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

[Khwartz]

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.

Hi Farmhand, I agree with you about the difference of configuration between in a close tank circuit and when connected to the gird.

But in a way, isn't it the same thing, except the two parts are the grid line and the installations, going back and forth too?

For you scope shots, I don't understand the relationship with your grid difference of concept about reactive power; I see phases shifts but  could you develop a little bit more the idea you wanted to communicate?  Please.

[Khwartz]

Khwartz:

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

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."

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

Thanks for your comments but you've missed my point.

ALL WHAT YOU'VE TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO ME ABOUT REACTIVE POWER KNEW! And I know how to tune a line to avoid the reactive power and make that all the power of the power supply be absorbed by the installation or the device, even in electronic I am not skill at all.

For harvesting extra energy by high voltage pics, I have very precise reasons to think it could work like this, but sorry, I don't think you worth for now to share it with you. But your true, and again you taught me nothing about: anything can be imagine as workable but it doesn't mean it is pertinent. But again, I don't think your, imo close mind and fixed concepts attitude I see from you now, even you're obviously skill in electronics,  worth the sharing. Just up to me now to create time and meanst (which is far to be done, I think :/) to try my own ideas and see if my analysis of the possibilities is correct.  But if I could succeed, sure you would be a very useful opponent to hepl me to improve the quality of my experiments! Lol

Have fun!

[Khwartz]

TK:

The objection that it simply won't work is equally valid.  What's implicit is the rejection of the argument that "anything is possible, you simply don't know."  It's an argument used ad nauseum around here.  "Laws are made to be broken, etc."  Nobody says to a civil engineer, "Your equations for the minimum girder size in a 40-story office building might not actually be true."

It really won't work because we know how circuits work, and the QEG is just a circuit.  We _know_ that the differential equations for the components work, and we know how to put the circuit into a matrix - a linear network, and solve for all the voltage nodes and current loops in the circuit.  We _know_ this and we have to stand by it.

Questioning the understanding of how the QEG works and challenging it with the "anything is possible" argument is tantamount to telling a civil engineer he might be wrong about his girder size for the same reason, "anything is possible."

This is _not_ being closed minded.  It's actually being open minded and it's about being willing to accept basic principles about matter and energy.  The ones being closed minded are the ones that say, "I don't believe a capacitor is just a capacitor, anything is possible."

MileHigh

I challenge you: if I bring you a problem about electricity, a result in an experiment you're not able to explain, will you pay 2.000 € for having denigrate my conjecture while indeed you know nothing of the history of the electrical knowledge to the point you can't recognise that near any fundamental progress have been made against the current "well educated in the domain" of the time?

I am not a newbie who don't know anything on the subject science;  epistemology, philosophy of sciences are ones of my main subjects, when I say "you often don't know what you don't know", it is meaningful and proved by history, it is not used by abuse.

But so very thanks to motivate me to shout off your mouse one of these days with something factual you won't be able to explain with your poor Heaviside's equations (erroneously nammed Maxwell's equations BTW) of civil possible engineer. You even not imagine how you just have helped me! Lol Very thanks MileHigh!

[Khwartz]

Albert, perhaps this will make things even simpler than MileHigh has already explained:

Reactive energy is energy that is stored.  Reactive power is the rate at which energy is moved into and out of an energy store.  Resonant circuits shuttle electrical energy between electrostatic potentials:  charge stored in a capacitor, and magnetic potentials:  the magnetic field surrounding current.  A resonant circuit that has a high quality factor: Q, loses only a small fraction of the stored energy on each cycle from maximum voltage across the capacitor to maximum current through the circuit and back to maximum voltage across the capacitor.  Such high Q networks can collect up a lot of energy a little bit at a time.  All energy that is directed into a resonant network from some source is energy that is not applied to a useful load.  If the network is high Q then most but never all of the energy diverted into the resonant network is available to return to the source or perform useful work.

Reactive components and resonant networks made from reactive components:

Store energy.
Dissipate some energy.
Can build up very high voltages and/or currents.
Can release their stored energy at much higher instantaneous power levels than the energy was input, or vice-versa.
Do not create energy.
Do not amplify energy ( same as saying they don't create energy ).

100 % agree with this; except that IF my conjecture is true, we could use the building of the resonance to produce high pics voltage to break the stability of the Dirac's plenum and haverst exceeding energy; NOT BECAUSE OF THE REACTIVE ENERGY STORED IN THE TANK, but because of the "HARMONIC BUILDING" of high voltage pics.

But nevermind: to do is better than to discuss, at this point imo.

So see you all in around if I succeed to have anything factual, observable, to present you all here I will probably continue to follow what is going on around but will do need to economise my time if I want to run any experiments, so stop to comment.

I have said for my part all I had to say here and in other threads, so nobody will be fully surprised if I come back "with something"; otherwise, it will be just an other "megalomaniac" from around; any I am, not you?

Cheers.

[Yadaraf]

TinselKoala
...

To try to use your analogy, it would be like if when the swin reaches a certain height the girl would have time to take big fruits on the tree and gives it to someone at the lowest height. If done continously,  the swin could go on indefinitely while an flow of particles, here the fruits, occurs.
...

Interesting extension, Khwartz.  The QEG team has yet to integrate the purported 20-50 ft WITTS antenna (and ground circuit).  Perhaps when they do, the antenna will help the little girl (QEG) reach the "fruit." 


Cheers,
Yada ...