**Critique
of Shawn Bishop’s Paper “In Disdain of Garbage
Physics”.**

**©Cyril
Smith, March 2003**

**cyrilsmith@camelot64.fsnet.co.uk****
**

**1. Introduction**

Shawn Bishop has published a paper^{1}
debunking the claims of Tom Bearden regarding the Motionless
Electromagnetic Generator (MEG)^{2} and Jean-Louis
Naudin’s replication of this device^{3}. This
paper is my response to Bishop, demonstrating that his arguments
are seriously flawed.

**2. Some Basic Physics Theory**

I have used the above section heading to
replicate that used by Bishop. Having previously used *I*_{0}
to signify the peak value for a sinusoidal current, in his third
paragraph he states:-

“For AC circuits, the relevant quantity
for power is the root-mean-square (RMS) power over one complete
cycle of the current and/or voltage. If the voltage, *V*,
is *constant* and the current is a sinusoidal AC, the RMS
power over one cycle, *P*_{rms}, is given by,

(3)”

(his equation 3)

This statement is both misleading and
confusing. The use of an RMS value on a cyclic *power*
waveform is incorrect. In electronics the math function RMS
is correctly used to express the power capability of a sinusoidal
*voltage* or *current* waveform (assuming that the load
is purely resistive). As the RMS name implies, the waveform
is first squared so as to become a power waveform, *then the
mean value of the power waveform is taken*, finally the square
root of this mean value is used so as to arrive at the effective
DC-power value for the original current or voltage. Note
the *mean* value of the power waveform. It would be
quite wrong to use the math RMS function on the squared (power)
waveform.

The fallacy of Bishop’s equation (3) is
easily seen by examination of his power waveform. A
constant voltage *V* multiplied by a sinusoidal current *I*_{0}sin(*wt*)
yields a power waveform *VI*_{0}sin(*wt*) which
remains a pure sinusoid. The positive half cycle represents
forward power flow, the area under the curve being the total
forward energy transported during that half cycle. The
negative half cycle represents reverse power flow, and again the
area represents the total energy transported. *Symmetry
of the sinusoid shows that over a full cycle the net energy
transported is zero*. The correct math function to apply
to this power waveform is mean or average. *Bishop’s
equation (3) is wrong, it should be*

Bishop(3).

That would give Bishop some difficulty in
arriving at his equation (5) which correctly gives the *mean*
power (but labels it *P*_{rms}) for a voltage
sinusoid multiplied by a current sinusoid, but his whole method
for deriving this is wrong. Taking *V*_{0} as
the peak value for the voltage, the voltage × current (power)
waveform

can be rewritten as

which has a *mean* value of

Bishop(5)

**3. Looking Closely at the Data**

Bishop’s *close(!!)* look at
Naudin’s data states

- The
input voltage is constant and is about 28 V.
- The
input current is AC (not perfectly sinusoidal but close
enough).
- The
amplitude of the AC current,
*I*_{0}, is about 125 ×10^{-3}(take the difference in the peak-to-peak values and divide by two).

He later uses his flawed equation (3) to
calculate input power as 2.47±0.33 watts. *Had he used
the correct value of zero, he might have been drawn to the fact
that he had overlooked the position of the zero current line on
the scope trace*. The input current is *not* simple
AC, it is AC stood on a DC level. Naudin’s scope
correctly takes the product of the DC voltage and this DC+AC
current to display the power waveform, and Naudin correctly uses
the mean value of this power waveform as input power.

Bishop makes another mistake with regard to
his calculation of output power. In spite of evidence to
the contrary, and Naudin’s clear statement that the resistor
is conditioned, he takes Naudin’s load resistor at its face
value of 100K. Naudin gives full details of the
conditioning process, and although one might consider this a
strange way to obtain a non-linear resistor, one thing is for
sure, after that treatment it is no longer 100K! Naudin’s
own voltage/current measurements show this, but Bishop insists on
using the 100K value then claims Naudin’s current
measurement to be wrong by a factor of nine. I consider
that logic to be inconsistent.

**4. Perpetual Motion**

Bishop is obviously of the opinion, held by
many in the scientific fraternity, that perpetual motion machines
are impossible. Stone-age man would hold this opinion with
regard to windmills, but today we fully accept that, in a
perpetual wind, a windmill will provide useful perpetual motion.
This is because we can see and understand the source of the
driving energy. Well, consider this.

It is known that the field from a permanent
magnet comes from certain electron orbital motion or spins, and
we might note that these motions are perpetual. It is also
known that these electrons motions, in a magnetic field, give
rise to precession at the Larmor frequency (known as
electron-spin resonance or ferro-magnetic resonance). We do
not normally have access to the Larmor frequency because (a) it
is in the microwave band, (b) there is a spread of frequencies
and (c) there is no general phase-coherence. Nevertheless
we do have something like an array of precessing gyroscopes,
possessing mechanical energy stored in their precession. When
you calculate the quantity of energy stored in this precession
you find it to be of the same order as the energy of the magnetic
field inside the magnet. *Thus Bearden’s NdFe
magnet, quoted as 40mm × 25.4mm × 38.1mmm, has stored within it
something like 30 joules of mechanical energy. If, in each
cycle of MEG operation, only 0.01% of this energy were extracted,
then at the MEG frequency of 25KHz we would get 75 watts out*.

Removing precession energy involves altering
the precession angle which is determined by quantum rules. Is
it possible that the zillions of photons, sub-photons and virtual
photons which form the energetic vacuum, the Dirac sea, the very *raison
d’etre* for the quantum rules, could restore the
precession angle, could make good the extracted energy?

**5. Conclusion**

Bishop’s paper is flawed on several
counts

- His
equation (3) is incorrect.
- He has
not included the DC component of the input current.
- He has
not used the actual load resistance value.

For these reasons his calculations are not
valid and should be ignored.

^{1} Shawn Bishop, *In Disdain of
Garbage Physics*, (Dated: March 5, 2003)

^{2} Patrik et al, US Patent
6,362,718 B1, *Motionless Electromagnetic Generator*.

^{3} J L Naudin, JLN Labs: *The
MEG Project*, http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm

**Return to the ****Meg home page**