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

[TinselKoala]

Measurements of two coils of the same size and with the same number of turns, one with a single, the other with a bifilar winding, show differences in voltage gain. These bifilar coils can be explained solely on the basis of their electrical activity. A bifilar coil is capable of holding more charge than a single wound coil. When operated at resonance, the distributed capacitance of the bifilar coil is able to overcome the counter electromotive force (emf) normal to coils - inductive reactance.

Your last sentence is incorrect, as I have pointed out MANY TIMES before. That phenomenon occurs only at one specific frequency, not "At resonance" but at the coil's self-resonant frequency, and it's not a matter of "overcoming" but rather that the inductive and capacitive reactances match. The bifilar coil has more capacitance. This means that AT A GIVEN RESONANT FREQUENCY it will require, IF IT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY CONSTRUCTED, less external capacitance than a straight-wound coil of the same dimensions would. It also means that the SELF_RESONANT FREQUENCY with no external caps will be LOWER than the straight wound coil's. This was important to Tesla because large high voltage capacitors were expensive, bulky and dangerous in his day, and using a bifilar flat pancake primary allowed him to use less or even no external caps to make a resonant tank for his primary circuits using this type of coil.

Here: Meditate on this graph for a while. Perhaps you will note from that that, at resonance, for any coil, the inductive and capacitive reactances match. This is why the reactance calculator here only gives a single value for the reactance.
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-XLC.htm

[synchro1]

Now you've developed some kind of copy paste allergy. How'd you get that chart uploaded? You're the one with the twisted jargon. 

[TinselKoala]

Now you've developed some kind of copy paste allergy. How'd you get that chart uploaded? You're the one with the twisted jargon.

No, synchro my dear.

I am the one with devices that WORK, sitting on my desk, and which behave according to the standard formulae we have been discussing. And I am the one with devices that are accurately SIMULATED by Isim.

YOU are the one who does the twisting. How many times is it now that you have outrageously misrepresented my work?  You are indeed twisting-- in the wind.

[Shanti]

@synchro1:

I get the impression you fell into the Bedini/Lindemann trap, meaning there's anything special and mysterious going on, on the collapse af a magnetic field.
But as has been said and explained here, all is perfectly within expected results.
The terminology that is used by some people, what is now the "definition" of a field collapse, and now debating about it is IMHO futile.
Not the wording is the important part, but the behaviour and it's effects. And here everything is as expected.

[synchro1]

Someone machined a  costly ferrite toroid, some other "Show Off" fraud slapped together another piece of cardboard crap, called it a QEG and got sanctimonious about their project.


The A.C. field collapse is the source of the inductive reactance that the bifilar coil avoids through field cancellation. The bifilar coil has no negative micro henries. This is a measure of reactance. How do you measure reactance? Inductive reactance causes waste heat. This is basicly static in the inductor.
There's no way anyone can get the single wire coil to loose it's negative micro henries, and run as cool and efficiently as the Tesla series bifilar with the same A.C. signal.