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

[Pirate88179]

There has been MORE open sourcing and publishing of results and metrics on page 134 of this thread covering the miniqeg than what was came out of the entire 9 months of this FTW qeg boondoggle.

When the tv documentaries cover this qeg craze as they have so many other cults I hope they use this thread and TK efforts to show real open sourcing as a comparison to how FTW should have done it.

Take a look at this video where a guy wakes up to qeg fraud:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaTrlfU-Zzg

Good video.  And so it begins...

The truth is hard to suppress so hopefully, many others will finally get it and folks will stop investing in this mess.

What about the 5,000 Chinese engineers?  I wonder if they "get it" yet?  (Of course, they probably never existed anyway)

Bill

[TinselKoala]

Two issues.  I misinterpreted the pp as the half peak, so there's a big difference there.  RMS is 0.125^0.5*pp or 0.354*Vpp.  The second is that I thought you were using 1W resistors instead of 5W resistors.  11App = 15.13A² mean squared, or 15.13W/Ohm.  Total dissipation in two 0.5 Ohm resistors in parallel will be 3.78W, and 1.9W in each resistor.  So the bottom line is that you should be fine.

That's good because I feel fine.   

It's clear to me that you have "forgotten" more than I will ever know about power electronics! No worries mate, I think it's like swimming or riding a bike, it comes back quickly when needed.   

The resistors didn't heat excessively during the few minutes of off and on that I spent collecting the data. This puzzles me a bit since I tried the same resistors in another version of the same kind of device, only optimized more for distance transmission at around 800 kHz with a much lower inductance transmitting loop, and with that one the resistors became too hot really quickly, in just a few seconds. This experience is why I was hesitant to try them in the MicroQEG. But evidently the difference in frequency and the higher loop inductance in the MicroQEG made a big difference in how much of the "VARs" the resistors dissipate as real power.

[TinselKoala]

The resistance that you insert alters the phase angle.  0.25 Ohms against jwL = 8 Ohms is about a 3 degree distortion.  (snip)

Ok, that's expected. Now I believe that the true phase angle should be close to 90 degrees, probably around 87 degrees. A couple of different measurements have arrived at the 72 degree value, though, like this most recent one with the CSR. I would like to be able to "balance the books" if you know what I mean. So what can account for the reduced phase angle I seem to be measuring on the scope? How can I tease out the separate contributions to the phase angle measurement, without spending any money or developing special instrumentation buffer amps and filter networks?

[MileHigh]

I popped over to the Be-Do forum and it is as moribund as ever.  Like usual, there is almost nothing going on.

The "new thread" with the link to Naima Feagin's big blog post "Transparent Assessment of Challenges Faced During FTW QEG 3-Month Global Build Tour. Plus, target date for Phase 3 (Self Running) Completion." has one single reply and 393 views after 10 days.

Jamie has been back in Pa. for several weeks now and there is no news from him at all.  Laughingly, there is that clip of the fifth QEG to reach resonance.  That means that there are four non-working QEGs around the world and one non-working one in Pa.

August is just around the corner.  There will be no announcement of a self-runner that outputs nine kilowatts into a series of electric baseboard heaters sitting on the floor in the barn.  There will be nothing.

I can only imagine an "attempt to save face" video put out come early August that shows that they are "actually trying to do something."

The one question is if the poor limp noodles on the Be-Do forum (many of them presumably still reading here (like Germans in WWII putting their ears up to their radios to listen to the BBC)) will start to grow spines and cast off the "thoughtcrime" chains and actually speak their minds.  If poor Larry has to continuously delete postings the users on Be-do could share that information with IMs and eventually the truth about what people really think will have to come out.

I would not shed a tear if the whole thing implodes and the forum shuts down and a new forum starts up called "Survivors of the QEG Fiasco."   People could share their thoughts and talk about all the money they lost and all of the FTW promises that were broken.

Like the smell of napalm in the morning.

MileHigh

[MarkE]

Ok, that's expected. Now I believe that the true phase angle should be close to 90 degrees, probably around 87 degrees. A couple of different measurements have arrived at the 72 degree value, though, like this most recent one with the CSR. I would like to be able to "balance the books" if you know what I mean. So what can account for the reduced phase angle I seem to be measuring on the scope? How can I tease out the separate contributions to the phase angle measurement, without spending any money or developing special instrumentation buffer amps and filter networks?

I suspect that any erroneous phase shift is caused by:

1) Induction loop between scope probe commons and the scope chassis, and/or
2) Parasitic loading of the voltage measurement.

I would try the following:

Make up a 501:1 50 Ohm resistor divider ( 25K Ohm / 50 Ohm ), with the common side of the 50 Ohm reistor to the current probe common and use that with straight coax to the scope set for 50 Ohms at the input.  The 25K load will be very light on the 75V pp signal, and you will still have 150mV pp to work with.