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

[Khwartz]

The main objection to the QEG saga isn't that someone wants to research something ridiculous, it is the fraudulent marketing and the outright lies and other misrepresentations made by HypeGirl and whoever else on their "team" emits information. If they had presented it as a research project, speculating about outcomes and asking for donations based on that... well, OK maybe. But that isn't what they did: they proclaimed they had a fully working design and a tested functional prototype, even stating the specific figure of 150 hours running. Everybody "assumed" that meant 150 hours running _itself_ and lighting up the usual loads. But now... some of us realize that wasn't true at all. Yet they drummed up a lot of interest and a huge amount of money. Enough money to fund me and my lab fully for the next five years, and that was just for starters. And that is what is so objectionable about their process. They are selling something they do not have and do not know how to make, while making false claims about its performance. Whether what they claim is impossible or not (it is) is really beside the point, from a mail fraud standpoint. After all, gold exists and can be mined. So will you buy some of these shares in my gold mine? If the shares aren't real or the mine isn't real or I don't have authority to sell them, you are being defrauded, even though gold itself might actually exist somewhere.

TinselKoala, I think I get your point.

True I was maily about the "technical" or "epistemological" aspects of the question.

Regarding fraud and selling what they don't have,  I may agree with you.

The fact is I came obviously late on this QEG and didn't see indeed any shift in the claims as I was basing near all on the last vid and report.

Thanks for your time and insistence on that specific ethical aspect.

Cheers.

[TinselKoala]

No worries, mate. The Revolution-Green site has some pretty good information about QEG and the early days:
http://revolution-green.com/

Meanwhile, fwiw, here's the operator's manual for the TDS3000 series scopes, including the TDS3054. I was hoping it had an actual image of the Probe Setup menu but it doesn't go quite that deep. This is where the probe type (current or voltage) is set and its attenuation value. They could have set Voltage x1000 and Current x10 here, and the onscreen display labels and values would then be correct. It does also show how to set the math trace to multiply the V and I traces, and it shows how to set up the Measurements to display RMS values for any trace.  In other words, the manual for the scope Robitaille is using clearly explains how to use its basic and advanced features, and this manual is available for free on the internet.

Every engineer knows the meaning of the initials "RTFM". Don't they?

http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse466/07wi/labs/l2/Oscope/TDS3000Manual.pdf

[Farmhand]

Khwartz:

Nope, because "reactive power" is a very poor choice of words that people are using for describing what's going on.  People hear the word "power" and they think of a continuous stream of power.  That leads them to thinking of converting from a continuous stream of "reactive power" into a continuous stream of real power.

The problem is there is no continuous stream of "reactive power."  It's just a one-shot corresponding to the fixed amount of energy circulating back and forth in the LC tank.  You use it and it's gone.  You have to draw more power from the input to fill up the LC tank circuit with "reactive power" before you can supply more power to the output.

It's like this:  The "reactive power" is just a middle-man, it takes input power and either stores it or passes it onto the output.  The middle-man storage capacity is fixed to a certain maximum.

MileHigh

MileHigh, I personally make a definite distinction between "reactive power" in the grid sense (returning unused power) and oscillating power in a tank. Maybe they are the same electrically. But to me they are different situations.

Here's a couple of scope shots I just captured. I have a 1 Ohm CSR in series and a 1 kOhm resistive load across the capacitor, the probe grounds are together on the transformer side of the CSR the blue trace has the probe across the 1 Ohm and the yellow trace has the probe across the 1 K and capacitor the blue channel is inverted on the scope menu. Purple is the math trace Ch A x Ch B.

To me it appears that there is more power shown below the line than above it. But I'm guessing it is instrument calibration and such things.

The 1k resistor is a metal film type and the 1 Ohm is a carbon type I think.

Not easy to get right on 90 degrees with my silly FG.

[Eniac5state]

 The schematic is somewhat confusing so i have redrawn it here.


>>>Beware of the shills here ! They are flooding these forums with crap and can be recognized
with many hundreds or thousands of deflecting and denying posts !! <<<

[MileHigh]

Khwartz:

The damper keeps the two components that produce the power in phase.  You can just Google a transformer circuit.

my conjecture is that it WOULD be because of a connection to an inifinite reservoir, by generation of high votage pics.

You talk about the "infinite reservoir tapped into by high voltage."  Why high voltage?  Why not medium voltage?  Why not high-voltage, high-slew-rate?  Why not voltage that changes exponentially?  Why not high AC voltage that has an exponential decay envelope?  Do you see the point?  Is there any evidence that high voltage taps into an unknown source of power?  Not that I am aware of.  The argument that goes "anything is possible" is a hollow argument because then literally anything is possible.  Why should free energy enter at high voltage?  Why not have energy disappearing into the reservoir at high voltage?  If a circuit is speculated to be over unity, then just as easily you can look at the last 10 circuits played with around here  (like the Akula stuff) and speculate that they are actually under unity.  Energy "disappears" when you run them.  Why not?

Please don't confuse or reinterpret making a statement with issuing orders or being argumentative about the use of a pronoun.  Or if I talk about the QEG and you respond discussing a point about one of your own statements.  That's called "constructing a straw man argument."

The question was: can we transform the reactive "power" (way to say), in active, real power? The answer looks to be "yes".

Not in the context of what we mean when we say "reactive power" for the QEG.

The _real_ meaning of reactive power is determined by the AC impedance of the load in the context of an AC power source flowing into some kind of load.  Power flows from the AC source, through the wires, and then into the load where it gets converted into something else.   Power has to flow to be power.  If it all flows in one direction (source to load) then it's all real power.  If the power is bidirectional where power flows from a power station into an electric motor, and then half a cycle later power flows from the motor to the power station then you have a reactive power situation.  The power that the motor sends to the power station did not come from the motor itself, it's just the power station's originally supplied power being kicked back by the motor.  I am repeating myself here to make the point as clear as possible for the general readers.

The forums have adopted the term "reactive power" for the energy circulating back and forth in a tank circuit.  That is not power that is flowing.  Rather, it is a static storage of energy in two reactive components.  They are not the same thing at all.

The reason the power companies don't like reactive loads is they draw extra current and that heats all of the distribution transformers up needlessly.  Extra power is lost in the transformers and the wires for nothing.  It also makes the load on the generators in the generating station irregular, and they don't want that.  You don't want energy from reactive loads circulating all over the electrical grid, it's simply not good.  I am not an expert on this stuff (power distribution and how they balance the grid), so these points are just about the general principles at play.

Even in the case of AC power distribution, the reactive power circulating in the power lines is NOT "extra power that you can convert into real power and get over unity."  The reactive power comes from the real power that was supplied by the generating station one-half cycle before in the sine wave.  It's nothing more than the power the generating station output being thrown right back at the generating station.  Reactive power is just temporally borrowed real power that came from the AC power source.  Likewise the "reactive power" in the QEG primary tank is just stored energy that came from the external power source.

In other words, there is no "new power" that can come from reactive power associated with AC mains power distribution, or from the "reactive power" circulating in the primary LC tank circuit in the QEG.

I am writing this all out in detail so the lurkers from the Be-Do forum and all of the QEG replication groups and the QEG team itself can absorb and understand this information.  If any lurkers have questions I am sure myself and other people around here can try to answer them.   At this point you should all understand that the power conversion proposal from James to convert the "VARs" in the QEG primary resonant tank into real output power will not work because it simply does not work like that.  They are proposing converting "reactive watts" into "real watts" and this is WRONG.  It's not "reactive watts" it's reactive joules.  You can't convert reactive joules into real watts.  This reality has to be made abundantly clear to James.

The energy circulating in the QEC primary tank is like an "inflatable balloon" of energy.  When you "convert VARs to real power" you deflate the balloon (filled with joules) and that's it, you are done.  The resonant tank circuit empties and the resonance is killed or is rendered very feeble.  The input power source (the spinning rotor) has to reinflate the balloon before you can even think about outputting real power into a load again.

Finally, just for the sake of completeness:  Power can indeed flow though a circuit with a resonant LC tank circuit.   Here is an example:   An AC power supply outputs 5 watts of power.   The five watts of power flow though the resonant tank, then get coupled to a secondary transformer winding, and then the 5 watts of power flow out of the secondary and then flow into the load.   While this power flow is happening, at the same time the resonant tank circuit is storing 12 joules of energy.  That very simple example can also be scaled up and apply to the QEG.

MileHigh