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

[mscoffman]

The problem is that VARS in a network is different than VARS in a generator.
Vars in a network is an extra cost option.

In a generator; OU = fgen(VARS)     ";" = could well be      In which case VARS would not be available.

OU energy must come out.   No fair running in your own space. 

:S:MarkSCoffman

[F_Brown]

The new MKII potted core actually looks beautiful.

According to the John Worrell Keely script, the next move will be to claim discovery of a wonderful new improvement that will take more time and money to construct.

I think we are already there.  With the comments by Jamie about recovering "Reactive Power" via switching in the last video and the topic of discussion in the vid from the be-do page that PCB posted a link to featuring Jim Murray and Paul Babcock I can see the strategic pivot on the horizon.

What the QEG needs now is "Fly-Back Switching" and that's all it needs.  Fly-back switching will make it work.  Yeah, that's the ticket...

From Paul's brief description of "his" switching method, it sounds like what is called a bi-directional switch.  These have been well know for a long time and heavy duty commercial modules are widely available in many sizes for traction drives.   Basically it's just two back to back mosfets. so assembled as to block current in both directions when off and allow current in both directions when on.

As a matter a fact I spent some months developing my own bidirectional switch modules a couple of years ago when I looked into making a solid state version of the mechanical commutator used in Tesla Switches.

To make a bidirectional switch into a "fly-back switch" I presume all one has to do is to just add in some diodes to direct and recapture the transient spike from inductors when the switch turns off.

I find Murray and Babcock particularly hypocritical saying in their interview that independent researchers should refrain from trying hoard and secure their discoveries behind patents, while at the same time that seems to be exactly what both of them have done.

This sounds all too familiar:  "We got patents on the way.  All we need now are some [perpetually] forward looking investors..."

If any particular free energy device is ever found to work the only way I see it becoming successful is if the developer commits it into the public domain.  This seems to be the only thing FTW has managed to do right so far.

[F_Brown]

Double post removed.

[Angelic]

Scammers?
https://www.facebook.com/hope.moore.965

[MarkE]

The new MKII potted core actually looks beautiful.

I think we are already there.  With the comments by Jamie about recovering "Reactive Power" via switching in the last video and the topic of discussion in the vid from the be-do page that PCB posted a link to featuring Jim Murray and Paul Babcock I can see the strategic pivot on the horizon.

What the QEG needs now is "Fly-Back Switching" and that's all it needs.  Fly-back switching will make it work.  Yeah, that's the ticket...

From Paul's brief description of "his" switching method, it sounds like what is called a bi-directional switch.  These have been well know for a long time and heavy duty commercial modules are widely available in many sizes for traction drives.   Basically it's just two back to back mosfets. so assembled as to block current in both directions when off and allow current in both directions when on.

Every mechanical hard drive in the world has such a switch in it to power a head retract on power fail function.

As a matter a fact I spent some months developing my own bidirectional switch modules a couple of years ago when I looked into making a solid state version of the mechanical commutator used in Tesla Switches.

It is a very useful and widely used construct.

To make a bidirectional switch into a "fly-back switch" I presume all one has to do is to just add in some diodes to direct and recapture the transient spike from inductors when the switch turns off.

I find Murray and Babcock particularly hypocritical saying in their interview that independent researchers should refrain from trying hoard and secure their discoveries behind patents, while at the same time that seems to be exactly what both of them have done.

This sounds all too familiar:  "We got patents on the way.  All we need now are some [perpetually] forward looking investors..."

If any particular free energy device is ever found to work the only way I see it becoming successful is if the developer commits it into the public domain.  This seems to be the only thing FTW has managed to do right so far.

I would disagree with any contention that they have released any useful technical information to the public domain.