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

[truthseeker1313]

greetings, this is Kevin from QEG Canada.  I am already a member here and check the threads every now and then.  In response to your response, the engineers that I am working with are completely open to all input concerning the QEG...the more minds the better and they will be just as open about whether or not they think your and other persons ideas are good or not.  Today I spoke to the person who set up an international research group Skype room and I told him to read your comments on our youtube video.  Skype is their preferred vehicle for transfer of info.  Are you on Skype and would you and others like to be added to the Skype room.  Only qualified persons are allowed into that particular room however...no layman allowed, unless of course they are self taught and can make a contribution.  There are other rooms available for layman concerning the QEG.  Please let me know, thanks.  qegcanada@gmail.com for your response please.

[truthseeker1313]

I would like to add this: 

from one of the lead engineers of the QEG in the Skype research group.

I was asked to " please explain to him (mile high) that the reasearch group is an independent entity from any other organisations. The reaserch group was created because of the lack of knowledge in the different groups".... 

many of the researchers in the Skype research group are from all different places including overunity.com, Be Do, and other chat rooms.  The research group are extending an invitation to you and like minded qualified persons who can offer input on the QEG, all input, no judgements.

[Pirate88179]

Okay so I did my big technical multi-posting on Kevin's YouTube clip and there is a follow up.

Here is Kevin's reply:

<<<
+Kevin Blundell can you please contact me direct at qegcanada@gmail.com? I have passed on your comments to the lead researchers and they want to talk to you.  Also, they will give you access to all of the tech data.... and, they told me that you are exactly correct and they are aware of all that you have stated here...you are on the same page as them.
>>>

My response:

<<<
Hi Kevin,  I have a counter-proposal for you and your team's consideration.  I am MileHigh on overunity.com.  The thread on the QEG is called, "Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)."  Honestly, over the months the thread has been a mixture of technical analysis of the QEG and harsh criticism of the QEG itself and of Fix the World.  However, at this point in time the thread has petered out and not much is happening.  There is nothing to be gained by repeating stuff that has already been stated.  Now there are some really good technical people on overunity.com.  At this point in time, I am pretty confident that this good group of people would be willing to engage with your technical team in order to assist them in their analysis of the QEG.  Naturally I can't tell anyone what to do, but I think that you will find constructive engagement and a willingness to help.  At the same time, your team has to be prepared for honest comments.  If something stated makes sense, you will hear that.  If something stated is considered to be nonsensical pseudo-tech then you will hear that also.  Let me give you an example.  If someone builds a pulse motor and says it is tuned to the Schumann resonance, I will challenge them on that.  I will state that it is nonsense and there is no possible relationship between a pulse motor and the Schumann resonance.  I will challenge them to provide logical reasoning and actual proof to back up their statement.  "Blind belief" won't cut it and statements have to be backed up with reasoning and data.  Very importantly, both people can state their case and argue out the technology without making ad hominem attacks on the person.  Do you understand where I am coming from and does that make sense to you?  Honestly I think that it would be a good exercise to engage with your team working on the QEG.  This is supposed to be an open source project and it should be done on a public forum without any censorship from either perspective and no attacking of character from either side.  I can tell you honestly that on ou.com everybody is burnt out on the QEG thread.  I am pretty sure that there will be a willingness to "turn the page" and engage with your technical people with the guidelines I outlined above.  Just talking about the QEG itself and what you guys are doing on the bench and how you are analyzing it will be fun.  I will post our mini conversation on the thread.  You and as many of your tech people that want to register and join in the discussion on the thread are welcome.  Any technical information that you wanted to share with me can be shared on the thread.  They just have to make "hello" postings on the thread and we will take it from there.
>>>

MH:

Very nice job.  I can assure you that if they show up over here, I will be nice and just watch you guys that have the extensive knowledge of this subject discuss what is really going on.  If they really want to know the truth about real measurements, etc. this is the place to be.  We have all pretty much expressed ourselves to what we think of what Hope is doing so there is no need for any of us to go back there.

I believe this will be very interesting and I also believe that some folks will really learn something from this, myself included.

Is this fellow aware of TK's mini version and what it can do?  That should tell them all something.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

Again,  nice work in extending your invitation.

Bill

[PCB]

Thanks for your interest! The current schematic is attached below. The Zeners shown outside the mosfet symbols are not separate parts, they are the internal body diodes which are usually shown inside the mosfet symbol. That part of the drawing is a "legacy" and is left in as a tribute to the great Little Miss Mosfet.
Have fun!

Some notes:
-Don't operate without the output coil load, you'll blow a mosfet or both, instantly.
-Don't ramp up input power slowly, the oscillator might not start. Simply switch on to a 12 volt source that can deliver 5 amps but is fused at 10 amps. The operating draw will be much less but in the event that the oscillator doesn't start one mosfet will simply conduct all the current you can supply until it fails, hence the 10 amp fuse. Or current limiting PSU of course. Until you are familiar with the operation of the circuit it's a good idea to monitor the oscillation somehow.
-Don't create a groundloop with your instrumentation! You can safely scope across the drains with a scope or meter that is isolated from the input power supply but remember that the circuit common negative is not at the Drains! An interesting way to scope the circuit is to look at each Drain with a scope channel, both referenced to the circuit negative rail. If you do this then you don't have to worry about groundloops back through the power supply.
-You can use many different mosfets in this design, but very low Rdss work best of course and the current capacity must be capable of handling the real currents in the tank which can be 40 amps or more. (The voltages and currents in the tank are very real. It is only the _power_ that is imaginary.) The IRFZ44N or IRF3205 are good choices and if you want to boost the input power you can use IRFP260N for 24 VDC in, along with UF4007 for the diodes instead of 4148s, without modifying the circuit otherwise. The circuit will work with cheap IRF830 as well but at less output power and these mosfets should be fancooled. If you go over 24 VDC input you will need some kind of Gate protection for the mosfets.
-The circuit will also sometimes oscillate with only one operational mosfet. This is another reason for monitoring both mosfet Drains until the bugs are shaken out. If you don't have a scope, check the mosfet temperatures with your fingers and if one is much warmer than the other one, stop and find out why.
-Components are soldered to the copper surface of the board, laid out as below. Feel free to design your own board! Keep the drains-tank circuit-output coil heavy and symmetrical.

TK. Can I please make a request. Can you please post the power triangle for your device based on the measurements you took, and also the input power. 

[TinselKoala]

TK. Can I please make a request. Can you please post the power triangle for your device based on the measurements you took, and also the input power.

The information you seek is in the video playlist.

Input power, which is strictly DC with very little ripple, is shown on meters in the first video.

The best measurements I was able to make of the power circulating in the tank, using an inline non-inductive resistor for current measurement, indicate that the power circulating in the tank is purely reactive, with a 90 degree phase angle, or very close to it, between voltage and current. As expected in a resonating tank circuit consisting only of L and C elements. The first video shows the _magnitude_ of these values and demonstrates the error of "OU in VARs". You don't really need me to plot the actual triangle, I hope.

Subsequent videos explore the error and make the current measurements in various ways, finally culminating in the use of the Ohmite precision Ayrton-Perry wound non-inductive CSR installed in series with the output coil to measure the current in the tank. Two videos in the series "detour" a bit and explain the phase angle issue, and how it is measured on the scope in various ways, using Lissajous figure in the scope's XY mode and also by straight measurement of the V and I traces on the scope's time domain display. By the end of the series I am demonstrating how my technique (coupling of tuned air-core coils in the near field) for extracting and converting some of this power to "real power" driving a load, reduces the magnitude of the tank oscillations but doesn't change the reactive nature of the power in the tank.

I have deliberately avoided reporting final output "real" power measurements as I don't want to mislead anyone. My systems are nowhere near as efficient as they could be made with intelligent design, they are simply illustrations of a principle. With a 100 percent efficient circuit, one could transfer all of the input power continuously to the real power driving the final load... and there would still be power circulating in the tank itself as long as it is resonating. All of this power, real or reactive, comes from the input power source; it takes a finite and measurable time for the reactive power to build up in the tank; and the tank can even discharge this power after the main supply is cut off.

It can even discharge the stored, circulating tank power so fast that it will literally blow apart the mosfets, if there is nowhere else for it to go. This proves that the reactive power in the tank is "real" enough to have profound effects when it isn't handled properly. Another proof that the power in the tank is actually there... that is, there really IS, say, 20 amps, 200 volts, available... is that the system works as a wireless power transmitter by inducing currents in air-core, near field coupled receiver coils.

My demonstrations, under another topic, of the relative brightness of a light bulb driven directly by a battery, and the same bulb shining much brighter when driven by the output of a tuned aircore near-field coupled coil, transmitter being powered by the same battery... illustrate the "power" of this technique. Certainly, overall throughput efficiency of my systems is low, the current drawn from the battery increases correspondingly, but even so, one can allow oneself to be slightly amazed at the result.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-hl2W86yk
The transmitter circuit is essentially the same as the microQEG but with different component values.