Author Topic: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl) (Read 2015206 times)

MileHigh · « **Reply #1020 on:** May 19, 2014, 01:53:27 AM »

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 power they seem to be measuring in the clip is 671.7 Volts RMS x 0.3359 Amps RMS.

The approximate output power is 226 watts.

The electric motor is drawing 655 watts of power.

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

MileHigh · « **Reply #1021 on:** May 19, 2014, 01:56:25 AM »

Ari please resize your image to a much smaller size because otherwise it will mess up people's ability to read the thread.

Thanks,

MileHigh

ariovaldo · « **Reply #1022 on:** May 19, 2014, 02:06:06 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on May 19, 2014, 01:56:25 AM

Ari please resize your image to a much smaller size because otherwise it will mess up people's ability to read the thread.

Thanks,

MileHigh

I still learning.......
Thanks

stivep · « **Reply #1023 on:** May 19, 2014, 02:20:41 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knq_jIyWxhY&feature=youtu.be[/font]

Some more of secrets of Vasmus Free Energy Device part #9.
Free Energy is the energy that is Free of charge but energy must come from somewhere and be converted to usable form of energy
at minute 5:46 please note that 0.44 A current is clearly showing that voltage must be high on the tungsten light bulbs. Total power written in the light-bulbs divided at 0.44A gives you voltage.
at 5:17 minute Vasmus is increasing current on the ground wire using potentiometer.
That clearly states about push- pull electron pump mechanism with time delay.
The inertia of the mass particles electrons once activated has its own free flow mass delay.
Once activated electrons flow ( move) from the ground and loosely coupled coil of load winding ( big coil) is dissipating that energy at "pull' interaction not allowing mass to stop as next demand for electrons flow is just continuation of inertia.
The low frequency carrier is modulated with high frequency picks at very top of the amplitude presenting as DC of given with.
The amplitude of that square pics is much bigger as low amplitude carrier.

Modulation:
You could picture it as very narrow very high square picks of DC at frequency higher that the carrier.
The rising edge and falling edge of such impulse is very short however for us the important is that in the sloping down time there is at certain point the carrier of its very unique time base amplitude level.
The picks are present only - from 0 to maximum of the carrier.

That is very much like Lithuania Experiment.

Wesley

MileHigh · « **Reply #1024 on:** May 19, 2014, 02:33:59 AM »

It appears to me that the oscilloscope that they are using is an older-generation Tektronix DPO3054 model. I am really out of touch with this stuff but I will assume the scope is somewhere between three and 10 years old.

I am going to assume that the scope they are using could display real-time RMS values for each scope channel. I am also assuming that it may be able to do multiplication and averaging.

So in other words with RMS values, or with multiply + average, you could get a near-instant or instant reading for the average power going into the light bulb load.

If James has been working in tech for so long, and also very recently, how come he can't drive that scope like an expert and make his life easier?

For me the jury is out on this, and I give them the benefit of the doubt in the sense that they were very busy experimenting and they were not tinkering with the scope.

However, James could do exactly the same "paper napkin" calculations that I just did and see the truth staring him in the face.

The next logical step from the QEG team is a retraction of the over unity claim made in the recently posted clip and an apology. If they don't do that then it will be the nail in the coffin for them with respect to their character, integrity, and motivation.

MileHigh

MileHigh · « **Reply #1025 on:** May 19, 2014, 02:46:00 AM »

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 · « **Reply #1026 on:** May 19, 2014, 02:56:49 AM »

Quote from: chrisC on May 19, 2014, 12:20:43 AM

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 · « **Reply #1027 on:** May 19, 2014, 05:09:07 PM »

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 · « **Reply #1028 on:** May 19, 2014, 10:03:22 PM »

Hi MileHigh

thanks for your pertinent comment I quote hereafter:

Quote

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 · « **Reply #1029 on:** May 19, 2014, 10:05:22 PM »

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

MileHigh · « **Reply #1030 on:** May 19, 2014, 11:34:03 PM »

Hi Descripttime,

It looks like the voltages are reasonable for what you would observe on the secondary if you had six light bulbs in series. For example, 120 VAC is 339 volts peak-to-peak. So six times 339 volts is 2034 volts. Likewise it's reasonable to assume that James had a current sensing resistor on the secondary. At the same time I acknowledge that this is not an official report from the QEG team. At the same time HopeGirl posted it on her YouTube channel with the title "QEG Overunity."

The fact that one bulb is dimmer than the rest can be explained if you assume it was a 100-watt bulb and the other five bulbs were 60-watt bulbs.

On Facebook Dave stated that someone loaned him the equipment. It looks like it is pretty certain that Dave is not technical and that's why he did the incorrect power calculation. Why didn't James correct him? It's the same phenomenon with respect to Dave that you see on the forums; he likely doesn't know what he is talking about for the technical stuff but he assumes that he is correct anyway and has not admitted his lack of knowledge. Dave said something like "you can get more power from the primary, we discovered that." That's nonsense, the primary and secondary are locked together and if you suck power out of the primary then less power will be available on the secondary. We will see if these misconceptions get cleared up over the next few days.

Carl Cunningham posted my power calculation in Dave's Facebook comment thread eight hours ago, it's now 5:30 PM EDT, and 10:30 PM BST in London, England. Not a single person in the Facebook comment thread has commented on the power calculation or even acknowledged that it was posted. I find that disconcerting. Many non-technical people are fully aware of RMS voltage measurements and know that you use RMS values and not peak-to-peak values to measure AC power.

Right now my assumption is that there was no load on the primary, and the light bulb load was on the secondary, and the scope traces were measuring the voltage and the current for the light bulb load.

For me one of the big mysteries is James. Was he really an engineer, or is he bluffing and he has always worked as a bench technician? Was he building test jigs and making the measurements that he was directed to make by the engineers that he worked with? He is on very shaky ground, he is improvising on the fly and I think he stated that he is going to try the suggestion about putting the load on the primary. In theory there is no reason to do unusual variations on the design.

Technically, I don't think having a resistive load on the primary or the secondary will make much difference. Either setup should look more or less like the same Lenz drag load to the spinning rotor. Either setup will be under unity, and the efficiency is likely to be somewhere between 30% and 40% no matter what they do. It all goes back to the WITTS gang, they never had anything either. WITTS has no credibility on the free energy forums and are considered by the majority of the forum regulars to be scam artists.

MileHigh

MileHigh · « **Reply #1031 on:** May 20, 2014, 01:16:19 AM »

Descripttime,

One more comment from your statement:

Quote

So that your calculation of 226 W can be real.

Indeed it can be real and when you look at the apparent brightness of the six light bulbs, 226 watts seems to be about right.

In contrast to that, if Dave's wild estimate of nearly 2 kilowatts was actually true, the six light bulbs would simply not be able to sustain that amount of AC power and one of them would quickly burn out and open the circuit.

By the same token if you actually had six 400-watt incandescent light bulbs plugged into the setup, and the power was nearly 2 kilowatts, they would be blindingly bright and they would also produce a lot of heat. Clearly that didn't happen.

I will just repeat that these are "disconnects" in the testing process that should not be happening if James really knew what he was doing. James and HopeGirl are on the "professional" side of free energy experimenters. From my perspective, if you are a pro, then you will be scrutinized in more detail and mistakes will be pointed out.

We will see if any group that builds a QEG will be able to present their data in a credible and professional way. That includes even if they fail to get over unity. Unfortunately, there is a good chance that groups that fail to achieve over unity simply won't present any data at all. They will simply "run away." That's a possible explanation for the silence from the engineering group in Taiwan.

MileHigh

ariovaldo · « **Reply #1032 on:** May 20, 2014, 02:02:01 AM »

Quote from: F_Brown on May 19, 2014, 05:09:07 PM

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?

A) High voltage coil ( 3100 turns of 20 awg wire)
33 Ohms
13 Farad without rotor
18 Farad With the rotor

B) Low voltage coil ( 350 turns of 2X16 awg wire)
1.0 ohms
0.26 Farad without the rotor
0.32 Farad with the rotor

Cheers
Ariovaldo

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1033 on:** May 20, 2014, 02:33:37 AM »

I am continually amazed by how these people, and others of their ilk, measure "output power". They all act as if the measured output power was a property of the device under test, rather than the load itself.

Consider this: You have a power source, the mains outlets in your home. Plug in a 100 Watt nameplate value incandescent bulb, and _measure_ the power output of the wall socket. What do you get? 100 Watts or thereabouts, if you have done it right.
Now unplug that bulb and plug in a 1500 Watt electric heater. Measure the power output. What do you get? 1500 Watts, or thereabouts. But NOTHING about your mains plug has changed! It is still the same plug connected to the same wiring all the way back to the power plant.

So what gives? Why didn't this source put 1500 watts into the light bulb, why didn't it put 100 watts into the electric heater? Because the power drawn from the source is determined by the LOAD, not the supply, that's why, as long as the load doesn't want more power than the supply can provide. With a purely resistive load, it is the _resistance_ of the load that determines the _current drawn_ by the load at the _supply voltage_.

Is this starting to make sense? So for someone to claim "2 kW" power output.... one MUST have a real load that will draw enough current at the supplied voltage to result in 2 kW power dissipation in the load.

Wiki says,

Quote

The actual resistance of the filament is temperature dependent. The cold resistance of tungsten-filament lamps is about 1/15 the hot-filament resistance when the lamp is operating. For example, a 100-watt, 120-volt lamp has a resistance of 144 ohms when lit, but the cold resistance is much lower (about 9.5 ohms).

So to keep six 100 Watt incandescents in series fully lit, you need to supply 720 volts to a resistance of 864 ohms.... and the current will be I=V/R= 0.83 Amps, and the power dissipation will be.... wait for it..... I²R= 600 Watts. And this power is determined by the LOAD, not the source, as long as the source is capable of providing the current that the load demands.

So a real 2kW power output would be, say, 20 ea. 100 Watt bulbs in a 10-series, 2- parallel arrangement? So you "only" need to supply 1,200 volts to a resistance of 720 ohms.... resulting in a current demand of 1.67 Amps.... and the power dissipation will be 2000 Watts. How about that.

So where is the instrumental measurement that shows, simultaneously and in-circuit, the 1,200 volt output of the device and a current of 1.67 amps being drawn by the load?

And then.... when you realize that all of the above voltage and current values are RMS.... and that the peak voltages will be 1.4 times the RMS and the peak-to-peak of the AC signal will be nearly 3 times the RMS values..... you will be looking at some mighty large values on the oscilloscope traces to show a true 2 kW output.

As an aside note, in the most recent photos from Morocco I can see a current sense transformer of the Rogowski coil type being used for current monitoring. Are they using it properly? Highly unlikely, judging from the photos.

The bottom line is that, once again, we are being treated to outlandish claims of overunity, being made on the basis of incorrect and improperly performed measurements done with equipment that is being used improperly _but which is capable of making the proper measurements_. Yet the individuals doing the measuring will NOT listen to advice and use the equipment that they have, properly, to make and interpret measurements correctly. Meanwhile the naive cheering section continues to chant and moan in ecstasy over a few light bulbs lighting up, poorly and with lots of noise.

Farmhand · « **Reply #1034 on:** May 20, 2014, 03:01:49 AM »

Ari what are we looking at in the picture ? Is it part of the core and windings over wrapped by tape with an arc burn mark between ?

I have to say that people doing this kind of thing should definitely make provision for limiting the voltage in the tanked coils. Similar things can happen with NST's when they are open circuited when tuned by caps or used in resonant transformer supply duties, same with MOT's, MOT's have the secondary electrically joined to the core so the windings closest to the core are tied to the same potential by the inside end of the secondary winding. The potential difference between winding might remain fairly low but the potential difference to the core could be great.

James' voltage limiter is the spark gap which is not good for a home use device as a consistent sparking of a spark gap could interfere with things.

For unqualified people to use it the device needs fail safes and inbuilt protections, which is another concern, people think they can just wire up some 10 kW device
to their homes and hey presto. But it is a bit more complicated than that.

For example James and Hope Girl Turn up and drop off a free QEG to your house but you are not an electrician and cannot wire it to your house. What do you do ?

I doubt any electrician would do it. Not unless he sees a safety certificate and a technical report with clear schematics is my guess.

So then what, if you connect it to your house yourself or get an unqualified or even if you could find a qualified person to install it then if the setup kills someone both you and the installer are liable, if the house burns down you get no insurance.

This is Hillbilly electronics, and even if it was to "work" would have a lot of work to do to be able to install one in a house.

..

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl) (Read 2015206 times)

MileHigh

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

MileHigh

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

ariovaldo

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

stivep

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

MileHigh

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

MileHigh

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

ACG

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

F_Brown

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

descripttime

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

descripttime

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

MileHigh

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

MileHigh

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

ariovaldo

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

TinselKoala

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

Farmhand

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