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

[markdansie]

Ho Hum,
Once again it will be very entertaining to see what excuses they have when they cant even get it to self loop. they have really painted themselves in a corner .
It is very profitable to sell hope (pun intended)
Mark

[mscoffman]

Who can answer, there is permanent magnets in this divice?

No PM's but;

I think you have to initialize a magnetic field with touch of 12Volt battery current into it's core. I've seen designs of very
cheap generators that use small PMM permanent magnet magnetos to do this instead. That is how I would have designed it.
Yet on the other hand I've heard of expensive generators where you needed to reflash their field if they have sat for any
amount of time. This one would need a flashed stator field, I think.

:S:MarkSCoffman

[shinz62]

Actually the "stator" field is 220 dc pulsed with a Tesla style spark gap and is looped in a lc circuit where the coil is an interestingly large air core coil. And the main core has a independent high voltage primary/secondary that is also in a lc configuration. The plans are available here complete with vendor suggestions:
http://pesn.com/2014/03/26/9602463_Quantum-Energy-Generator_QEG_Open-Sourced/
Take a look and you won't have to keep wondering.


I think the idea is to synchronize the rotor cycle in such a way so that the hard hitting torque will always be relieved. The high voltage primary/secondary lc, creates a low current draw for temporary internal energy storage and thus the usual heavy drag in the core can possibly be delayed long enough for the push back to hit after the rotor has passed without seeing the heavy torque usually associated by a brute force generator, as they say timing is everything.


interestingly, the output frequency is said to be 400hz while the rotor spins at ~40hz but must be tuned to just the right speed to maximize output. This 10x frequency differential could account for the claimed 10x performance differential.


Also, the spark gap seems to be set in the circuit in such a way as to relieve the high pressure that would normally be associated to push a large current and additionally help keep it off the rotor maybe even somehow allows for pulling extra electrons from the air.


I thought this was a place for incubating free energy ideas, not for tearing them apart.

[steeltpu]

Very good explanation shinz62.    Trolls are out in force on this one because it is generating a lot of interest.   they must try to crush all hope before it gets bigger cause if the trolls fail they'll get their nuts crushed by their owners.  they are sweating bullets on this one.   video on the front page here shows it running. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi4ldwgfOmk&list=PLO6FJVqlxatdprKQA1BhrJCML2tbomVJ2&feature=player_embedded


They've already got it looped but in their words they aren't focused on proving to everyone right now.   they want to get people building them who really need them.  they will have a better video showing it looped soon enough.

[TinselKoala]

I'll tell you what, SteelPU.

Today is the 5th of April. I predict that, by the 5th of May, there will STILL be no credible evidence that this device can "run itself" and provide useful excess power output.

Running itself means, of course, that it isn't running on batteries or a mains connection or anything like that, it is running solely on whatever it is itself producing. Providing useful excess power output... well, let's not expect too much. How about the usual "1 kW" bank of incandescent light bulbs.

So, in one month, if they or anyone else DOES provide credible evidence that it "works" as they claim, I'll stand up in public and make a full and abject apology to you, to HopeGirl, to Timothy Thrapp and whomever else may have been offended or misled by my rabid skepticism. OK?

And in one month, if they DO NOT Provide that kind of credible evidence..... YOU will apologize to ME, publicly and abjectly and so forth, and you will agree to think twice before insulting your critics again.

Fair enough?

Need three months instead of one month? How about a year, would that be more fair? What length of time would be "fair" to you, for this simple wager?

No, the "demonstration" of this device that Thrapp provided in 2010 doesn't count as "credible".