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

[MarkE]

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

..

The Tesla quote is a restatement of series resonance where 1/jwC identically equals jwL.

[MarkE]

But the work done by the pull-in is proportional to the magnitude of current flowing in that SC loop because the current exerts force on the magnet via the magnetic field it generates.  So Work ∝ Current.
Are you claiming that the integral of force over distance is disproportionate to the current flowing in the SC loop?
Why?

Where do you get such funny ideas reading things that I have not stated?  Work performed is not proportional to the current.  It is proportional to the square of the current.

You have not proven yet that a greater dΦ/dt leaves greater current in the SC loop than smaller dΦ/dt, thus you cannot use that to prove the other statement about disproportionality of work between two halves of the cycle.

Faraday and Maxwell would both beg to differ. 

Only with a real magnet and it is not saturation but irreversible coercive demagnetization.

Actually the one thing that I overlooked is that the coil looking like a perfect inductor will identically integrate the rate of change in flux with respect to time, which should lead to a constant induction for a given magnet starting from a fixed distance.  Retracting the magnet in the opposite direction to its initial position relative to the ring reverses out whatever current was induced by bringing the magnet closer to the ring.

That limit does not occur in our ideal system and in a real system it can be mitigated.
Logic and empiricism.
I do not consider an appeal to authority as proof.

If you don't believe Maxwell then it is up to you to show that you have found a violation.

Logic and empiricism.
I don't claim that induction works differently that it does.
I am trying to convince you that induction does not work like you think and a SC loop act like a spring or I'm trying to find a flaw in my thinking with your help.

See above.

Much of their wisdom is not applicable in this case, because flux lines do not cut the loop and non-zero EMF cannot exist across a SC loop.
In resistive coils cut by flux lines - yes, but in superconductive coils not cut by flux lines - no.
Please prove that I am wrong.

You seem highly resistant to the notion of BEMF from the inductance of the loop exactly matching the induced EMF.

I don't think so. A magnetic field of a SC loop is conservative analogically to Earth and its gravitation field or mechanical energy stored by a spring..
I never claimed that energy stored in a SC loop is fixed.  I still believe that it is variable and equal to ½LI²

Then you should consider how E = 0.5*LI² is derived.  The big hint should be that I is the time integral of V/L.  The "spring's" energy is defined by the magnet and the path it travels relative to the ring.  A different magnet, such as a power source driving a winding coupled to the ring can transfer a variable amount of energy into the ring's field.

They do because energy stored in them is still proportional to the product of flux and current flowing in them.
Mechanical springs are also conservative yet they can store energy without problems.
One of us will

[MarkE]

Yep never trust people with the name Mark.        While you may be right about Aesop what proof do you have or are you just expressing your opinion and we all know about opinions ....

I have seen written statements of former employees.

[F_Brown]

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

..

Yep, Nicola know all about this.  In the case of the QEG with its tune tank circuit, adding any reactance to that tuned primary either capacitive or inductive would throw off the tune of the circuit.  Thus the inductive reactance of the added transformer must be offset with added capacitive reactance in order to maintain the balance of the circuit at it intended operating point.

I just realized a little while ago that the double winding pattern found in that patent rather then maximizing the capacitance of the winding, which I expect to remain relative the same regardless of single wound or double wound, maximizes the energy that is capacitively stored in the winding by maximizing the voltage difference between each adjacent turn.  Tesla might even had said that in the patent, it's been a while since I've read it, although it just clicked about the energy storage difference. 

Now, what effect would that have on things?

[verpies]

Where do you get such funny ideas reading things that I have not stated? 

Because you stated:

It doesn't happen because the work required for each new withdrawal similarly increases.

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.

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

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. 
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.

Work performed is not proportional to the current.  It is proportional to the square of the current.

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

Actually the one thing that I overlooked is that the coil looking like a perfect inductor will identically integrate the rate of change in flux with respect to time,

...and the integral of dΦ/dt with respect to time evaluates to Φ.

Retracting the magnet in the opposite direction to its initial position relative to the ring reverses out whatever current was induced by bringing the magnet closer to the ring.

Yes, and for clarity for other readers, the word "reverses" in that statement should not mean reversing the direction (sign) of current.

If you don't believe Maxwell then it is up to you to show that you have found a violation.
You seem highly resistant to the notion of BEMF from the inductance of the loop exactly matching the induced EMF.

I believe Maxwell. I just don't want to misapply his equations.
I am not resistant to the notion of EMF - BEMF = 0 across a superconducting loop. 
I just do not go the "EMF route" and analyze voltage across zero-resistance because it leads to division by zero.

Then you should consider how E = 0.5*LI² is derived.  The big hint should be that I is the time integral of V/L.

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

The "spring's" energy is defined by the magnet and the path it travels relative to the ring. 

Yes, "path" - not the speed along this path.

... a power source driving a winding coupled to the ring can transfer a variable amount of energy into the ring's field.

...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).

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

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).