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

[lancaIV]

Teslas coil for e-magnets  http://www.google.com/patents/US512340  has his users/applicators/modernizers :
cited as reference:  http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments;jsessionid=248A077BDB818423145DA935A48B840D.espacenet_levelx_prod_1?CC=US&NR=512340A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=&date=18940109&DB=&&locale=en_EP


Probably new findings ? Internal statements ?


Sincerely
              OCWL

[MarkE]

Because you stated:And the word "similarly" was later clarified to refer to current, so your revised quote now reads:
"It doesn't happen because the work required for each new withdrawal increases similarly to current."
So if the work increases than so does the current.

Not to the current, to the current squared, which is aside from the point that you asked:

Are you claiming that the integral of force over distance is disproportionate to the current flowing in the SC loop?
Why?

So you seem bent on asking questions about statements that I never made, and when pressed on that point to invent new junk.

According to you the work required to move the magnet depends on its speed and so does the current.

The rate at which the current increases is proportional to the induced EMF.  Move the magnet faster and that rate increases.  Where I have corrected myself is to note that the current integrates and therefore for a given magnet and starting position, the end flux will be the same regardless of the time taken.

Or: If the work required to quickly withdraw the magnet is different than the work required to slowly push in the magnet, then currents must be different, too... and the absurd machine woulld accumulate current without a theoretical limit at the expense of the work performed by the agency turning the Whitworth mechanism.  - yet "it does not happen".

With a given magnet oscillating between two fixed positions that the current cannot build up.

Let's remember what we are discussing here:
You claim that the current left in the superconducting loop after the movement of the magnet
depends on dΦ/dt and I claim that it depends on ΔΦ. 

No, I assert that it depends on the integral of dphi/dt.  See the immediate discussion above.

That's what the whole discussion boils down to.

As a side note, it worth to remember, that the ratio of to flux to current (a.k.a. inductance) stays constant in that SC loop.

It's nice that you are now taking inductance into account instead of only resistance where you started.

Yes. It is merely more precise to state that work is proportional to the square of the current.

Wrong is wrong.  It is not less precise to refer to something that has a square dependency as linearly dependent, it is just wrong. 

When the current does not change its direction (as in the absurd machine scenario) work increases with the square of the current and also the work increases with the current itself.  The derivatives of x an x² have the same sign for x>0.
I was trying to keep it simple but that lack of precision does not invalidate my line of thinking.

Where I agree with you is that for a fixed magnet coming from some defined starting position the energy that can be transferred is fixed independent of speed.  The speed sets the power of the transfer.

...and the integral of dΦ/dt with respect to time evaluates to Φ.
Yes, and for clarity for other readers, the word "reverses" in that statement should not mean reversing the direction (sign) of current.
I believe Maxwell. I just don't want to misapply his equations.

No one should.

I am not resistant to the notion of EMF - BEMF = 0 across a superconducting loop. 

It solves the problem that you started with.  You expressed the idea that since the resistance is zero that there could not be an EMF.  In fact there is, and the BEMF results from the inductance.  The lack of resistance makes the device completely reactive.

I just do not go the "EMF route" and analyze voltage across zero-resistance because it leads to division by zero.

No it does not.  See above.

Derivation by Kirchhoff's voltage law is just one of the derivations. Using it means using voltage.

As Professor Lewan would say:  Faraday is always right.  Kirchhoff ( if one fails to account for induction ) is not always right.  He has a relatively famous classroom demonstration of this point where he induces a voltage across a wire using a big core in the middle of the table.  Your situation differs only in that instead of Lewan's negligible resistance, your problem really has zero resistance.  Yet voltage is induced in both cases.

For the energy stored by a coil I prefer to use the derivation that does not involve voltage and uses L=Φ/I to prove that W=½ΦI.

Either way you have to account for the fact that it takes an increasing amount of effort to induce each successive increment of current.  IE the current that exists at any moment directly affects the effort required to either increase or decrease that current.

Yes, "path" - not the speed along this path.
...but the energy transferred to the SC loop by such winding does not depend on the risetime or falltime of the current in that winding (as in e.g. sawtooth waveform).

As above the power does.  How long one sustains the input power depends on the source one has available.

For example the energy and current in the secondary superconducting winding (W2) of an aircore transformer shown below does not increase from cycle to cycle and its maximum value is always be proportional to I_MAX even if the current in the primary (W1) exhibits different di/dt generating different dΦ/dt. 

Yes a fixed energy source = fixed energy transfer.

Over the integer number of cycles the work done by the current source is zero ...+ resistive losses.

That's what inductors do.

Furthermore the line integral of the flux penetrating the contour of the SC secondary winding (W2) will be constant, regardless of the dΦ/dt generated by the primary winding (W1).

See above.

[minnie]

  Professor Lewin.
                  John.

[Hope]

A quote from Mr Tesla's patent, http://www.google.com/patents/US512340 .

..

Farmhand,  of course there is a point that has no opposition.  It surely could be when the movement of both the negative going energies and the positive going energies are balanced.  Then there would NOT be forces causing "Ringing or Back EMF" seeking to balance (due to it already being in balance).  Thank you for that insert from Tesla.  You found a one KEY..




Richard Williams  (NOT HopeGirl) and WE are all another part of Hope.

[Hope]

In correlation to this non opposition key would be a PMH.  Where as when making the PMH (closing the keeper or creating the magnetics) the circuit is complete and the charge placed in the PMH is pure (balanced).  This is why it keeps the charge undiminished.   So the closer to perfect balance we tune a circuit the less waste from opposition there is. 


And MarkE this is the proof you asked for, when we learn to balance all forces flows and ebbs (in a open circuit) then we can null opposition.
Maybe that is a new definition for COP at 100%,  now learning to bump that bloch of perfect balance is where COP>1.