Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)

[descripttime]

Hi MileHigh

Hi Descripttime,

It looks like the voltages are reasonable for what you would observe on the secondary if you had six light bulbs in series.   For example, 120 VAC is 339 volts peak-to-peak.  So six times 339 volts is 2034 volts.  Likewise it's reasonable to assume that James had a current sensing resistor on the secondary.

The fact that one bulb is dimmer than the rest can be explained if you assume it was a 100-watt bulb and the other five bulbs were 60-watt bulbs.

Yes, very well observed. All this makes sense and is highly probable.

...Dave said something like "you can get more power from the primary, we discovered that."  That's nonsense, the primary and secondary are locked together and if you suck power out of the primary then less power will be available on the secondary.  We will see if these misconceptions get cleared up over the next few days.

Well, we must remember here that we have a parametric coupling factor, so that there is not a classical, constant transformer ratio between primary and secondary. And a good quality factor Q of the LC tank permits a much higher voltage on the primary than the turns ratio would predict. But of course, loading the primary with a resistor will decrease the Q to a point where the parametric effet can no longer sustain the oscillation. So that a simultaneous loading of the primary is rather unlikely, as you said.

...Many non-technical people are fully aware of RMS voltage measurements and know that you use RMS values and not peak-to-peak values to measure AC power.

Yes, and very probably that scope has a real time multiplier capability to display an active power trace... it had killed the doubt.

Right now my assumption is that there was no load on the primary, and the light bulb load was on the secondary, and the scope traces were measuring the voltage and the current for the light bulb load.

Highly probable... :-(

For me one of the big mysteries is James.  ...I think he stated that he is going to try the suggestion about putting the load on the primary.  In theory there is no reason to do unusual variations on the design.

Well, in non conventional research one may and should try everything...

Technically, I don't think having a resistive load on the primary or the secondary will make much difference.  Either setup should look more or less like the same Lenz drag load to the spinning rotor. 

Again, it can escape to conventional laws here due to the parametric coupling and parametric excitation of the tank. In theory, and you can see this on simulations, you can avoid the Lenz drag in parametric systems. But it is not sufficient to be parametric, a correct phase relationship between the variables must be held, by topological configuration or by a kind of phase locking.

WITTS has no credibility on the free energy forums and are considered by the majority of the forum regulars to be scam artists.

I was not aware of Witts credibility, but I cannot believe James and his team will risk so big discredit after so much boasting... anyway all is possible on this planet, including fooling some people all the time... it would deliver once more big arguments to discredit the F.E.  R & D   :-(


There are very few serious researchers-finders in this field who can do correct measurements... but I am sure some of them will keep trying... let's hope this saga will not end like most alleged inventions...

best, descripttime

[ariovaldo]

Ari what are we looking at in the picture ? Is it part of the core and windings over wrapped by tape with an arc burn mark between ?

I have to say that people doing this kind of thing should definitely make provision for limiting the voltage in the tanked coils. Similar things can happen with NST's when they are open circuited when tuned by caps or used in resonant transformer supply duties, same with MOT's, MOT's have the secondary electrically joined to the core so the windings closest to the core are tied to the same potential by the inside end of the secondary winding. The potential difference between winding might remain fairly low but the potential difference to the core could be great.

James' voltage limiter is the spark gap which is not good for a home use device as a consistent sparking of a spark gap could interfere with things.

For unqualified people to use it the device needs fail safes and inbuilt protections, which is another concern, people think they can just wire up some 10 kW device
to their homes and hey presto. But it is a bit more complicated than that.

For example James and Hope Girl Turn up and drop off a free QEG to your house but you are not an electrician and cannot wire it to your house. What do you do ?

I doubt any electrician would do it. Not unless he sees a safety certificate and a technical report with clear schematics is my guess.

So then what, if you connect it to your house yourself or get an unqualified or even if you could find a qualified person to install it then if the setup kills someone both you and the installer are liable, if the house burns down you get no insurance.

This is Hillbilly electronics, and even if it was to "work" would have a lot of work to do to be able to install one in a house.

..

Yes...This was an arc in the HV side.  I am testing and I forgot to connect my spark gap...

[MileHigh]

Descripttime,

Well, we must remember here that we have a parametric coupling factor, so that there is not a classical, constant transformer ratio between primary and secondary. And a good quality factor Q of the LC tank permits a much higher voltage on the primary than the turns ratio would predict. But of course, loading the primary with a resistor will decrease the Q to a point where the parametric effet can no longer sustain the oscillation. So that a simultaneous loading of the primary is rather unlikely, as you said.

Thanks for reminding me about the physical architecture of the QEG and I also have some statements to further qualify what is going on inside the QEG in terms of the magnetic coupling.

You are right that there is not a classical, constant transformer ratio between primary and secondary.  But we have to explore that in more detail to see what is hidden behind the curtains, in a manner of speaking.

For starters I am not comfortable with the term "parametric coupling."  For the eager free energy experimenter or for the lay person interested in the QEG, this sounds like some kind of amazing 'alternative' technology.  You might believe that this gives you a "Get out of Jail Free" card.  As in your comment below:

Again, it can escape to conventional laws here due to the parametric coupling and parametric excitation of the tank. In theory, and you can see this on simulations, you can avoid the Lenz drag in parametric systems.

You can't avoid the Lenz drag and I will explain why.

Let's change the QEG in order to illustrate a point.  Let's remove the rotor completely and replace it with a small "exciter coil."  Let's have a single primary coil and a single secondary coil, very conventional.  The exciter coil provides an AC stimulus at the resonant frequency.  That makes the primary LC tank resonate to high voltage and of course the secondary drives the load.

Here is the key thing:  Let's "forget about" the exciter coil.  All that you know is that there is a "black box" power source and you have a toroid with a primary and a secondary.  It's obvious that the black box is the source of the power.

So the above is a pretty conventional setup, it's essentially a toroid with three coils.  Certainly this setup will act 100% conventionally.  The flux going through the core is used to drive the load, nothing fancy going on.

I will continue this in a second posting because it is getting long.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Continued...

So let's go back to the real QEG with the spinning rotor.  Okay, so we know that the rotor is the source of the power and we also know that at certain angles the rotor will redirect magnetic flux.  In fact, we need the rotor to complete the magnetic circuit because otherwise the two halves of the primary coil will be in magnetic opposition and their flux will cancel.

You may be surprised by what I am going to say, but in essence you can ignore all of the fancy flux routing done by the spinning rotor.  Take the point of view of the primary coils and the secondary coils.  The only thing the coils "care about" is that they either see changing flux from a black box source, or they pump flux into the toroid and they don't care where that flux goes.

Now, what about the point of view for the coils for the conventional setup with the exciter coil?  It's essentially the same, the coils either "see" changing flux or the they pump changing flux into the toroid.

In other words, in all cases, the coils either sense changing flux or they generate changing flux and that's it.

This will be a bit of a leap, but I hope you can follow me:  You can also replace the spinning rotor by a black box.  This black box is also the source of power for the QEG.  This particular black box does something a bit unconventional at the same time, it reroutes flux that is traveling though the core.  However, from the point of view of the coils themselves, they couldn't care less about the flux rerouting - all they care about is seeing changing flux or pumping flux into the core and nothing else.

Sorry this is getting long.  The bottom line is this:  The funky flux rerouting and the fact that the spinning rotor supplies the power is essentially meaningless.  The coils will still perform and act like normal coils do - this is absolutely metaphysically certain.

If the spinning rotor is supplying power to the QEG to make the flux move and ultimately drive a load, then by definition there will be Lenz drag on the rotor.  There is simply no other way for this to work.  The rotor is converting rotational energy into magnetic energy.  It's a form of transformer.  The output of the transformer the entire QEG as a "load."  The input to the transformer is rotational power - torque times angular velocity.  The torque is the Lenz drag due to the fact that the mechanical power is driving the entire QEG as a "load."  This is inescapable.

Just one more posting....

MileHigh

[F_Brown]

Gee, I wonder why they neglected to give figures for the secondary that is presumably powering the light bulbs. 

I also wonder if that is 35% efficiency is imaginary efficiency.  Since they are quoting numbers from the primary, current and voltage my be 90 degrees out of phase making the real part of the efficiency significantly lower.

In any case my SPICE model 2.0 generally yields anywhere from 35% to 70% efficiency depending on load and drive.   Strange how that seems to roughly match the results from Morocco and from Ari as well.