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

[MileHigh]

Finally, I made a comment on the Be-Do YouTube clip.  I was surprised that comments were allowed.  Comments aren't allowed on HopeGirl's YouTube clip.

Will my comment get vaporized?

[ACG]

Ok. Who wants to be the first to bash this thing?
cheers,
chrisC


http://be-do.com/index.php/en/forum/qeg-news/386-qeg-morocco-overunity

How many paragraphs of pointless typing was done before beginning with meaningful information?  Classic m.o.
Trying more to get a novel publishing it seems to me.  Just disgusting.  Some people have no shame.

Who has noticed that neigther the FTW project domain nor the hopegirl2012 wordpress pages never provide an update?  Each update is at some other website.  Now this one at http://www.allegedlydave.com   Is this to cut down on the paper trail if the lawsuits begin?

And I thought Yello Journalism was dead.  Nothing says full of it like using "Hot off the press!!!"

[F_Brown]

A few comments:

The E=mc^2 equation is only for energy equivalent of rest mass.  For a mass in motion a kinetic energy component most also be added as the posted image shows, for a mass at rest the kinetic energy component is still actually there, it's just zero.

The mass differential between the electron and proton comes in to play in plasma physics, where electrons can be put into motion much more quickly than their positive counter parts.  This gives rise to some interesting things as the electrons in a plasma will arrive at a positive terminal before the positive ions will arrive at the negative terminal. 


Ari,

Do you have your load attached to the primary or secondary of your QEG, and what is the DC resistance of the primary?

[descripttime]

Hi MileHigh

thanks for your pertinent comment I quote hereafter:

Let's now just do a very basic crunching of the numbers from the clip.  We are going to make two very basic assumptions.

The first assumption is that the voltage and current are perfectly in phase.  It's a light bulb load and the frequency is relatively low and that's what we see on the scope display so that's reasonable.

The second assumption is that we are going to multiply the peak values by one divided by the square root of two, which equals 0.7071.  That's what's done for a sine wave.  This will not be perfectly accurate but we will live with that.  If I can get the model of the scope off of the clip I will look it up.

So, 1900 volts peak-to-peak, divided by two equals 950 volts.
950 volts times 0.7071 gives you 671.7 volts RMS.

From looking at the clip, I am going to say the peak-to-peak current range is 0.95 amps.
0.95 amps divided by two gives you 0.475 amps.
0.475 amps times 0.7071 gives you 0.3359 amps RMS.

Therefore the approximate output [color=#0081BD !important][/color] they seem to be measuring in the clip is 671.7 Volts RMS x 0.3359 Amps RMS.

The approximate output [color=#0081BD !important][/color] is 226 watts.

The electric motor is drawing 655 watts of [color=#0081BD !important][/color].

Therefore the efficiency of the QEG is 226/655 x 100 = 34.5%.

Are they a bunch of fools or is this a cynical planned event to stoke up the activity in their suite of PayPal accounts?

MileHigh <end of quote>


Dave's report after the video is confusing. You can be absolutely right with your calculation. I watched the video, the traces are 1.9 V p-p for the voltage, times 1000 for the Tek HV probe; and slightly less than 1 div. p-p for the current (don't know which shunt or current transformer they use).

So that your calculation of 226 W can be real.

I wrote a message to Dave to see if he will answer the following doubts:
- are those voltage and current traces related to a resistor inserted in the primary ? it would make sense, because they are in phase, but the report does not clear if this resistor was effectively connected. He said somewhere in the video "output voltage across the primary tank"  showing a multimeter with about 448 V. He says that the 600 W lamps bank was still there (as load on the secondary, if I understood correctly the report ?) and I understood there was a further (resistive ?) load in the primary. If true, then we had 600 + 226 W output, overunit though.
- I asked if 1.9 kV and 1 A were peak to peak values...

Let's give further credit to Jamie and Dave waiting for confirmation; let's assume they were in a hurry and tired and could not report all the details...

Best regards, descripttime

[descripttime]

Hi MileHigh,

the last part of my message was inserted in the quote, I repeat it here:

Dave's report after the video is confusing. You can be absolutely right with your calculation. I watched the video, the traces are 1.9 V p-p for the voltage, times 1000 for the Tek HV probe; and slightly less than 1 div. p-p for the current (don't know which shunt or current transformer they use).

So that your calculation of 226 W can be real.

I wrote a message to Dave to see if he will answer the following doubts:
- are those voltage and current traces related to a resistor inserted in the primary ? it would make sense, because they are in phase, but the report does not clear if this resistor was effectively connected. He said somewhere in the video "output voltage across the primary tank"  showing a multimeter with about 448 V. He says that the 600 W lamps bank was still there (as load on the secondary, if I understood correctly the report ?) and I understood there was a further (resistive ?) load in the primary. If true, then we had 600 + 226 W output, overunit though.
- I asked if 1.9 kV and 1 A were peak to peak values...

Let's give further credit to Jamie and Dave waiting for confirmation; let's assume they were in a hurry and tired and could not report all the details...

Best regards, descripttime