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

[centraflow]

Yes we have seen this thread diverge into familiar territory the past few pages but what about the QEG?  To the recent posters, Gravityblock, Acca, and others, what do you think?  Real or fake?

I think they are playing with something they really don't know anything about, and nor does anybody else as far as mixing electrical and mechanical resonance along with reactive power, this really has to be done in the lab under strict measurement to tune where the wave form interreaction is and then see if there is any merit to this.


I jumped in on the post of the Valencia company Platinum Investments due to  certain aspects which are incorporated into both machines, but the key is a hands apart of driver and generator.


Now to answer the question, real or fake, well you won't like the answer, neither real or fake, just let it play out.
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%]Regards[/size]
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%]Mike[/size] [size=78%] [/size]

[centraflow]

Seems to be a gug in the system!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Mike

[isim]

No, it's OU: 3 inputs - 12 output so X6
@+

[Hope]

A phony psychiatric workup topped with a made up claim from an ex that doesn't exist is not impressive.

Yet again your exact nature hits you in the face and you try to place it on another.   I have gotten many messages from WORKING members with their complaints about your lack of knowledge and obvious attempts to derail or discourage a person's enthusiasm.   Your covers are pulled and will stay pulled by me and anyone else who sees your comments again MarkE.   We aren't buying crazy here, people like you have us full up already.  Go peddle your anguish elsewhere or better yet STOP!  I suppose you are from a wealthy family professional abilities, yet you seem to be the underachiever and try to subject that on to others.   Good luck with that one,  hope you grow past that and face yourself. 

[Hope]

If a device is OU, it must have an efficiency of over 100%.  Any efficiency over 100% is undefined as net output is possible with no input, the exact thing that we want from OU.  Mr. Murray-Smith's point is that it doesn't matter whether or not some yet to be discovered energy source is OU or a previously unidentified energy source.  If the source has the properties of inexhaustibility, and very low, ideally zero, operating cost then that energy source has the properties that we want from something that is OU.That is a reasonable enough assumption.  It leads to more or less two paths that I can see:  Either declare that searching for OU is a futile endeavor, or simply allowing that whatever is ultimately determined, OU is a convenient term to describe the properties of the kind of desirable new energy source that we would like to find.Unfortunately, it removes the distinction between what we want:  plentiful, cheap, clean new energy source(s) and things we would rather get past such as fossil fuels.  Personally, I do not object to the idea that if anything ever appears OU that it ultimately will almost certainly to be proven otherwise.Do you mean some other overunity site than this one?I think that there are many people who would disagree with us about the transient nature of anything that might appear OU staying that way.  One could qualify the term and say "apparent OU".  I do not think that is necessary and I don't think it adds much in the way of clarity.  It could inspire flame wars between camps who think that the First Law is violable and those who don't.  If a rich relative pays all my bills, then from my point of view everything in the world is free.COP and efficiency are both well defined.  "Free energy" has many interpretations.  In my experience:  OU is commonly understood to mean an energy source that appears to produce more than it consumes.  Some might object to the "appears" qualifier.  I don't see any value in quibbling about that until such a day as something that seems like a working OU machine appears on the scene.Mostly, yes, but there are exceptions.  Consider something like rocket fuel.  We put a lot more energy into making the rocket fuel then we get out of it.  The form of the fuel, its energy density, power density, etc matter more than the efficiency.I think you will find common agreement that each has a COP > 1.  I think that only a small minority would call either is OU.

blagh blagh blagh blagh blagh        see a doctor and get meds your overworking yourself into an early grave trying to force your opinion on others.    You must of been the nah nah, nah nah nah kid and never grew out of it.  (my opinion also of you)