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

[ACG]

Post #11 from hopegirl's blog:  http://hopegirl2012.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/opensourced-latest-discoveries-in-qeg-technology/#comments

Dear James and family and teams around the world, your Faith and your Persistence is seeing results! I never doubted that it will work and make history. Thank you so much James for your strike of genius on coming out on open surce and help begin a new era for humanity. Like very much the parallel of Noha and the ark, now it will be done in 100 days! Thank you also for the latest updates, you are Bellissimo! From QEG forming team in Middletown NY.

August 21, 2014


It is this type of excuse my language, horse shit, that keeps the scam funds rolling.  Rebuttal in the same sequence as quoted.  What results?  What results does this poster see or has been seen by James and family?  Under unity and deliberate miscalculations to fool the uninformed?  Ah, the results of free money perhaps. 

What strike of genius?  Perhaps the originators of the concept of open source but qeg open source falls far from the height of genius.  And by the way, having a file downloadable does not constitute open source.  If so every file on the world wide universe web would be open source.  Poster should have said closed source.  FTW group does not come out with any updates until after a deadline and then only to ask for more money.  After the suckers fork it over and over again FTW goes missing and return like a vampire when the lust for more is insatiable.  The report from U.K. is still at large.  The be-do forum is the antithesis of open source as for as genuine analysis of qeg.  The very people claiming to fix the world stifle comments on their blogs and refuse free information exchange on their video uploads.  Must be that new age open source I guess.

Done in 100 days delusion of grandeur?  Does this poster not know how to add the dates of months?  Thank you for the latest updates.  Really.  Lets see, the latest update this time around is that there has not been a change since May 2014 or even far back as September 2013.  I few light bulbs are lit under unity.  Yes, thank you James and family for your latest updates.


A good con learns to adapt.  Thanks to true open source places like this forum, pressure is placed on FTW forcing them to change up their story line ever 30 days.  And adapt the dolla dolla bill girl is doing.  She dropped the fixed dates schtick and now leaves it open ended as to when the world is to be saved.  Real smart move.  She can no longer be questioned why as was done numerous times already to not accomplishing what she said was to be done every 30 days that was claimed to be only hours away from completion.  Various groups have backed out after not seeing the results chanted to exist by the qeg elk.  The effects of hopium laced drinks are subsiding.  Still, there will be those who cling to the qeg hype years after its all over.  Mark my words, I 100% guarantee, if undeniable evidence were to surface and the ftw admitted to premeditated fraud, there will !!STILL!! be a few qeg factions that linger saying well yeah they were crooks but maybe... maybe if we make a few adjustments to the windings the qeg will work.

[Farmhand]

Maybe it was just a typo then, but you wrote:
"83.5 VA x 0.987 = 78.4 VAR"
You also seem to be trying to subtract VAR's from VA's? You can't do that mate. 
They are vectors at different phase angles. This is why they all have different units.
You have to use special vector math to add and subtract vector values at different angles.
You can't use ordinary addition and subtraction.
Just Vrms x Irms x PF is all you need to calculate real power,
but of course these measurements have to be accurate.

Yes Ok I can grasp that.

Using your odd measured numbers, I get:
(A current lag of 200 degrees is the same as a current lead of 160 degrees, and both give the same power factor,
so the phase angle can be expressed as lagging 200 or leading 160 degrees. Either way, same result.)
84.6 Vrms x 0.98 Arms x Cos(160) =  -77.91 Watts.  Now that's impressive. 
(I am assuming you are using a 0.1 ohm CSR)

I can't explain it, but I will think about it. Maybe someone can see what is happening.
The difference in inductance introduced by a wire wound 0.1 ohm CSR and a non inductive CSR
should not make much difference here I wouldn't think, unless whatever you are using has
an unusually large amount of inductance.  Probably something else is going on here.

It might look impressive to some but that figure is very small compared to what the figure is with other loads.
It's not minus 77.9 Watts is it ? Because it can't be can it ? That is what I am showing, that "activity" does very little
except oscillate, and if we load the tank we can only get so much out before the resonant rise is reduced to transformation ratio.
Yes I'm using a 0.1 Ohm - 5W ceramic power resistor, inductance is 119 uH, capacitance is about 1200 pF frequency 420 kHz.
I have a 2 kV probe on the yellow channel so that is set to 100 x and the regular probe is set to 10 x. The voltages are close
and expected from resonant rise, the tank current is also not that much considering that the secondary coils have only less than
0.3 Ohms DC resistance and the primary has only 0.06 Ohms resistance. I used a calculator for the Q of the coils only and the
secondary calculates at 1046 while the primary calculates to 369.

Edit:
Do you have your scope probes set to x10 and your scope channel settings configured for the same multiplication factor of x10 as well?
Just wondering if that might be a factor for the measured voltages? That should not affect phase angle measurement though.

P.S. For your 'betterflurosh.csv' file scope data, I calculated an average power of 2.597 Watts.
I assumed a CSR value of 0.1 ohms for the channel 2 current measurements.

2.59 Watts sounds pretty good to me.  68 % efficiency indicated in that. The other side tank is taking some energy to run
from the input as well. With both loaded the efficiency should be better.

Yes I turned on the bandwidth filters only because the current trace at times can be scratchy looking. I can turn them off no
probs but it doesn't make much difference.

My main goal here is to show that using the grid as the input is cheating. Also when people use a transformer then measure
the output of that and the input of the device the transformer efficiency is completely ignored but it is part of their circuit.

People don't want to believe anything you educated guys say. And I am sick and tired of all the B.S. reactive power claims
ruining the minds of so many people it makes trying to collaborate anywhere almost impossible, so many are infected.
So if I being a amateur can show what would appear to a beginner as OU then correct the measurements and get a proper
result then it might hold some weight.

So If I connect a transformer to one of the outputs of my setup while the other output is doing something else then
I can just measure the transformer in and out to get an efficiency figure for powering that load can I ? because that
is exactly what people do when they plug into the grid and test any device be it a BiTT or a SERPS ect. The actual input
to my device is not relevant ? Only the transformer input and output will give a full and true cost of running the load ?

No it will not. it will give the efficiency of the transformer, but it definitely will not reflect the cost of running the load
with anything else but the grid. If we use an inverter, there is the idle power to add in and battery charging losses. ect.

If the grid was to evaporate and we had to generate all our own power then the cost of running a transformer just went up
and if you load that generator with a lot of reactive devices it will not be able to output as much power as when all devices
are PF 1.0 the efficiency of running the generator will go down.

So I say pull the plug out of the wall and use either a fuel powered generator or something powered by a battery, then they will
see the full cost of running things and realize that loads with poor power factor are bad. And that if they had to run the
generator they would be better off correcting the power factor of the loads they can.

..
The FTW teams claim "OU in VARS" we know how silly that is but many people posting here think that's great and real.
Who except for TK and myself are showing that to be a major load of BS.

Minus 77.9 Watts means 77.9 Watts is being returned to my primary ? I don't think so somehow.

Now we see why the subject need to be simplified. And why so many bogus claims arise especially when they use the grid,
because I can see the input to the device from a Battery or DC supply I can tell that is not happening, but others would claim
it was sending energy back to the grid. hahahahahaha

Resonant rise with these setups can go to over 1600 Volts p to p and several Amps RMS with 12.3 volts input at about .6 to .7 A.
Transformation ratio is 1:5, with 8 primary turns and 40 secondary turns. So it is good for fluro's which is what I want it for
but while I'm experimenting I am trying to show even I can out do the FTW teams as far as the silly "OU in VARS" goes.

"Magnification factor" would outdo a lot of peoples Tesla coils. 
..

If I connect an efficient transformer to an output with a resistive load attached I would get high efficiency like any good
transformer. But that doesn't reflect the full cost of powering the resistive load. To get the true cost we need to factor in
the cost of generating the AC power. And I think even the cost of charging the battery (in dissipated energy) is part of
the cost if a battery is used as the source of stored potential energy, so the cost in energy of digging up the coal and
burning it to turn the turbine is also part of the cost (in energy expended).
.

[Farmhand]

Did some research on this.

I did find this http://www.pure-energy.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DispellingMythsAboutReactivePowerinResonantCircuits.pdf

Also, I noticed this calculation "83.5 VA - 78.4 VAR = 5.1 Watts ". I mentioned about fifteen pages back that this was incorrect math. You need to use vector addition and subtraction so sqt(83.5*83.5 - 78.4*78.4) = 28.7 W

28.7 Watts where ? That is more "out"of reality than the result I got. If Watts is real power than that is serious OU.
3.8 Watts input don't forget. It can't be Watts it must be something else. The only logical thing it can be is reactive power
or "activity".

It doesn't matter really if it's 76 or 28 if those are Watts it's wrong isn't it. There isn't 28 Watts of heat leaving the
device that's for certain. The output is not 28 Watts either.

At least 5.1 Watts sounds about right and correlates somewhat with the brightness of the fluro, it's brighter
than 2.7 Watts. It's more like about the equivalent brightness as 6 Watts makes a 10 Watt tube. That doesn't
mean 6 Watts was consumed. Edit: I meant to say there that it doesn't mean i am claiming my device was powering
the fluro with 6 Watts. Just that it looked like it was being powered by 6 Watts of power kind of thing. It shines pretty bright.

If I connect a 6 Watt fluro and power it then it lights just like one does with over 6 Watts input from a small fluro driver I
bought to my eye. No joke with 3.8 Watts input. Actually until the light meter arrives I use can use a small fluro driver for
a light "brightness" comparison.

So my best guess is that it is very efficient at lighting small fluro's with that input level. I can easily double the input by
doubling the input voltage. But I don't think the small 6 Watt one could get much brighter, the 10 Watt tube could get
brighter by a bit but it doesn't look like 2.7 watts would do what is is doing, must be closer to the input power than that.
I'd say it's fairly efficient for fluro's.  A 36 Watt 4 foot fluro strikes and lights up but it's not as bright as the 10 Watt one
but I think it gives off more light overall.

Brightness to look at is different to light to see by in a room.

You see for the practical use of the device the output power measurement is irrelevant only the input and the
light output matters everything else is just finding out for curiosity or for preserving the life of the tube.

It could be possible that if driven in certain ways the fluro could give off more light for the same or less input. And I
don't mean just the HF aspect because the small fluro driver works at 20 kHz or something anyway.

Applying spikes of voltage higher than I am using will produce larger spikes of current than I get but less often and
no applied sine wave of voltage.

I should scope the small fluro driver I guess and have a look at least at the voltage trace.

If someone says 28 Watts that's fine, if someone else says 76 Watts that's all good too, but it's wrong. No ?

..

[Farmhand]

To me the FTW claim and the SERPS claim are more or less the same, they are saying that the VAR can be utilized not just
continuously but also without paying for it in generation costs.

So it's all relevant.

If I have a 10 klm distribution line (not reality just thinking out loud) just say the line has 10 Ohms DC resistance,
then if we connect a load with a power factor of 0.5 and there is 240 VRMS and 10 amps of current to the load.

So we then have 2400 VA x 0.5 = 1200 Watts and 1200 VAR, so the current supplied is double that which is used.
Now all the current is still there 10 Amps. both ways with AC, so the losses associated with reactive power are not
from the reactive power itself but from the excess current need in the first place. What is dropped is voltage
across the load. The current remains the same. So the potential energy in the volts x amps in phase is all the energy
that gets transferred to the load.

Therefore if a resistive load like a filament bulb is, through some miracle actually made to act "reactive" the filament would
have to pass more current than it should. And the out of phase current would not be "allowed" to heat the filament.

As for the QEG we ought to be able to roughly calculate the Q of the coils and the resonant rise while loaded with the bulbs
he's using in a video then we should be able to calculate the drop in Q due to more load roughly, and predict fairly well
the required circumstances to get 20 kW out of it.

I think MileHigh did do some calculations along those lines.

Anyway I'll wind an output coil so I can drive the ferrite transformer and remove the measurements from the device a bit.
Then I can measure the efficiency of the transformer when driven like that. A resistive load on the output of that transformer
will allow me to just measure the input and output of that transformer for an efficiency figure same as many others do. 
.

If the FTW team get a hold of a SERPS device then they will be in seventh heaven. See my point !

They won't even need to measure their device any more just a transformer between it and the SERPS or "SERPS like" device.

Set Phasers to "kill" Mr Spock. These space critters are dangerous ! 

..

[MarkE]

Did some research on this.

I did find this http://www.pure-energy.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DispellingMythsAboutReactivePowerinResonantCircuits.pdf

Also, I noticed this calculation "83.5 VA - 78.4 VAR = 5.1 Watts ". I mentioned about fifteen pages back that this was incorrect math. You need to use vector addition and subtraction so sqt(83.5*83.5 - 78.4*78.4) = 28.7 W

The relation between VA, VAR, and Real power, S, Q, and P is:  VA² = VAR² + P² as you applied to derive P = (VA² - VAR²)^0.5.  So, since Farmhand isn't observing anything close to 30W of real power dissipation, then probably the 78.4W was obtained incorrectly due to a phase angle error or other measurement anomaly.  If his dissipation is in the 5W range and the 83.5VA measurement is correct (should be with good true RMS measurements), then the reactive power should be more like 79.7W.   Just 2.7 deg phase error would account for the difference.