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

[TinselKoala]

Johann:

Are you aware of this:

http://www.fixtheworldproject.net/ftw-qeg-consulting.html

Perhaps you can explain how people can legally offer for sale, that which they do not themselves possess.


A poster called Carl Cunningham made this collection of QEG quotes for Revolution-Green; I hope nobody minds my reproducing it here.

BEFORE:
--- QUOTE (HopeGirl on 02/20/2014) ---
Most of the entire research and development process is complete, the only thing we have left to do is the careful write up of the plans for opensourcing.
[...]
The instructions will be complete and correct. For the experienced engineer who should choose to follow them carefully they will produce a safe working product.
--- UNQUOTE ---
--- QUOTE (HopeGirl on 03/25/2014) ---
Our Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) provides 10KW of power output for less than 1KW input, which it supplies to itself.
[...]
We've open sourced a full set of instructions, user manual, schematics and parts list for any engineer to follow and reproduce the same results.
--- UNQUOTE ---
AFTER:
--- QUOTE (Sterling Allan interview on 04/03/2014) ---
Sterling Allan: Have you actually run it through an inverter and self-looped it yourself?
James Robitaille: No, we haven't done that yet. We didn't have the inverter.
--- UNQUOTE ---
--- QUOTE (James Robitaille on 05/08/2014) ---
Apparently some groups and individuals were expecting a completely finished product to be delivered into their hands, with nothing left to do. We have always said that as soon as we got the basic resonance from the machine, we would open source all the information we had, and that's what we've done. The intent was to co-develop the machine in an open source platform [...].
--- UNQUOTE ---
Retroactively changing a story massively undermines credibility. Another example:
BEFORE:
--- QUOTE (HopeGirl on 01/27/2014) ---
The inventor of the QEG is my stepfather James Robitaille.
--- UNQUOTE ---
--- QUOTE (FTW QEG Consulting) ---
James Robitaille, the QEG inventor will be available for technical consulting [...].
--- UNQUOTE ---
AFTER:
--- QUOTE (Valerie Robitaille on 04/20/2014) ---
This is not Jamie's invention, this is only Jamie kicking the door open, so that people can have it. Because this company [WITTS] wouldn't do it any way that people could have it. If you wanna buy this generator from them, they charge you a 100,000 dollars. I know, it's really quite a price. So we're just trying to make it accessible, really. Jamie took one class with Sir Timothy Thrapp and they said that they were gonna give us all this information. They gave us a piece of paper drawn like, you know, a very juvenile drawing.
--- UNQUOTE ---
Another issue that upsetted many technically inclined people:
Why are there two completely different Tesla patents (No. 390,414, titled "Dynamo-Electric Machine", from 1888, and No. 511,916, titled "Electric Generator", from 1894) given in different places (the Fix-the-World website and the QEG manual) as the foundation for the QEG? A technical analysis of these patents show that both are ordinary electrical machines, which have nothing to do with free energy or overunity in general and (nearly) nothing with the QEG in particular. It is quite obvious that the QEG team searched for a suitable Tesla patent for marketing purposes *after* they came up with the QEG and had difficulties deciding which one to use, because they couldn't find a really appropriate one.
Concerning transparency:
--- QUOTE (HopeGirl on 06/15/2013) ---
At the Fix the World Organization, we are pioneering a new paradigm way of doing business. Part of this is complete transparency, and we wish to be the example that other organizations can follow.
--- UNQUOTE ---
--- QUOTE (HopeGirl on 09/10/2013) ---
To reiterate: transparency is key, and we continue to set all before you.
--- UNQUOTE ---
--- QUOTE (HopeGirl on 09/10/2013) ---
[W]e are presenting this information in a completely transparent manner. We are letting everyone know up front exactly what has been lined up. No more secrets.
--- UNQUOTE ---
The actual behaviour massively contradicts these promises. There is still nearly no technical information available about the original prototype and the Taiwanese QEG, and only very meager information about the Moroccan QEG. Especially the "Morocco QEG -- May 2014 Test and Measurement Report" was very disappointing in this regard.
--- QUOTE (HopeGirl on 05/25/2014) ---
We know you have been eagerly and excitedly waiting for data and here it is in template form.
--- UNQUOTE ---
This sentence is a contradiction in itself. It is equivalent to: "We know you have been eagerly and excitedly waiting for payment and here you have a piggybank."
--- QUOTE (James Robitaille on 05/08/2014) ---
How close are we to overunity? Well, here in Morocco, we are very close, within about 200 Watts (800 Watts out for 1000 Watts in at this point in development).
--- UNQUOTE ---
This corresponds to 80% efficiency. But the attached table contains only measurements with efficiencies around 35%. This is not transparency. This creates doubt and mistrust.
Probably the most problematic issue is the overunity claim based on the Dave Starbuck article and the corresponding video. As many competent people have already pointed out, the output power calculation used for the overunity claim is just plain wrong. All relevant scope readings are clearly visible at certain points of the video. The setup (as far as it is relevant for the measurement) is sufficiently known for those following the project for some time. The output power is calculated based on peak-to-peak values for voltage and current. This is a fundamental mistake, and makes no sense in any way.
To get to an even remotely accurate output power value (assuming neglectible phase shift, which seems appropriate based on the scope readings), it is neccessary to determine the RMS values for voltage and current. Assuming sine waveforms (which, again, seems appropriate based on the scope readings) the RMS values equal the respective peak-to-peak value divided by 2*squareroot(2). This is basic electrical engineering knowledge. Since voltage and current are multiplied afterwards to determine power, the resulting factor is (2*squareroot(2))^2 = 8. This means the alleged "overunity" output power value in the video is too high by a factor of 8. The actual, practically usable output power in the video equals 1900 W / 8 = about 238 W. At 655 W input power this is way underunity and corresponds to an efficiency of about 36%. This is a credible value, and remarkably similar to the values in the table published on May 10th.
The recently stated even higher power values ("..., 13,326, even 28,000 Watts") are seemingly measured in the primary tank circuit. This doesn't make sense. This is a single "energy packet" circulating between the coils and the capacitors. This isn't usable output power. Trying to take this power out (more than what is added at each oscillation -- which obviously corresponds approximately to what is available on the secondary side) will lead to a breakdown of resonance. It is absolutely irresponsible to publish such values without having ensured that this is actually available output power (which it isn't, as any practical attempt will prove).
Is the intense criticism really surprising?

(Thanks, Carl, for pulling all that together with the dates. )


Also, Johann ... was gibt es dann?

[TinselKoala]

As far as the "newb" label and that whole discussion.... I think the stimulus was when a poster, identified as a "newbie" due to low post count and recent join-up date, poked some fun at MarkE, who indeed is one of the most knowledgeable and evidently well-educated EE-type critical posters around.  Then Bill pointed out in his post that perhaps a newcomer might not be fully acquainted with MarkE's level of experience and qualifications. That's all there is to that. If MarkE isn't ruffled by someone calling him ignorant about EE topics when that's false, why should someone else get ruffled about being called a newbie when that's true?

[PCB]

I'm a very old noob. My membership dates back about 5 1/2 years.

[TinselKoala]

So perhaps the whole issue devolves down to the well-known lack of a "sarcasm" or "irony" tag. Since you clearly must be aware of MarkE's evident expertise through your long lurking. Unless your visits have just been infrequent until lately.

[PCB]

In my opinion I think this is what happened. Did Jamie build a prototype? Yes. Did he measure power levels? Yes, but he used Peak-to-peak values by mistake and drew the wrong conclusion.  Did his prototype run for long? No. The Hopegirl train left the station and Jamie has been frantically trying to do In Taiwan and Morocco what he should have done at home with his prototype. This is evidenced buy comments like "this is not a low voltage device but A high voltage device" and the fact that they are now trying to draw the power out of the primary instead of the secondary.


Jamie clearly had very limited understanding of how his device really worked or of its characteristics. My posting at the be-do forum of the efficiency analysis (provided by @MileHigh and modified by me) did get noticed. They immediately started to reference rms voltage values. This put them in a box as they now new how bad the efficiency of this device really is, so in order to keep the gravy train going and not look like complete fools they switched to saying overunity in terms of VArs. I think it might be time for another carefully worded posting to knock this one down.