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

[minnie]

    My teacher told me that vars were "parasitic", that should tell us something!
I was looking at Amtrak's 25 hz system and it's amazing what they got up to in
the olden days. Those robust old machines sure could take some stick.
            John.

[MarkE]

I am talking about circuits virtually identical to yours, using coupled toroidal or other styles of transformers, "Bitoroids" or William Alek's transformers or many others we see, such as the QEG itself. I know that _YOU_ do not make such mistakes or claims.

But why-how do other people find it so easy to fool themselves with these kinds of circuits involving coupled toroidal transformers, or other shapes of transformers? We see it all the time. You may recall that we have even seen at least one actual Professor of Physics, formerly at a well-respected university, claiming that a simple Joule Thief circuit was massively OU.

I think it is the resonant rise, combined with a lack of understanding of reactive "power", combined with a general misunderstanding or poor understanding of power measurements in general. But it would be good to have a more rigorous analysis of this "fail" than I can provide, so I am asking you and MarkE and whomever else may be interested (and qualified) to help explain how spurious measurements in these circuits can lead to false claims of "overunity".

From comments I saw at the time the professor's problem was a combination of factors:

Failure to understand the conventional theory behavior of the circuit under test.  The transformer and the base capacitor do not form a tank circuit. 
Failure to confirm extraordinary apparent measurements with an independent technique.
Failure to conduct control experiments.  Both input and output average power levels are easily measured using decoupling networks.  This was never done.
Failure to understand and use oscilloscope probes properly.  He did not understand the effects of the huge induction loops in his wiring and his scope probes.

I don't know if he has renounced all claim to over unity with that very under unity circuit of his.  But, I do note that at least as of two years ago he renounced the "8X overunity" claim:

PhysicsProf
Position: Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1715
   
Re: Mark Dansie claims this solid-state device works...
« Reply #24 on: 2012-11-23, 18:07:40 »
   
  Perhaps I did not make myself clear, so let me restate:  I do not claim that my little reverse-JT device produces 8x more energy out than in; while I continue to pursue various paths seeking a device to benefit mankind.

On this video interview with Sterling Allan he was definitely claiming over unity:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7tj5VT_lw

[MarkE]

Hi TK,

Are you talking about my circuits posted here?

I have not claimed any OU in those circuits, ever. My goal with those circuits is to make a low loss
unit for powering mains voltage LED bulbs from one 1,5 Volt D-cell battery.

GL.

A NiMH AA would be better than an alkaline D for that application as it has much lower internal resistance. 

[Groundloop]

A NiMH AA would be better than an alkaline D for that application as it has much lower internal resistance.

Mark,

I have a question for you. If you first feed a Ferrite cored tank circuit to store energy in the tank circuit,
and then switch off the input and simultaneous switch in more Ferrite core material, then will the stored
energy in the tank circuit increase because you did change the inductance to a higher value?
(Let us assume that you can switch in more Ferrite material very fast without any losses in this thought experiment.)

GL.

[TinselKoala]

You may find this paper of interest:

http://emph.com.ua/11/pdf/fowler.pdf