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

[ariovaldo]

Ariovaldo:

Greatly appreciate your efforts and the info that you've openly shared.  No matter the outcome of the QEG you provide many who are naturally curious and inquisitive an opportunity to learn more.  Thank you for posting your findings whether they are disappointing or not.  You're a true experimenter and do fine work.

In return for sharing your data you deserve constructive feedback that may help you to accurately analyze it and gather more.  In case it will help you I'm attaching some audio spectrum screens that I saved of your most recent video titled: Quantum Energy Generator - Ariovaldo Replication > http://youtu.be/cSNNJyvznAc

I noticed that on this YouTube video post you listed the frequency as 195 Hz but listed it as 95 Hz on this thread.  Perhaps a typo on this thread, because if 195 Hz is the frequency on your oscilloscope at the 1:20 minute mark of your video it matches up with the 193 Hz frequency in the attached audio spectrum file named QEG Ariovaldo 1.20MinMark 0.5K LoadOn Oscope.jpg.  I captured that audio spectrum screen as you were zoomed in on your oscilloscope so that this comparison could be made.  The other two attached files show a broader audio spectrum span to show the peak audio frequency at 1067 Hz and the higher order harmonics.

Let me know if there are any other specific audio spectrums of your videos that you would like to see.  It will be very interesting to find out more about the mechanical resonance frequency and the electrical resonance frequency of your QEG and how the changes you make will affect them.  Please confirm if the sinusoidal frequency displayed on your oscilloscope at the 1:20 minute mark of this video is an output frequency of 195 Hz.  I understood that your total primary capacitance was 0.125uF, if possible it would also be good to confirm the following:

1. RPM of the QEG rotor during this video run?
2. Inductance of your primary and secondary coils and the wire size and length used?
3. Any deviations from the QEG User Manual and schematic other than DC motor pulley ratio and the end plate material?

Looking forward to the other tests you have planned, be safe first and foremost.

Muy bien hecho, saludos con mucha gratitude.

Thank you for the incentive words!!
You are right. The frequency was about 195 Hz and I had problems with my tachometer, so I'm no sure about the speed. I have a new tachometer and a new motor coming. I hope this weekend I can have some more tests done. One thing that I will try to do, is to install the inductor, the capacitor and the spark gap as their suggestion and run the system in 400 Hz. Let to see how that will works.


Cheers


Ariovaldo

[ariovaldo]

Would a tape wound core work in this application? I understand there are articulations in the center ring, but maybe there are ways around this. The tooling cost would probably be a lot less than a custom die or laser cut laminations. Tapewound cores are often used in large Variacs and toroidal power transformers.

How much does the core weigh?

The price is about U$ 1300.00 from Polaris lamination.


Cheers


Ariovaldo

[ariovaldo]

So what if the Qeg fails to achieve overunity. Does this mean that this has all been a waste of time. Just the opposite. I believe that everyone who has shared their findings should be applauded. If the tone of this and other forums ever discourage others from experimentation and sharing their results, it will be a lose for all.  I can only imagine the difficulty of fabricating and testing in the days of Tesla. We are so blessed to have such vast amount of information at our finger tips. Thank you Luc. Thank you Ariovoldo. For your replications and for sharing those with us. Thank you all that have shared your simulations and calculations. All of which is information that someday may be used to trigger an overunity device. I do not need a degree to understand and appreciate this.

Thank my friend !!
Even if the QEG does't get OU, I'm learning a lot with the process.
In a project like that we can't stop and think what we are doing. If we do that, we will not going to start anything. There is nothing in what we learn that can give technical and theoretical support  for that.


Cheers


Ariovaldo

[MarkE]

Not only.  It also refers to the magnitude of the induced current.

No, no, a thousand times no.  Lenz' Law only specifies the direction of induced EMF, nothing else.

In the case of a superconducting ring, there is no resistance, but there is inductance.  The current does not build to an infinite value.

I know.  That's why I used the conditional word "would" to illustrate the absurd proposition of non-zero EMF in a zero resistance loop.
Again, you do not need to prove this to me because I already know that induced flux is finite.


My point was another one.
Namely, that a closed superconducting loop maintains constant flux through its crossection.
Constant flux also means that dΦ/dt=0 and that EMF is zero.

A superconductor rejects the magnetic field within the conductor.  IOW: the internal inductance approaches infinity, the skin depth approaches zero and the the EMF appears entirely on the surface.

Instead of proving the obvious to me,

Your post incorrectly claimed that a superconducting ring violates Lenz' Law.  It does not.

you should concentrate on answering this interesting question:
Q: "A magnet is pulled out of a shorted superconducting aircoil.  Does the magnitude of the final current induced in that coil depend on how quickly the magnet is pulled out ?".

That is a new question.  The answer is yes: changing dB/dt changes the induced current.

[verpies]

No, no, a thousand times no.  Lenz' Law only specifies the direction of induced EMF, nothing else.

So let's agree to disagree on the interpretation of this law.  There is nothing to be gained by arguing over formalities.
Perhaps you call the tendency to minimize the change of flux through the hole of a shorted coil by another name. I am interested to learn by what?

If however you claim that a constant magnetic flux is not maintained through the hole of an closed ideal conductive loop, then let's discuss that.

A superconductor rejects the magnetic field within the conductor. 

But the subject of this conversation is a closed superconducting loop with a hole, not some holeless superconducting disk, etc...
We are discussing the magnetic flux through that hole - not flux within the superconducting material.
You do not claim that a closed superconducting loop rejects all the magnetic flux in that hole, do you?
( Note: This is very different from claiming that a  closed superconducting loop rejects all changes to the magnetic flux in that hole )

Your post incorrectly claimed that a superconducting ring violates Lenz' Law. 

You misunderstood. It did not.
I claim that a constant magnetic flux is maintained through the hole of a closed ideal conductive loop, and any electric current induced in that loop will achieve the exact magnitude to keep that flux constant.

That is a new question.  The answer is yes: changing dB/dt changes the induced current.

First of all, changing magnetic flux density (dB/dt) does not cause any voltage to be induced across any coil nor any current in any coil.  I guess that dB was a typo.
It is the changing magnetic flux (dΦ/dt) that causes a voltage (EMF) to be induced across a non-shorted coil. 
Magnetic flux lines must attempt to cut the coil in order to change the current flowing in it.  Mere attempt to change the density of those lines does nothing.

Secondly, because a constant magnetic flux is maintained through the hole of an closed ideal conductive loop, then the dΦ/dt=0.