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

[MileHigh]

More speculation from James' posting:

We are having some preliminary success with the exciter coil wired in series with the primary, at a nominal RPM/C value of 2700/140nF. The output is loaded with 6 100 Watt, 240V incandescent lamps, wired in series to provide a relatively light load, but allowing the output voltage to rise as high as 1440 volts (240 Volts X 6). While adjusting the rotor speed to provide about 500 Volts output, we have a small spark in the gap. We have been able to tickle the spark gap and keep a small arc going for several seconds at a time.

I mentioned before that the spark gap does nothing more than short out the Neutral and L1 on the secondary side.  Is it possible that when the spark gap starts sparking that it is sucking pulses of energy out of the QEG and as a result the voltage in resonant tank circuit on the primary side starts to decrease?  You can imagine this possibility.

Like this:  The QEG is running and they slowly bring he spark gap electrodes together and the sparking starts.  Note the QEG had enough time to build up the voltage in the primary tank circuit ahead of time.  Now that the sparking is taking place, the "excess" voltage in the tank circuit is drained away to the point where the sparking stops.  Effectively the sparking happening on the secondary is draining some energy out of the primary LC tank circuit.

Is it possible to reach a quiescent point where the system sparks continuously?  It may indeed be possible.  However, if you have a scope and you watch the voltage on the secondary, you may indeed see the secondary AC voltage also slowly decreases when the spark gap is engaged.

If you do indeed measure this, then some people would argue that that is proving that the spark gap is useless, it's nothing more than another load on the system that is draining power from system in a continuous train of pulses.  Each "pulse" looks like a resistor has been connected as a temporary load.  In other words, it's nothing more than electrical quackery.

Remember, I believe Tesla used the spark gap as a high-voltage switch.  You Tesla experts can confirm this.  The spark gap was used to switch on a load only when the voltage got high enough.  It was just used as a switch to connect things together, a tool.  That's all, there is nothing more to read into it than that.  So using a spark gap to short Neutral with L1 is nonsensical.

People reading this posting should not whine about negative things being stated.  This is just an honest speculation about why the spark gap only fired for a few seconds.  It's honest to state that it's possible that it is nonsensical.  I even suggest a test to see if it is indeed sucking power out of the QEG.  Just looking at it on the schematic it looks nonsensical.  Argue this on it's technical merits, even if you are a HopeGirl fan.

MileHigh

[pmgr]

Pmgr,

This only applies if the QEG is mainly or fully acting like an AC transformer.  If the core of the QEG is acting like a pulse transformer then the concept of an optimal or matched impedance goes away.  If the QEG is acting like a pulse transformer then the output impedance is infinity.  In that case, the higher the resistance of the load, the faster the magnetic energy in the core will discharge.  You can keep increasing the load resistance until the load is an open circuit and then you would expect to see spark discharges in the coils themselves.

MileHigh

MileHigh,

Not sure how this thing is acting exactly, but definitely not like a normal transformer. Take a look at the attached graph of primary and secondary currents according to my simulations.

Simulations indeed show the odd frequency behavior that James describes: secondary coil current has twice the frequency of primary coil current. They also show that the primary current is symmetric (positive currents versus negative currents), but the secondary is not.

When I vary the load in my simulations, it clearly shows an optimum load resistance under which power output over the load is maximum. From simulations it seems that the secondary "prefers" a fairly high load (low resistance).

I also see the phase locking in my simulations. If you increase the torque such that the rotor speed would go past the tank resonance frequency if it were to run freely, the speed of the motor gets locked back down into the resonance frequency and output power over the load increases. If the torque is increased too much, the motor will be able to go past the locking range and resonance will stop once it does.

The question is now, how much energy does it take for the motor to turn the rotor. Normally the power of the motor is given by P=T*2*pi*f, where T is the torque and f is the frequency of the motor (RPMs/60). So other than the resonance frequency, this power does not depend on the what the QEG is doing (unless you try to drive it past resonance in which case the QEG puts counter torque on the motor to keep it in resonance).

But let's assume you exactly run the motor at resonance speed. It then appears that if a certain motor is chosen that can turn the rotor at that required speed for the minimum amount possible input Watts P, the rest of the QEG can be designed in such a way that the output power over the resistive load is maximized. At the moment I can not make a definite statement yet whether that power can potentially be larger than the power required to run the motor.

In any case the following guidelines should be followed for picking a motor and winding the coils:

1. A small as possible motor should be picked that has just enough torque to overcome any friction losses and spin the rotor at the required speed for resonance. A motor with more torque will consume more energy; unless it can be proven that this added energy can be transferred into more energy into the load (which is the case) AND that this added energy into the load is more than the additional energy the motor consumes to produce the higher torque (it is not clear yet if this last part is the case).

2. The resistance of each of the coils in the QEG (both primary and secondary) should be minimized, i.e. the wire used to wrap the coils should be as large a diameter as possible and resistivity as low as possible. In fact, the ratio 2*pi*f*L/R should be as large as possible. However, increasing f is not a solution as the power consumed by the motor will in that case also increase, so L/R should be maximized.

Hopefully (no pun intended) more to come...

PmgR
================================================
Help stop the persecution of Falun Dafa in China!
Stop organ harvesting from living people in China's labor camps
http://www.faluninfo.net
================================================
Falun Dafa, also known as Falun Gong, is an ancient Chinese
self-cultivation practice, based on the principles of
* Truthfulness * Compassion * Tolerance *
Great for improvement of health and mental well-being!
http://www.falundafa.org
================================================

[MileHigh]

Pmgr,

I don't recall seeing your simulation so it's very hard to comment.  For simulations, trying to tweak your simulation against waveforms from the real thing is the way to go.  I feel it would be very hard to "fly blind" for this simulation but that's just my feeling, I have no experience playing with simulators in a serious way.

Not sure how this thing is acting exactly, but definitely not like a normal transformer.

You are looking at this the wrong way.  If you give a normal transformer a wacky stimulation on the input you will see the wacky reaction on the output.  In this case we have some kind of electrical transformer where the properties of the transformer are a function of time (or rotor angle).  Then assume that the stimulation from the spinning rotor and how the setup interacts with the tank circuit and then you get some kind of wonky looking waveform on the output.

All of the above strangeness is all a secondary consideration.  When you factor this all in the core and input and output windings are acting _exactly_ like a transformer and the circuit is doing _exactly_ what it is supposed to be doing.  In your simulation, you can see the 1:1 correspondence for various waveform features on the primary being reflected on the secondary.

Normally the power of the motor is given by P=T*2*pi*f, where T is the torque and f is the frequency of the motor (RPMs/60).

In this case though you can say that torque T is a function of angle, and angular speed, T(theta, omega).  But in the realm of the math you say big deal, at a given angular speed you can then calculate T(theta) and calculate the work and power required to do one full rotation (work) or to do a continuous number of rotations per second (power).

If your simulation is good and valid, then it will show you this setup doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing, even if it appears to be unusual.  And what's implicit is that this generator will have an efficiency somewhere on the "poor side" in the overall scheme of things.  I will put it another way:  The QEG will never outperform a comparable quality commercial-off-the-shelf alternator.  That's what James and HopeGirl are up against.

MileHigh

[Hope]

I think you are misunderstanding what Joseph Neuman actually did.  With the little input power he put into his machine, he failed to extract and do any real work with the energy oscillating in the machine.   He never power anything with it.  He just show people meters displaying the oscillating voltage and current in the system, and that as I explained previously though my examples of tank circuit spice simulations, can be very misleading if interpreted carelessly.

Now with the QEG, I have found ways in simulation to extract significant power from the primary circuit and do useful work with it.  That the QEG is capable of that is clear to me.  The question that still remains is how much power needs to be applied to the rotor of the QEG to get that amount of power out of it.  So far the best efficiency any replicator has reported is 0.35, and even that was reported without any details about just how that figure was determined.

Could you ask the replicators to be more forthcoming with their data and methods?

***

Speaking of the IEEE do we have any members in the house.  I need a copy of a paper pulled.

So you got to be joking about he didn't get any power out of his machine.  Then how did he pump all that water, mere though I guess.   Have you ever watched his machine work?

[Hope]

I have to laugh LOL  I have worked as an electronics engineer for years and before that in machine repair both electronic and mechanical.  Analog and digital fields.   What I am saying is if you stand on the given teachings you will justify every part of how things work on those taught theories.   And the storm of comments received proves this.   We have instruments designed to show "proofs" so of course we are convinced that is exactly what we see in the data we receive from those instruments.   How pure a science Tesla worked in without all that contrived nonsense yet established.  He made his own equipment, built his own laboratory to show his work true.   So when you come to me with "boxed" arguments we are talking apples vs oranges gentlemen.


Let me enlighten you on just recent discoveries that will illustrate my point.   We have this slightly odd free thinking guy named John Hutchinson combine wavelengths and disrupt molecular bonds of atoms into a unidentified third element.  This was in the 1990's and that is what the best labs could tell us.   Yet 10 years later we know that element was taken to the single layer form with these waveforms.   So where lack of knowledge was they injected a 3rd unidentified element into being.  When all along it was the same element just in this single layered form  (yet unheard of).  All the "measurements" taken are taken from equipment built using incorrect conclusions of what is really going on.   So of course, you can just discount anyone not conforming to those "boxes".  It is simple, I mean you have hard evidence right?  But really what you have are conclusions based on thought correct theories.   That is all you really have.  How many times have theories of all sorts been revised or even totally remade?  MOST is the answer to that.  But all the people stand on their soap boxes and spout empirical data taught to them by others who believed others who.....back to the originating theory.   If what tools we have will not support the work at hand then we need better tools that WILL model the objectives. 


Most of my work has been in electromechanical devices and servo controllers so my mind is full of all these arguments already, but if we just accept nothing is free running then explain the universe or the atom?   Like so many churches,  lol here lol there,  we are right they are wrong    blargh!  If you have ANY case where a formula does not work then is that formula correct?  PI is even flawed and it is nearly the most common formula we use daily.  So when people tell you things realize they were taught to believe this and many were.  But if all cases can not be solved using the formula then figure out the better tool.  Don't say it can't work just because your ego is impaled and you can't solve it.  But don't take is so personally, after all you may have been taught an incomplete science to keep you in a box.


And why attack me just for putting down information on flaws in our teaching system.   


Want to see something amazing,  watch a child playing with something totally new to them.  In a very short time they have it mastered,  they know the hows and whys and whens.  They are not full of this's and that's from others and when they are they are limited in what they try.   


So either go happily into paying all your utilities and accepting that is how it is or jump both feet into "pure learning, playing like a child" with your inspirations.  This is how dreams come into reality.   "It can't or I can't" never do.