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

[TinselKoala]

I thought this was the "Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)" thread. I don't think it's about Rotoverters or chemtrails....


Anyhow, here are a couple of frame grabs from the recent "Overunity" video from QEG Morocco.

The first one shows the channel settings and clearly reveals that their oscilloscope has both channels set to "AC Coupled".  Is there an electrical engineer in the house? Well, at least this incorrect setting probably does not change the peak-to-peak values computed by the scope, although it usually WILL change the positive and negative peak values and other math performed on the traces.

The second one shows that the scope is indeed computing the peak-to-peak values for both traces and that the claims made in the video of OU are indeed coming from these computed peak-to-peak values. One must assume that the channel attenuations do not match the probes: one High-Voltage probe with 1000:1 attenuation, presumably... and one coil-type current monitor with unknown ratio of sensed current to voltage output but presumed to be  10:1 or 1 Amp:100 mV. They must have both scope channels set to no probe attenuation ie 1:1, since the channel values are reported in milliVolts and we must do the multiplication for the probe attens ourselves. (Misuse of scope).

Regardless, the glaring error of the power computation is confirmed and the evidence for scoposcopic incompetence is preserved for the record.

[PCB]

1. What disturbs me is that no evidence has been shown for the supposed overunity case that Jamie reported on this week (1590W out for 800W in). No scope traces, no nothing!


2. I'm willing to believe that the load is not impedance matched to the generator. I doubt that they are using the tank circuit. I doubt that they know why its there in the first place? If they where using it I would expect to see not quite so perfect phase alignment, and more waveform distortion. Why 6 light bulbs? Getting the load impedance right is sort of import is you want to get maximum power transfer.


3. We really do not know what the current circuit arrangement is any more. If this was truly open source they would publish their ideas so others could work with them. Folks who are perhaps actual engineers.

[TinselKoala]

1. What disturbs me is that no evidence has been shown for the supposed overunity case that Jamie reported on this week (1590W out for 800W in). No scope traces, no nothing!

They are making progress in their journey! They have learned, from the responses to the May 18 video, that they must NOT show any raw data or scopetraces, along with their claims of OU.

It's typical for scoposcopic incompetents to forget that people -- some of them -- can actually read the _traces_ rather than just the numbers in boxes on a DSO, and they also forget that some people actually do know how to use a modern, high bandwidth, expensive math-capable DSO effectively and can interpret readings and scope settings in order to draw valid conclusions from the raw data.

The QEG crew now realize that is true, so they won't be showing any more raw data.

2. I'm willing to believe that the load is not impedance matched to the generator. I doubt that they are using the tank circuit. I doubt that they know why its there in the first place? If they where using it I would expect to see not quite so perfect phase alignment, and more waveform distortion. Why 6 light bulbs? Getting the load impedance right is sort of import is you want to get maximum power transfer.

All true. Why 6 light bulbs? Because anyone can read the nameplate on the bulbs and see that six of them in series, lighting up, MUST represent 600 Watts of power! Why else?
Choosing a non-linear load like a filament--- whose resistance changes radically with temperature -- is also SOP for OverUnity claimants. Using a proper loadbank of power resistors with low temperature coefficients of resistance is not impressive because it doesn't light up.  Why not put the QEG's output thru a HV FWB and then charge up some capacitors with the ripply DC, then run an inverter off the cap charge? I know why, and so do you.

3. We really do not know what the current circuit arrangement is any more. If this was truly open source they would publish their ideas so others could work with them. Folks who are perhaps actual engineers.

Open Source? Give me a break. This is only "open source" if you have the time and money to go to wherever Robitaille happens to be working at the moment, which is probably Peru by now.

Besides, they have claimed repeatedly that they have many actual engineers working with them, already, both on-site and around the world. And James Robitaille himself is a Great Engineer, we are told, with patents and lots of experience at ShopVac Corporation and everything.

Do you think that this claim is somehow... false?  I do. I str we haven't seen anybody display credentials like a P.E. licence or even an engineering degree from an accredited school....


ETA: The scope shown in the video, some flavor of the Tektronix 3054, can display a Math trace that computes the instantaneous power curve, and it can further INTEGRATE that result over a selected interval. Why are these people not using this capability of this very expensive and capable oscilloscope? I know why and so do you.

[MarkE]

I thought this was the "Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)" thread. I don't think it's about Rotoverters or chemtrails....


Anyhow, here are a couple of frame grabs from the recent "Overunity" video from QEG Morocco.

The first one shows the channel settings and clearly reveals that their oscilloscope has both channels set to "AC Coupled".  Is there an electrical engineer in the house? Well, at least this incorrect setting probably does not change the peak-to-peak values computed by the scope, although it usually WILL change the positive and negative peak values and other math performed on the traces.

The second one shows that the scope is indeed computing the peak-to-peak values for both traces and that the claims made in the video of OU are indeed coming from these computed peak-to-peak values. One must assume that the channel attenuations do not match the probes: one High-Voltage probe with 1000:1 attenuation, presumably... and one coil-type current monitor with unknown ratio of sensed current to voltage output but presumed to be  10:1 or 1 Amp:100 mV. They must have both scope channels set to no probe attenuation ie 1:1, since the channel values are reported in milliVolts and we must do the multiplication for the probe attens ourselves. (Misuse of scope).

Regardless, the glaring error of the power computation is confirmed and the evidence for scoposcopic incompetence is preserved for the record.

While it is a very good idea and standard practice to enter the probe attenuation  and measurement type:  voltage / current so that the oscilloscope displays directly indicate the measured quantities in the correct units, it's OK not to do that provided the attenuation and units are noted elsewhere.  On occasion a particular oscilloscope won't have the right attenuation setting to read directly in correct units, although that is not the case here.

[TinselKoala]

While it is a very good idea and standard practice to enter the probe attenuation  and measurement type:  voltage / current so that the oscilloscope displays directly indicate the measured quantities in the correct units, it's OK not to do that provided the attenuation and units are noted elsewhere.  On occasion a particular oscilloscope won't have the right attenuation setting to read directly in correct units, although that is not the case here.

Agreed, of course. My venerable and trusty HP180A doesn't even have any "probe atten" settings or markings.... the makers assumed that anyone using such an instrument can keep track of... and report properly... such information and its effect on the value of the traces displayed.  People who watch my videos showing scope data might note that I always report scope channel and probe attenuations -- but then, I am trying to convey information, rather than obscuring it as the QEG people appear to be doing. It was hell scanning through that video looking for a frame or two where one could actually READ the scope screen... and of course the scope itself can save a screen shot at full resolution. Since there are still shots in the video... why isn't there a clear screenshot from the scope itself displayed as a still frame? I know why... and so do you.

Is there some place where the details of the QEG mob's Current Transformer are noted? I must have missed it. But at least they are now using a proper BNC patch cord to connect this current sensor instead of the banana-jack adapter and clipleads to a scope probe.