFe, 300 mT permanent magnets.
The 0,1 mm Cu-wire was wrapped on top of a single layer of ordinary letter
paper to get a smooth surface for the coils.
L1 was put on first, then a single layer of plastic tape to smooth the
surface, then L2 was put on top of this. Another single layer of tape held it
We first tested the MRA with no load to see if it had the characteristics that
are described for the MRA. On a generator with a high output impedance, the
voltage went from 14 volt input to 160 volt measured across the coil L1 only.
This signifies series-resonance at the input.
Now having shown that the mini-MRA performed as described, the real test would
be to measure RMS voltage and RMS current at the input, and calculate the REAL
input power. Then measure the RMS voltage across the load resistor and find
REAL output power.
Only these quantities would be a real measure of the performance of the MRA.
The RMS voltage and RMS current at the input was measured on the two channels
on the scope. The peak-to-peak voltage was measured across the input, and the
RMS voltage was calculated. The P-P current was measured across the 10,4 ohm
series resistor, and the RMS current was calculated.
The frequency was tuned so that the phase difference in all the measurements
in this first part of the experiment was less than 18 degrees, that is, the
COS PHI error in all the measurements was less than 5%.
The output P-P voltage was then measured on the output by the scope, and the
RMS voltage and the power was calculated. Now the input and output REAL power
Table 1 shows the results of the first experiment. This was conducted to find
the optimal resistive load, i.e. the load which would give the highest output,
or the least mismatch.
Table 1 I II III IV V VI
RL ohm 5,2 10,2 46,2 100,2 326 466
Ui Vrms 1,91 2,02 2,4 2,4 2,2 2,1
Ii mA rms 11,6 10 6,3 5,3 9,5 11,4
Pi mW 22 20 15 13 21 24
Uo Vrms 0,149 0,269 0,689 1 2,16 2,55
Po mW 4,24 7 10,3 10,1 14,3 13,9
Fo [KHz] 248 248 230 183 151 148
n = eff % 19% 35% 69% 78% 67% 57%
We see that column 4 has the highest efficiency. The optimum load for the
experiment would therefore be 100,2 ohm. Now having scanned through the
resistance values, and found the optimum, we were ready to scan the frequency
with 100,2 ohm load.
Table 2 shows the result. This experiment required us to measure the angle
between the input voltage and the input current and correct the calculated
power by multiplying by COS PHI. At each frequency, the angle was measured on
the scope at the zero crossing of the two sine waves.
Table 2 I II III IV V
fo [KHz] 160 182 216 313 600
Ui Vrms 2,4 2,4 2,48 2,58 2,62
Ii mA rms 5,95 5,4 4,49 2,86 1,56
Pi mW 13,5 13 10,7 6,2 3,76
Uo Vrms 1,03 1,03 0,94 0,707 0,552
Po mW 10,5 10,5 8,76 5 3,04
n = eff 78% 80% 82% 80% 80%
cos phi 0,945 0 0,966 0,841 0,92
phi degree 19 deg 0 deg 15 deg 32,7 deg 23 deg
From these measurements we conclude that the MRA DOES NOT give more power
output than it requires on the input when put to the test.
The important issue seems to be THE WAY the input power is MEASURED.
Note that there were no alterations on the output with or without the series-
resistor of 10,4 ohm necessary to measure accurately the input current by
scope. Therefore, the argument that this resistor destroys the Free Energy
production characteristic does not hold.
We have carried out these experiments to the best of our ability, and used the
present scientific conventions when measuring power.
One interesting aspect was found in table 1. When the load resistance was
varied, the local peak in output power at 10,3 mW was not found at the same
resistance value as the lowest input power at 13 mW.
The accuracy of our results should be well within the accuracy of the first
table, that is within 5%.
We then conclude that the MRA has an efficiency of 75% to 85%.
This is well below unity, very far from 1200% as claimed, and of the same
order of magnitude of measured efficiency as found in the independent test
carried out by Dr. Harold Puthoff and Scott Little.
The preceding report is the second actual file test data we have received at
KeelyNet since the original MRA paper. The first test was carried out by Dr.
Harold Puthoff and Scott Little, yielding considerably less than unity
There are three files from Puthoff/Little where they go to great lengths to
try to make the device work as claimed (from the original MRA file) indicate.
These include Puthoff/Little admitting that IF YOU USE THE MEASUREMENT METHOD
by McClain/Wootan, YES, it will APPEAR to yield over-unity.
The three files from Puthoff/Little are available on KeelyNet as MRATEST1,
MRAERROR, MRACLAR should you wish to study their findings.
A short excerpt from MRACLAR;
Some people have suggested that the presence of this resistor is the reason
that our MRA device did not produce over-unity results. This is not the
case. With the resistor present we observed THE SAME over-unity results
claimed by McClain and Wooten WHEN WE USED their measurement procedure.
Specifically, at a frequency just below resonance, where the DC output is
about 85% of maximum, we demonstrated with our equipment that the McClain
and Wooten method of input power determination yields an efficiency of
536%. In other words, we REPRODUCED the results of McClain and Wooten
PERFECTLY. The MRA worked just as they claimed it would.
At the same operating frequency we recorded high-resolution traces of input
voltage and current with our digital scope and used them to compute the
true input power to the MRA. This data showed the MRA to be only about
Therefore it was not a matter of MRA performance but a matter of
measurement technique that disconfirmed the over-unity results.
In our original report we explained why the methods of McClain and Wooten
yield erroneous results. For the basic AC circuit theory that underlies
our discussion we would recommend any of a number of excellent texts on
this subject, for example "Principles of Linear Networks" by Friedland,
Wing & Ash, McGraw-Hill, 1961.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The above NORMRA from the Norwegian Free Energy group is the second file that
has been received at KeelyNet providing test results as well as the equipment
and circuit used. Unfortunately, the Norwegian Free Energy group was not able
to show anything near overunity.
To date, all the contacts I have received here at KeelyNet, by phone and
email, regarding duplication of the MRA have reported NO SUCCESS in being able
to duplicate over-unity.
On a personal note, I am frustrated with the entire subject of the MRA. It
either works or it doesn't, and the facts provided as well as contacts I've
had with various experimenters thus far indicate it does not.
Measurement error is the likely culprit as was seen in the TOD circuit from
1993 and pointed out in the MRA by both Puthoff/Little and the Norwegian Free
Energy group. It is not the first time, nor will it be the last that such
error has led to an overnunity conclusion.
I know Joel and Norm personally and they are sincere and very honest about
their work with the MRA. They have never tried to use the MRA to make money
or promote any kind of scam, instead, they simply wished to share what
appeared to be a wonderful discovery with all who might be interested.
So, what has KeelyNet learned from this? The question arises as to when is
the appropriate time to release information relating to such devices.
1) Should a potential overunity circuit/project be released as soon as
possible upon preliminary test of the circuit?
2) Should the inventor wait until he has a working model that indeed runs
itself and operates a small load, a test that would be very hard to
3) Or opt for a combination of the two, with absolutely clear statements
that this is an anomaly which APPEARS to produce overunity.
Any devices of this nature that are released via KeelyNet in future will
clearly indicate they are preliminary and no claims are made whatsoever UNTIL
the device has been verified as truly overunity (self-running) by at least two
In my opinion, the confusion and headaches that have swirled around the claims
associated with the MRA to date have been extremely dissipative towards the
entire free energy community. We don't need negative feelings in the vein
that we are half baked about our ideas or claims, crying wolf (over-unity)
each time something 'new' pops up.
Again, there are numerous claims of duplication of the over-unity MRA, but
nothing has been provided or openly published as to DETAILS of such successful
duplications (with the possible exception of Hodowanec), particularly in the
final test, where it will not only RUN ITSELF but will also sustain a small
load. To my knowledge, no self-running MRA model has even been hinted at as
Once such a point of failure has been empirically reached, one must make the
choice, continue spending time, money and resources in an attempt to make the
circuit work with an undying faith, or GO ON to a more viable project.
Due to the lack of confirming evidence as provided in the form of test
results, circuit and equipment used, future MRA information on KeelyNet will
be limited to confirming evidence or none at all. There are many paths to the
For your information, both MRA inventors have changed addresses and declined
allowing me to publicly post a mailing address/phone number or other contact
point on KeelyNet so that interested experimenters can contact them directly.
I regret and apologize for any mis-representations that were made on KeelyNet
which might have caused you to spend money or time on a project which was not
properly verified before being posted. Perhaps there is still hope for the
MRA, but at this point, all indications are it does not work. However, there
are many other non-MRA approaches which KeelyNet will post in future.
Keep after it, being honest, providing constructive criticism and suggestions,
experimenting, working together and sharing information, we will figure out
how to achieve over-unity and get it out to everyone. Thanks!
Jerry W. Decker/Sysop/KeelyNet
The entire AOH site is optimized to look best in Firefox® 3 on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986- AOH
We do not send spam. If you have received spam bearing an artofhacking.com email address, please forward it with full headers to firstname.lastname@example.org.