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

[MarkE]

So let's agree to disagree on the interpretation of this law.  There is nothing to be gained by arguing over formalities.

No, let's stick to the accepted definitions of established scientific laws.  If one decides that one can make up their own definitions for established laws then one can play all kinds of ridiculous games claiming to violate the made up definitions.  That is a completely pointless undertaking.

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 know by what?

You can decide to adopt the same language that the rest of the world uses to describe induction or not.

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

Faraday cages still work.  If you want one to work in all three axes, then it needs to be a closed surface.

But the subject of this conversation is a superconducting loop with a hole, not some holeless superconducting disk, etc...

The subject as stated was the false assertion that the flat toroid violates Lenz' Law.  It does not violate Lenz' Law.

We are discussing the magnetic flux through that hole - not flux within the superconducting material.

You seem to keep changing what it is that you wish to discuss.  Are we done with Lenz' now?

You do not claim that a superconducting loop rejects all the magnetic flux in that hole, do you?

I never said such a thing.

( Note: This is very different from claiming that a superconducting loop rejects all changes to the magnetic flux in that hole )
You misunderstood. It did not.
I claim that a constant magnetic flux is maintained through the hole of an ideal conductive loop, and any current induced in that loop will achieve the exact magnitude to keep that flux constant.
No.

As there is nothing to create an image in the perpendicular axis, I disagree.

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.

Tell that to the ignition coil in your automobile.  If it is perpendicular to the length of a conductor, dB/dt most certainly induces a voltage.

It is the changing magnetic flux (dΦ/dt) that causes a voltage (EMF) to be induced across a non-shorted coil. 

Which can be found as dB/dt x L and the induction occurs whether or not the coil is shorted.

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

In the plane of the flat torus that is true.  Perpendicular to it is a different matter.  If that were not true, think of all the money we could save shielding circuits, EMC chambers and the like by leaving two opposite sides open.

[verpies]

You can decide to adopt the same language that the rest of the world uses to describe induction .

So what do you call the tendency to minimize the change of flux through the hole of a shorted coil ?

Faraday cages still work.  If you want one to work in all three axes, then it needs to be a closed surface.

Now you are changing the subject

The subject as stated was the false assertion that the flat toroid violates Lenz' Law.

No you misunderstood.  I agree with the Lenz law.

As there is nothing to create an image in the perpendicular axis, I disagree.

So are you claiming that this simulation is incorrect ?
If not, I do not see the total flux in the hole varying as the magnet is pulled out.
Which axis? What image?

Tell that to the ignition coil in your automobile. 

I did and she said that it cares about varying flux only.  It does not care about local flux density.

If it is perpendicular to the length of a conductor, dB/dt most certainly induces a voltage.
Which can be found as dB/dt x L and the induction occurs whether or not the coil is shorted.

Only when magnetic flux lines cut the conductor.  That does not happen in a superconductive loop.

In the plane of the flat torus that is true. 

And the flux penetrating the inside plane of the loop is all that influences the current flowing in the loop.
The distribution of that flux (B) across that plane does not affect the current flowing in that loop.

Perpendicular to it is a different matter.  If that were not true, think of all the money we could save shielding circuits, EMC chambers and the like by leaving two opposite sides open.

Yes, it is a different matter.  The height of the torus is negligible - that's why I call it a loop.
We are not discussing Faraday's cages. We are discussing whether the rate of attempted change of flux (dΦ/dt) penetrating the inside plane of the loop (or a Gaussian surface bounding the inside of that loop) affects the final magnitude of the current induced in that loop.

The answer is yes: changing dB/dt changes the induced current.

Varying dB/dt was not even the subject of the original question.

However if changing dΦ/dt changes the induced current then inserting the magnet slowly into the hole and pulling it out quickly, and doing that repeatedly would increase the magnitude of the current flowing in the closed superconducting loop with each cycle, until H_C was reached and all hell broke loose ... yet somehow this does not happen

[Farmhand]

It's impossible for anything to achieve an infinite value because no such set value exists by definition. Anything that points to any value that is infinite is inadequate. Infinity cannot even be approached. I say that some folks ought to seriously think about restricting the use of terms like infinite current and approaching infinity because they are impossibilities.

Only the continuance of events in the Universe will go on without end, that is the only infinity, and that isn't time either, "time" as a human contrivance will end when people do.

Bottom line is that any output energy is simply captured or transformed, if a device can capture energy and produce over unity operation of some tens or hundreds of watts it should be able to be measured easily and if the C.O.P. is over 2 looping to self power should be a simple process.

Everything else is just people experimenting and or making claims for various reasons, the actual reasons behind the claims are not as important as the actual performance of the device compared to the claims made.

No OU has been shown by the claimants of OU, they lied. Apparently routinely they lie.

They need to fess up and admit what they have. Their scam is so very similar to Witts it's painful to see, make false claims to get "donations" not legitimate investment. It's a scam pure and simple.

Others seeing this will want to get in on the action so we can expect even more scams because of the success of previous ones.

Cheers

[verpies]

It's impossible for anything to achieve an infinite value because no such set value exists by definition. Anything that points to any value that is infinite is inadequate. Infinity cannot even be approached. I say that some folks ought to seriously think about restricting the use of terms like infinite current and approaching infinity because they are impossibilities.

Yes but infinity is a useful mathematical and analytical concept. 
The word does not warrant a knee-jerk rejection without consideration of the context in which it was used.

Why should I use restrict my usage of the phrase "infinite current" if it can be used to show the absurdity of some situations, such as EMF in zero-resistance loop ?
Did you ever hear about the fine debating technique Reductio ad Absurdum ?

[mscoffman]

Wouldn't it make sense to have F_Brown try an evolutionary design to put one turn of each
coil "on" then take one turn "off" in an attempt to tune the design for maximum (non ou)
power. The measured .2KVA output relative to the amount of copper and iron (steel) in this
device does not seem to be correct when the original device seemed targeted to 20KVA.
This would suggest to people how to adjust their efficiency of their core upward. While
no-one truly understands the OU paradigmn of this device, I would expect it to start with
the most efficient underlying normal generator possible. I would try this before I varried
steel amounts in the core. One run could target maximum power. Another the maximum
power efficiency relative to drive horse-power near maximum power.


:S:MarkSCoffman