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

[Acca]

 To all and  S. Wesley:
Here I have posted a new loopback generator effect that may work to explain the of  Dr.Umberto Stranieri of Platinum Invests in Spain, who is now in production of  the "loopback" generator, links are at the bottom of this post.. and pics of that production..
I am posting this on the QEG forum because it's here where it's most debated...
Putin has now began to increase the price of natural gas to Ukraine and these guys in Kiev need help..
Inventors from Kiev Ukraine, and Gorlovki in late 2013 registered a patent for the invention of the motor-generator, which on load does not slow down your work as usual motors, but rather accelerated.
http://generator-motor.info/data/uploads/en_docs/experiments_en.pdf
http://generator-motor.info/data/uploads/en_docs/principle_en.pdf
http://generator-motor.info/data/uploads/en_docs/invention_formula_en.pdf
patent in english: http://generator-motor.info/data/uploads/docs/wipo_pct_info.pdf
patent in russian: http://generator-motor.info/data/uploads/docs/patent_description_ua.pdf

Quote:

     Due to the non-standard method of generating , and the original design of the motor - generator , electric motor and generator modes are combined in one process, and are inextricably linked. As a result , while connecting the load , the interaction of the magnetic fields of the stator and rotor forms a torque in the direction which coincides with the moment generated by the external drive.

     In other words, when the power consumed by a load generator , the rotor of the motor generator begins to accelerate , and thus lowers the power consumption of an external drive .

Important! Two days ago I personally met with Sergey - one of the authors of the patent number 102808 "Method and the motor-generator to generate electricity ." At the moment, the inventors have a demo model , and actively looking for designers who are ready to calculate the sample engine. Need specialists who can conduct a series of development activities on the instructions of inventors to create a working prototype of the device . After creating a prototype it can repeat anyone.
http://generator-motor.info/contacts/
http://generator-motor.info/
http://generator-motor.info/about/

With suggestions may be directed to the contact information on the site or to me at «anton.mnko @ pure-energy.info» or on Skype «sermountain«.

To your attention the video experiments , which are clearly visible demonstration model and the testimony of all devices - voltage, current , engine speed before and after the connection of the load :
Motor-generator with an annular winding.
Patent on the motor-generator, which when connected to the generator load is not slowing down, and vice versa - without requiring accelerated increase the power.

overview
Written by: Anton Miroshnichenko
Date Published: 03/13/2014
Overview of the patent and a method for producing electricity using the motor-generator with an annular winding.
http://www.pure-energy.info/?p=234
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M92tbG2VOr4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXecIxEqR4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz_yZ3tMiLY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iCCYqIvHzk
http://generator-motor.info/data/uploads/docs/2_video_comments_new.pdf

 
  Here is the loopback generator made by

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M89QnJaPY8
here is the web sight:
http://platinum-invests.eu/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0aAjmnVO_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=387ErfGxpaU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiA0X54adEM

Spain Headquarter
+0034 96 131 82 57
email: info@platinum-invests.eu
Ronda Narciso Monturiol, 19‎
Parque Tecnológico C.P
Innovacenter II, Oficina nº 17
46980 Paterna (Valencia)

Bulgary Delegation
(+00359) 76 606 069
email: infobulgary@platinum-invests.eu
Via Sv.sv. "Kiril I Metodii" Nº 23,
ufficio 503 | Bulgaria, Pernik

USA Delegation
(+1) 702 358 0138
email: nevada@platinum-invests.eu
800 E Charleston Blvd. 89104
Las Vegas NV | ID nº 20-2870717
English

[Khwartz]

COP and efficiency are related but very distinct concepts. 

COP is a term almost totally exclusive to heat pumps.  COP refers to the ratio of heat energy moved from one temperature to another versus the amount of useful work that we have to add in order to effect that move.  If we move some quantity of heat:  Q from a reservoir at one temperature to another, then we still theoretically have the same quantity of heat Q.  We haven't used that heat to do anything.  In the ideal case we wouldn't have to add any energy, COP would be a division by zero, and be so large as to be undefined.  A COP of only 1 is very poor performance:  we have to add as much energy as heat we move.

Efficiency is a measure of the amount of useful output power obtained from the input power source.  Efficiency has built into it the presumption that the input is all theoretically useful.  In the case of a solar module efficiency tells us a lot about how much material we need, how much area we need to cover, and how hot the materials will get when exposed to a given irradiance.It would, but for COP it does not.  See above.That's right.  But except for heat pumps COP is generally a pointless metric.  In your example of a solar module the COP for any module is indefinite.That's right.  But it is not defined that way.  See above.COP is not relevant to over unity the way that most people discuss it.  If we used COP > 1 to mean over unity, then any mined fuel that produces more thermal energy than required to extract and refine it would also be over unity.  Since most people talking about over unity are interested in something to replace fossil and nuclear fuels that already have a COP > 1, COP > 1 doesn't tell us much about any prospective replacement.

Efficiency also ultimately has a problem when talking about over unity.  The way that most people discuss over unity is in terms of a device that produces useful output great enough to run itself and provide surplus.  Once such a machine is started it would generate useful output without any useful input.  The efficiency of such a device would be undefined.  Efficiency is a useful metric up to the point that an over unity device is configured as a self-running machine.  The meaningful values for efficiency are:  0 - 100%, and undefined.

Hi! I've just discover your discussion and here what I have just posted as comment to a Robert Murray video yesterday and today in YouTube:

Is Free Energy Possible : http://youtu.be/q2VDdkolU1U

To Robert Murray-Smith:

No, it is of course related but not "necessary" the same.

Q anyway is the heat we provide, if you use this ratio "Q/W", and it is NOT the same than the energy "taken in the reservoir"; why? Because the normally heat loses of the compressor are for most of the part used and added to, what we should label "Q-out". So "Q-out" always > "Q-in".

But, COP is here for FINANCIAL reason fondamentally, this is what everybody non-professional in the domain miss. E.g., win-turbines, solar panels, hydrau-electric power plants are all of INFINITE COP.

Regarding what is "Free Energy", I would say that partial "free energy systems" are all those of COP ] 1.00 ; infinite [, and true ones when COP = infinite. But is indeed only based on the viewpoint of THE ENERGY COST, while we use in engineering other kind of "COPs" which take care of the costs of the installation, of the financial of the maintenance, reduced to the year and kWh produced.

This last is for me THE REAL ONE, the real interesting and final COP; why again? Because it permits us to really compare different systems respect to the financial point of view: few systems could be cheap to construct, use, finance and having poor overunity COP but still good for poor people, and for those who has financial means, skills for, etc., more costly systems at the beginning may be much more interesting in the long run and in term of $/kWh/year (you know solar panels and wins turbines doesn't last for ever and need maintenance in industrial power plants... but heat pumps too, even if not infinite COP.).

Of course, COPs has few to have with "PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY" which are, theoretically, ALWAYS underunity at the scale of the universe but may be considered overunity if we restrain our point of view to a specific part of the universe (as Robert very well illustrates in his vid).

Wishing it could help.

[MarkE]

Mr. Murray-Smith restated much of what was in my post.  He states as I have that the COP for things such as petrol fuel, solar energy, wind, etc is far greater than 1.  When one looks at things that way it brings about a couple of implications.  The one that I pointed out is that using COP > 1 as a criteria for a new and better energy source is very dubious since the energy sources that we would like to improve upon already have such a COP. 

In the search for an energy source that would be considered over unity in the way that most people use the term, efficiency should be the guide. When and if the apparent efficiency takes that elusive jump from just under 100% to an indefinite value, then we've hit the OU jackpot.  If someone were to later determine that we actually have an input energy source to the machine, such as hypothetically ZPE, and one could find a way to measure the input then the apparent efficiency value would fall below 100%.

[Khwartz]

Robert is mistaking about fossils fuel COP > 1 because we pay for.

At the extreme viewpoint we would be allow to say that the person who would have petrol oil spontaneously from ground in his garden he/she would have free energy while using a fuel turbine able to convert this oil in electric or heat power for his/her house, through a generator; but of course it would be not necessarily clean energy.

In the same vane we shall say that a wood heater for the one live in a forest, not considering the cost of one's time, is a "free energy device".

COP are only related to a ratio between USEFULL ENERGY under COSTLY ENERGY; any other idea comes from non-professional of the domain who have never practiced nor studied the domain and have spread misconceptions about and much confusion. Even Ph. D. often make the same mistake but an engineer in an energetic engineering office should not.

Otherwise, I am fully agree with the PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY viewpoint.

[Paul-R]

Tom Valone also stated in an interview on American Anti-Gravity that a heat pump is an OU device.  His position is at odds with elementary physics.

It is a matter of definition.