F_Brown,

You make a lot of good points and I will make a few comments.

For starters, a varying inductance in a circuit is unusual, but in theory it would be possible to jury-rig somehow.  It will not produce energy in any way, shape, or form.  The classic example is a spinning figure skater with extended arms.  When he or she retracts their arms, they speed up.  They speed up because energy is conserved.  That is literally an example of a mechanical inductor where the inductance changes with time.

I am not comfortable with the concept of power recirculating in an LC tank.  An LC tank is just a dynamic way to store energy, and power is a different thing altogether.   For example, you can say that at the peak voltage, the capacitor is storing 10 Joules of energy.  At peak current, the inductor is storing 10 Joules of energy.  When the energy is transferring from one to the other, it's still just 10 Joules of energy.

So in the real world, and in the case of the QEG, and using arbitrary values for illustrative purposes, you can state that the LC resonator in the QEG stores 10 Joules of energy, and there is a bleed off of power due to the wire resistance of 1 watt of power.  Since we are assuming that the energy in the LC resonator remains constant, then by definition the spinning rotor is injecting 1 watt of power into the LC resonator.  I will repeat, any varying inductance is just a side show, it does not affect the fundamental energy dynamics of what is taking place.

So going back to the QEG, when you are not in resonance, you still have an LC circuit that has the capability of storing energy.  It will be less energy when not in resonance at some given set of frequencies above and below the resonant frequency, hence the bleed off of power will be lower, and the adding of power will be lower.

We will assume the drive motor is 90% efficient.

Something like this:

                                              Energy stored in LC -  Power bleed from LC - Power injection into LC - Drive motor power
Below resonant frequency                 1 Joule                     0.1 watts                     0.1 watts                     0.11 watts
At resonant frequency                      10 Joules                     1 watt                         1 watt                       1.11 watts
Above resonant frequency                 1 Joule                     0.1 watts                     0.1 watts                     0.11 watts

So, if you are following this, the big jump in the LC resonator voltage at resonance just means it will store more energy, and as a result there will be a bigger power drain due to the wire resistance, requiring more power from the drive motor.

Now what happens when you add a light bulb load?  Since there is high voltage in the LC resonator, that will facilitate exporting power into the the light bulb load.  We assume that the peak voltage across the resonator will decrease because of the load.  That means less energy is stored in the resonator.  More critically, since you are at resonance, that means the LC resonator is more "receptive" to pumping more AC power into it at the right AC frequency.  The power is pumped into the LC resonator + light bulbs by the spinning rotor of the drive motor.

So you end up with an energy and power balance that looks something like this:

We will assume that the light bulb load draws 20 watts of power.  (I am always using simplified values for illustrative purposes)

                                              Energy stored in LC -  Power bleed from LC - Power injection into LC - Drive motor power
Resonance will light bulb load:             5 Joules                  20.05 watts                20.05 watts                  22.28 watts

So what this means is that when you hit resonance, the LC resonator facilitates the transfer of the mechanical power supplied by the motor into the the LC resonator and into the light bulbs.

If this is indeed what is truly happening, then the whole thing is either a) a con job to rake in money with no accountability, or b) a complete and total farce by people that have no clue what they are doing.

Note option b) is somewhat akin to a form of criminal negligence.  The law does not or should not allow you to be so stupid or so ignorant that you end up hurting people financially.

MileHigh

F_Brown,

Somewhere in the FTQ/HopeGirl online information they state that James M. Robitaille's name is on about 20 patents related to his working career.

For starters, I don't know if he truly is an engineer.  Does he have his diploma and is he a member of the engineering governing body in the United States, I don't know.  That is to be determined.

With respect to his name being on about 20 patents, in many cases there is a team of people that get their name on a patent.  It's actually the company's patent because when you work for a high tech company you typically sign an agreement where you give up any intellectual property that you develop over to your employer.

So, that means that James M. Robitaille did not necessarily develop the IP that went into the 20 or more patents.  He could have just been a bench technician that assisted the lead engineer or engineers on a given project.

I am just making it clear that until definitive information about his credentials or lack or credentials comes forth, then don't assume anything.

MileHigh

I think it was in the SA interview, that it was stated he was a "self taught" engineer.

I think it was in the SA interview, that it was stated he was a "self taught" engineer.

You can get criminally prosecuted if you try to claim that you are an engineer when you aren't one.  If you are an ethical person you don't call yourself an engineer, even in passing, if you don't have your diploma and your papers.

MileHigh

TK,

In a slightly related matter, recently I saw somewhere that the US Navy is going in the direction of "Star Wars."  For short to medium range defense of ships they are going to use pulsed LASERs.  It only costs about a buck worth of energy to deliver a lethal pulse of light at an incoming hostile aircraft.  So instead of lobbing a half-million-dollar missile at the threat they will punch a hole into it with a LASER.

I saw how the US Navy just launched a brand new very stealthy destroyer, the USS Zumwalt.  I bet you it has the pulsing LASERs...

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/04/15/orig-jag-uss-zumwalt.cnn.html

MileHigh

I think that the primary concern is how fast and accurately they can target and disable fast moving, close-in threats. Missiles can't both go really fast, and turn tight arcs.

The Zumwalt is scheduled to get rail guns as well.

In my model I1 is being used to drive the tank circuit, and B1 is being used to add some noise into the circuit.  Since the Inductor has 50 ohms of DC resistance it is dissipating energy.  The cap is also dissipating some energy although I set it's equivalent series resistance at 100 milli-ohms so that dissipation negligible.   

I am sure that the energy dissipated by the inductor is equal to the energy being added to the circuit by the current source driving the circuit, I1.

The value I got for the recirculating energy in my tank sim is so close to what James is claiming as peak output, that I'm getting the impression that James reported the value of the recirculating energy in the tank circuit as dissipated energy in the output load of the circuit.  Perhaps he is thinking of this as "generated energy."  A trained engineer would simply know better than to make that mistake. 

By the way this recirculating energy is what Joseph Newman was showing people.  He would say look, I turn the machine on and in just a few seconds it generates all this energy.  The problem is he failed to ever demonstrate a way to get the energy out of the machine on a continuous basis to do something useful.  It was Senator John Glenn that finally put him on the spot, and showed Newman's claim to be false.

No need to be an engineer to understand that or recognize that beforehand.  Wouldn't it be more like "oscillating power" rather than recirculating power, it does go back and forth more than round and round. 

Looks like a simple case of measuring the oscillating power and calling it output, not the first one and won't be the last. I think a few of us mentioned already that that was most likely the case. It is the same thing that people claim is evidence of free energy from Tesla's transmission devices, clearly it is not, this is a constant source of annoyance to me and others and it drags down the entire forum and community. You guys can imagine how difficult it is for someone like me to explain try to others about oscillating power/activity, power factor, reactive power and so forth, and that Tesla was not claiming any over unity from any of those transmission devices, it's an accumulation of active power I think because it is in phase, it can be used quickly "like to flash bulb" but then it is gone, depending on the ability of the supply and other circuit parameters depends on how long it will take to re-accumulate the same activity. 

Thank the heavens for the Engineers. Seriously, the same claims in a different box over and over again. The way to get reasonable proof of claims is to demand it and if it doesn't come then ignore them. Thing is people like to go against common sense, it seems like the "thing" to do these days.

Looks like these scammers are making a lot more money than the fake video ad - money / self runner people and in a much shorter period.

Cheers

MarkE:

Thanks for the comments and for the engineering issue it's about the same thing in Canada.

Farmhand:

Also great comments.   I will go back a few weeks and briefly discuss the children's swing "simulation" because it looks like the whole business with the QEG excitation with the rotor is essentially the same thing.  Note it's also the same situation when you have a pick-up coil on a pulse motor that is connected to a capacitor and it is being stimulated at the resonant frequency by the passing rotor magnets.

In all three cases you have a synchronous stimulation of an LC resonator where the stimulus "hits" the LC resonator for a brief time only and then it is completely decoupled from the resonator.  So for most of the time the resonator is free to oscillate without being disturbed or seeing the stimulus as a "back load."   By "back load" I mean that the LC resonator doesn't start discharging back through the stimulus because it's voltage is higher than the stimulus voltage.

Here is the circuit (Rev 0!) in very general terms:

The heart of the circuit is say a 1:100 transformer.  So we will view the transformer as a step-up transformer.  However, that's only for when you apply the stimulus.

The real purpose of the transformer is to act as an inductor, the "L" in the LC resonator.   The higher-turns secondary is the "L."   So as you can imagine you can connect a capacitor across the secondary and create your LC resonator.  All that you have to do is connect a charged capacitor to the secondary and capture the oscillations on your scope to precisely measure the LC resonant frequency.

The implementation of the temporary stimulus, "the swing push" is very easy and very familiar.  Let's assume that you have a 5-volt battery.   So you connect the +5 volts to the top of the primary.  You connect the bottom of the primary to the drain of your MOSFET.  The source of the MOSFET is connected to the battery ground.

With this very simple setup, when the MOSFET is on, you are pumping power into the LC resonator.  When the MOSFET is off, it's an open-circuit.  Therefore the primary "disappears" from the perspective of the LC resonator, it is not seen as a load where the secondary is trying to drive the primary.

Needless to say, if the secondary is open-circuit and you switch on the MOSFET, you will see 500 volts across the secondary.

The suggestion would be to have an LCR circuit on the secondary for initial testing.   The resistor would be across the secondary, i.e.; in parallel with the capacitor.

If you change the value of the R, it's like you're changing the "thickness" of the air using the child on a swing analogy.  The amount of time the MOSFET is on is analogous to the amount of time you push on the swing.

So if you pulse on the MOSFET at the resonant frequency you can play with the pulse length and the resistance, etc, etc.  The issue of the total wire resistance in comparison with how heavily or lightly you load the LC resonator gives insight into how the LC resonator will react, and so on.

So as you can see, this simple setup allows you to explore an LCR resonator below, at, and above the resonance frequency.  And it gives you a simulator for the child on a swing, a pulse motor pickup coil in resonance, or the QEG generator.

The key thing is to completely decouple from the LCR resonator after you apply your stimulus pulse.  The MOSFET going open-circuit when it is switched off does that for you.

This may end up being the sobering reality for the Fix the World/QEG people.  They are just playing with an LCR circuit and believing (or faking) in something that is simply not there.

Here is one more way to look at this whole setup:  Completely forget that there is a transformer.  All that you care about is the LCR resonator.  When the MOSFET switches on, the LCR resonator "experiences" an EMF injection of energy.   Can you see that?   In a synchronous fashion, the inductor in the LCR resonator will produce a "jolt of juice" seemingly from nowhere.  The inductor doesn't "know" that it's coupled to another inductor.  The only thing it "knows" is that an EMF source "appears" like a ghost and then disappears.

The one note of caution would be that if you pulse the setup at resonance with no resistor across the secondary, then you only have the wire resistance to deal with.  There is a possibility that the resonance voltage will get very high and explode your capacitors or damage your scope or something.  So the recommendation would be to start with a relatively low value load resistor to feel things out first.

MileHigh

Farmhand,

Yes, oscillating power would be a better term.


Miles Higher,

Well, in my sim at the peak voltage level the cap stores 0.5 * 29,000^2 * 10e-9 = 4.2 joules.  That is perhaps the best indication of what we are dealing with here.  The result is the same for what the inductor stores at peak current:  0.5 * 0.75^2 * 15 = 4.2 joules.

The the 11kw of oscillating power is really an illusion, and falls like a rock when a load is added.  I evolved the model to include a load, see attached image.

With a 1 giga-ohm load the oscillating power results are pretty close to the results just quoted for the model without a load.  Additionally, about 17 watts are being drawn from the current source driving the tank circuit, of which 16.4 watts are being dissipated in the primary and 0.5 watts in the load.  Most of the rest of the dissipation is in the cap with a tiny bit in the secondary winding.  At the same drive level and a 1 mega-ohm load,  the "oscillating power" drops to 121 watts, with 968Vpk and 25mApk.  The input power drawn from the current source drops to 0.59 W.     

So here we have 17 watts of input creating the illusion of 11kw of power, and 0.6 watts of input creating the illusion of 121 watts of power.  With the 1 mega-ohm load and 0.59W of input power 0.57 watts are delivered to the load for an efficiency of 96.6 percent.  That about typical of good laminated transformer efficiency, somewhere in the mid 90's, and I think the design of the QEG will have a good coupling coefficient between the primary and the secondary.  So, if the system is running 40 percent efficiency either the parametric drive works poorly or there is something wrong somewhere.   There is the efficiency of the drive motor to consider.  The QEG could be driven by some other power source such as a water wheel or a windmill.

James did say in the PESN interview he was driving a resistive load from the secondary of the QEG, although I've seen so many of these things over the years that I recognize how they go:  Big claims, fragmented videos, and erroneous schematics.  It's so recurrent it's cliche.

That's sharp of you to notice my misuse of word energy when I meant power.  I did notice my mind flip-flopping a few times deciding which term to use.  I do like to avoid repetition when possible.  Thanks for mentioning it.     

I lowered the value of the load resistor in the model to 505k and upped the drive to 50mApk @ 411 Hz .  The result is 775.7 watts drawn as input power and 762.4 watts delivered to the load for an efficiency of 98.3%.  It would be helpful to know what the DC resistance of the primary and secondary windings they are using.  With the 50 ohms of DCR in the primary, 13  watts gets dissipated in the primary winding and less then 0.1 watts gets dissipated in both the cap and secondary winding.  I'm using a 1:1 turns ratio in the model.  That's what makes such a high value load resistance necessary.  I believe James said he was using a 10:1 turns ratio.  For my simple sim I doubt that makes any difference for a rough efficiency analysis.

It's also interesting to note here that in this case with about 1HP of throughput, in the primary the peak voltage is 25.3kV and the peak current is 654mA giving the illusion of 8.3kW of oscillating power therein.  Looking at the peak stored energy can help the interested stay grounded here:  0.5 * 25,300^2 * 10e-9 = 3.2 Joules.  So there's just 3.2 joules of energy sloshing back and forth in the primary 411 times a second.  I wonder how many donations James would get if he mentioned that...