PCB:

Sometimes in a radio or an amplifier a connection opens.  Then when you listen to the speaker and tap the circuit board you hear the tap on the loudspeaker.  An open-circuit input somewhere in the circuit can be very sensitive to any EMF that might be generated from the mechanical tapping.  The input acts like a microphone.  The same thing can happen with tubes.  So for the clips you are talking about, you can do something analogous with your scope input.  If you hit a transformer or a coil core it's possible to generate a very tiny EMF signal of very high impedance. That means it so weak it can't even drive a 10 kohm resistor as a load, it would get shorted out.

The discussion above is not about mechanical resonance of the core.  However, something analogous would likely happen.  The only way for the coils to output power is for large amounts of changing flux to be traveling through the core.  We are talking real tangible power, hundreds of watts requiring massive amounts of changing flux.  If the core resonates mechanically, chances are it will be akin to the microphone effect.  I can't imagine any useful output from core resonance being more than a milliwatt.  It might more likely be a few microwatts.

Some people state that the resonance will modulate the permeability of the core.  If you can develop the mechanical stress levels to do that I suppose it can be done, I don't really know or have experience.  Nonetheless, modulating the permeability of the core is not expected to be a mechanism that will produce massive amounts of changing flux.  If there is flux already flowing and you modulate it, that's fine but somebody else is expending power to create the flux in the first place.

Going back to the mechanical aspect, you have to supply power to modulate the permeability in the first place.  I assume the theory is that the electrical resonance is supposed to match the mechanical resonance.  That's easier said than done, you would have to tweak the primary capacitance.  The coils themselves will put a small amount of mechanical stress on the core, so by changing the coil excitation frequency you might be able to detect when the core is resonating.  You could do a whole separate test with a signal generator and an amplifier if you wanted too.

In my opinion the whole business about the mechanical resonance of the core is not a real proposition.  Again, there is the real energy analysis:  Somebody has to provide the power to make the core mechanically resonate.  The resonating core probably is quite damped, meaning there will be losses to heat.  The power source for the mechanical resonance has to come from the input.  So that means you use input electrical power to make the core mechanically resonate to produce very weak electrical power output in the primary and secondary coils.  And your best-case scenario presumably is to have a frequency match between the primary LC tank circuit and the mechanical core resonance.  In my opinion, if you do all that you won't fund anything special.

It's a concept that I personally find to not be credible.  Sometimes in technology there are very specialized applications for things like this, but they are never touted as being sources of energy.  I believe that they have used and may still use acoustic delay lines in all sorts of applications.  It's just a slab of material that they beam signals through and with a microphone they pick up a delayed signal.  The answer is just a search away.

To go full circle, if there is a QEG replication group that believes that mechanical resonance of the core will produce over unity or aid in its production, then just do the research, design a set of experiments, and make your measurements and document your findings and find out if it's true.

MileHigh

Quote@MileHIgh

And your best-case scenario presumably is to have a frequency match between the primary LC tank circuit and the mechanical core resonance.

I only mentioned it because this was the explanation Jamie was giving for the extra energy back when he thought the secondary output was 240V , not high voltage pics or what ever as at least one other person is now proposing. I actually think that the resonant frequency of the primary was supposed to be at the mechanical resonance of the core. But I think things might have drifted a bit lately. The fact that Jamie later said that this was a high voltage output device is also pretty good evidence that he really never had a working prototype before going forth into the world I think. It is possible to resonate a transformer and make it sing. It would be interesting to look at the output on a scope under those conditions.


I just Googled "resonant transformer ring" and came up with this interesting snipet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonant_inductive_coupling  Lots of Tesla references.

I also did not think about the fact that the spinning rotor is also a possible driver of the mechanical resonance of the core, much more so than any mechanical excitation caused by the coils themselves.

Whatever, I am not expecting this to amount to anything.  There are already enough alleged "secret sauces" for the QEG and the test results so far are significantly under unity.  It's really annoying actually that Fix the World is trying to claim that they have gotten positive results.  It goes back to my challenge to all of the replicators to accurately and honestly report their input and output power measurements.  These monkeyshines are not earning FTW any credibility.

MileHigh

MileHigh

Something more germane to the "problem" of mechanical vibration in transformer laminations: 
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228995021_On_the_influence_of_core_laminations_upon_power_transformer_noise/file/72e7e52f11847de3bc.pdf

From reading the above we have: Alternating Electro-magnetic flux giving rise to Magnetostrictive forces (vibration of core due to magnetism) and Magneto-motive forces (Transverse motion of core laminations). This can lead to a lot of mechanical vibration and electrical noise. I would say most engineers would view the vibration and noise as loss components (a source of inefficiency) and not a source of energy. This could explain why their posted efficiency numbers are so low. After all when they get "resonance" the input power jumps up. It's got to be going some place, i.e. a lot of mechanical vibration.


PCB

Quote from: Farmhand on June 01, 2014, 05:16:59 AM
Why don't you just name the shills,

Would be great if they could stand up!

Quote from: Farmhand on June 01, 2014, 05:16:59 AM
and who is paying them ?

Do you know, maybe only ego/arm works, no idea YOU?

Quote from: Farmhand on June 01, 2014, 05:16:59 AM
Then someone can sue you for libel if they choose.

There choice, make my day!

Quote from: Farmhand on June 01, 2014, 05:16:59 AM
No one is fully anonymous, if legal action is taken the site administrators must provide user details if the correct legal procedures are followed. It happens .

Would be great, that nagging about every other from there arm-chair, but safe and easy hidden!?

Quote from: Farmhand on June 01, 2014, 05:16:59 AMSo man up and name names. Or not. Whatever.

So maybe nickname's should be banned, me you can find easy, why there fear, maybe most are stealing time from there boring job-Time, who nows!?

Quote from: Farmhand on June 01, 2014, 05:16:59 AM
We can say Hope girl is a scammer because it is obviously true. Nothing she can do about the truth being uttered.

Thats clear and easy, but why not more builders, almost writing more than real-only marketing people, to defend but what ................ ?

Quote from: Farmhand on June 01, 2014, 05:16:59 AMNothing to fear if there is clear evidence, no need to be coy.

Thats a good question: Why they have to write so bad over others, safe behind a nicky without own works or proof, just typing and typing new kind of ee, eee, ieee Bible's?

Would be nice to understand this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ckpQW9sdUg


Regards, Johan