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

[TinselKoala]

It will certainly help the local communications regulators (FCC in the USA) to find them and their illegal noise/jamming transmitter which is disrupting radio and TV reception for many meters around.

[MarkE]

100 % agree with this; except that IF my conjecture is true, we could use the building of the resonance to produce high pics voltage to break the stability of the Dirac's plenum and haverst exceeding energy; NOT BECAUSE OF THE REACTIVE ENERGY STORED IN THE TANK, but because of the "HARMONIC BUILDING" of high voltage pics.

But nevermind: to do is better than to discuss, at this point imo.

So see you all in around if I succeed to have anything factual, observable, to present you all here I will probably continue to follow what is going on around but will do need to economise my time if I want to run any experiments, so stop to comment.

I have said for my part all I had to say here and in other threads, so nobody will be fully surprised if I come back "with something"; otherwise, it will be just an other "megalomaniac" from around; any I am, not you?

Cheers.

Something demonstrable that supports the idea would go a long way towards moving the idea out of the realm of imagination.

[MileHigh]

Just one other comment about the QEG.  I believe that some people believe that it can be a generator without mechanical back torque that resists the driving motor.  Something about the variable inductance in the primary, or the variable reluctance, or calling it a "parametric" device, etc.  Also the fact that the rotor is just a spinning piece of metal without magnets or coils might lead some to believe that the "problem" of back torque under load has been "bypassed" by the QEG.

There are a handful of QEG clips out there where they achieve resonance and the light bulb array lights up.  You notice in all the clips when the light bulbs light up the QEG makes a groaning sound.  That groaning sound is parts in the QEG responding to the new internal mechanical stress it is experiencing because of the back torque.  There is a decent chance the individual arms of the rotor are vibrating like tuning forks because of this stress.  That might be just one component in the groaning sound, if it is happening at all.  No matter what is actually happening to create the groaning sound, the groaning sound itself is due to mechanical stresses in the QEG.

When you think of an individual rotor arm, as it rotates it's like it is getting a "ping" of tangential mechanical force when it passes the four extra "posts" that form the toroidal core.  That ping of force bends the rotor arm and then it resonates.  How much it resonates depends on the individual build.  Note some of the mechanical energy supplied by the motor is lost in the mechanical ring-down of the rotor arms.

When this happens, of course that's when the rotor arm is injecting a "nugget of energy" into the primary coil.  A "ping of EMF" happens inside the primary coil when the rotor arm passes and that is what sustains the LC tank circuit.  Then of course some of that energy nugget makes its way through the secondary and then into the light bulb load.

So, for all the "fancy" mechanical architecture of the device, it still places back torque on the drive motor when it is driving a load just like any conventional generator.  The groaning sound is giving you auditory confirmation that this is happening.

The idea that the "parametric inductance," or whatever, changes things and "reduces or eliminates the mechanical load" is not true.

I once asked for a measurement of the drive motor power draw just before resonance hits and at resonance.  The main reason I asked for that was to get confirmation that the QEG was putting a greatly increased mechanical load on the drive motor when resonance happens.  Every single group building a QEG should make these types of measurements and share them freely with the other groups and share them online.  It's almost shocking how little data there is out there.  I read Stuart on PESN stating that everybody decided to not share any data because of the online comments and critiques.  My response to that is if you truly believe in what you are doing and you believe in open-sourcing this design then you just have to bite the bullet and share your data because it is the right thing to do.  Comments from people cannot "ruin your experiments."  I am also assuming that many teams were created where the members are not really that familiar with electronics.  You still have to go forward if you believe in your project.  James was chastised for failing to understand his waveform and for not identifying the phase shift in the tank circuit.  This is not overly harsh or unwarranted criticism, it's just the truth.  Plus don't forget he wants to charge people $300/hr for his services.

I will close by repeating the fact that we are a few months into the QEG project and we have barely seen any preliminary data or hard test data shared publicly from the different QEG build groups.  The challenge for all of you is to be transparent and take the bad with the good, that's what peer review is all about and that's how real progress is made.  Believe it or not, if you all share your data and share it publicly, and the majority of you arrive at the conclusion that it doesn't work as claimed, then that is a good thing and that represents real progress.  That represents a bunch of people around the world that got together and looked past the hype and in a responsible fashion they made their measurements, analyzed their data, and collectively arrived at a conclusion.  That's the real challenge.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

I can think of one more public challenge to the QEG replicators, and this includes the Fix the World group:

Whenever you make a QEG clip and you are driving a load, you must show your power input measurement on the Kill-a-Watt meter and your power output measurement into the load.  You have to show how you measured the current and the voltage through the light bulb load and do the calculations.  Then you must calculate and state your efficiency.

This is what the whole project is about, there is no point beating around the bush and ignoring the the most important measurement of all.

There is no valid reason to try self-looping before you complete the power-in vs. power-out measurements.  You will just be wasting your time if you jump straight into the self-looping.

MileHigh

[F_Brown]

From my FEMM analysis and QEG SPICE 2.1 model the claim or believe that the parametric excitation of the QEG reduces or eliminates "back torque" or what I call cogging torque appears false.   From the FEMM analysis that I posted graphs of a couple of weeks ago it is plain to see that that more the current in the primary rises the more the rotor is attracted back toward the poles as it is driven away from them. 

Now one might argue that the timing of the current in the primary and the relationship between the rotor and the poles is such that the attraction of the rotor to the poles is minimized as the rotor moves away from the pole, although again the SPICE simulation made from the FEMM analysis data seems to suggest this belief is also false.

From my SPICE 2.1 simulation along with what the replicators have reported, it would seem that more load on the output generates more load on the drive motor though this cogging torque phenomena.  So it would appear that hopes that the QEG will operate without cogging torque loading down the drive motor will remain unsatisfied.