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

[MarkE]

Mark:
I really don't think you should intentionally misread him. He was just making sure everyone started with some basis measurement that every scope reads ie peak values; after all not everyone has rms enabled sampling scopes. Chill out. Wait for a while for more solid measurements before pouring hot oil on some hard working soul. As for Hope girl, I can't speak for her - she's probably delusional on some cult goddess.
cheers,
chrisC

I read his words very carefully.  My post did not misread or misrepresent his statements.  He started out asking for peak measurements.  Then he switched to talking about input measurements that ostensibly come from the "Kill-a-Watt" device which does not report Watts as the product of peak to peak voltage and current.  Then he switched to talking about rms power without even a peep of whether he had applied any conversion from his peak to peak measurements.  All that ambiguity came from James.  Even $400. digital scopes perform rms calculations.

The recent Morocco video offers clues as to what is going on.  In the video clip the "Kill-a-Watt" measured input power at 655W, the scope read 1900V_PP and 920mA - 1A_PP, indicating ~250VA.  James and Dave joyfully declared that demonstrated ~36% efficiency result was over unity.  James had complete control over what measurements to take and how to interpret those measurements.  His conclusions were completely wrong.  Does that mean he hasn't the slightest clue as to what he is doing, that he is actively scamming or both?  Does it matter when we can see that what he declares as over unity does not even exhibit pedestrian efficiency?

[chrisC]

So are you saying that maybe not everyone has RMS capable measuring technology?
Fair enough.
So everyone should use peak – to –peak values for both output AND INPUT.
Agree ?

So why is that kill-a-watt device in the "Morrocco overunity achieved" video measuring RMS input.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwgkCweVpt0 at 1:35

It is used (incorrectly) as the evidence that overunity has been achieved, and to subsequently source more funds.

Please re-read (and digest) post #1034 by TK that explains all about output power.
Once you understand that output power is "drawn" by the load, it may become obvious why some dimly lit bulbs highlight the issues with the output power claims.
We can clearly (visually) see the evidence (without the need for misrepresented scope and / or meter measurements).
At 0:14
In the video above, 6 bulbs of around 100 W stated rating are drawing less than 60 percent of their max load.  Output power anyone ?  Is it over 655 rms as measured with the "kill-a-watt".

So I bench tested with the same bulb setup (I only had a box of 75 Watters, but visually, theirs were slightly more dimly lit than mine), whereby the last bulb only just light up as evidenced in the videos. Guess what power was being drawn ?
Hint : it was within 10 watts of one of the values given in MH's post #1021
I can also tell you it was not in the range 600 to 700 W

If you want to wait and ignore the evidence, fine.
But it is so blatant, and somewhat surprisingly (to me at least) is pointing to the fact that James knows fully well what is going on judging by his words and actions.
I first thought it was the girl that was leading the fraud, either willfully or through ignorance.
But now I know that James is not the claimed skilled Engineer or is a fully paid up, card carrying member of the scam team.
These are very basic mistakes and hence are being willfully made.

@PIH123
I really don't have a lot of time but i will try to respond to your post above.
No good engineer would measure output power based on light bulbs. Standard practices have already been 'taught' by electrical engineering text books and also from the likes of TK. I don't know enough of what James is doing in details to comment further on his power measurements. That said, all of you can either wait until proper results are released and then start your finger pointing exercise or continue what you're doing - after all it's a public forum and nobody knows you're a dog on the other side of the web browser. But just assuming the QEG is a standard transformer should tell you not to waste your time. As for ACG, I don't understand your English and can't comment further.
cheers,
chrisC

[TinselKoala]

@ChrisC:
You seem to be missing something: the measurements we see in the video are _perfectly valid_ for what they are. And what they actually indicate is an output of about 250W. We don't need to "wait for good measurements", as long as we are shown the raw data from correctly positioned probes with correct settings on the scope. James Robitaille can point to those measurements and make false claims about what they indicate.... but this is not a problem with the measurements!

More precise measurements can certainly be made. Actual power analyzers could and should be used... but why bother? When you are presented with a device that hovers around 100 or 102 percent efficiency, then you need to break out the "big guns". When you have a device that measures roughly 35 percent non-OU and the only indications of OU come from the claimant's blatant misinterpreting of his own data.... a 400 dollar scope and a Rogowski coil current transformer are going to get you close enough for "due diligence".

And nowadays, MarkE's estimate is way too large: even 100 dollar DSOs can calculate RMS values from a trace.

[MarkE]

@ChrisC:
You seem to be missing something: the measurements we see in the video are _perfectly valid_ for what they are. And what they actually indicate is an output of about 250W. We don't need to "wait for good measurements", as long as we are shown the raw data from correctly positioned probes with correct settings on the scope. James Robitaille can point to those measurements and make false claims about what they indicate.... but this is not a problem with the measurements!

More precise measurements can certainly be made. Actual power analyzers could and should be used... but why bother? When you are presented with a device that hovers around 100 or 102 percent efficiency, then you need to break out the "big guns". When you have a device that measures roughly 35 percent non-OU and the only indications of OU come from the claimant's blatant misinterpreting of his own data.... a 400 dollar scope and a Rogowski coil current transformer are going to get you close enough for "due diligence".

And nowadays, MarkE's estimate is way too large: even 100 dollar DSOs can calculate RMS values from a trace.

$400. is for a standalone scope.  I didn't want to quote a USB scope price and get into a silly battle over the price not including the PC. 

I see absolutely no reason that they report their output values using peak rather than rms values.  Their scope reports rms.  If someone did not have rms reporting equipment, then it is easy enough to instruct them how to convert peak sine wave values to their rms values.  Recording in different units invites error and misinterpretation.  Is it just happen stance that the FTW people massively misinterpret their measurements so as to report over unity when they really have just very poor efficiency?

[Farmhand]

Yes I have a little battery powered hand held nano scope and it can calculate RMS fairly well at up to a few kHz.

They are using the measurements to claim OU, and have already claimed OU, previously even though they don't seem to be able to show anything even approaching 50% efficient yet.

Either they can make the measurements already or they lied about the OU they claimed to have already, before asking for donations, or they are trying on a ruse or they have no idea what they are measuring. There may be other possibilities but none that would make them look good.

..