Author Topic: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl) (Read 2013246 times)

chrisC · « **Reply #1080 on:** May 21, 2014, 05:43:42 PM »

Quote from: PCB on May 21, 2014, 04:29:25 PM

Well Jamie does mention 175W rms output in his latest posting so he certainly understands how power in calculated, less in fact then MileHigh estimated. That doesn't change the fact that HopeGirl started fund raising off of a bogus claim of overunity. Jamie now says they are getting 1590W RMS power output for 800W input. At least he is being somewhat more careful in his reporting. This is the first report I believe of excess power so self looping should be there next goal I would think. I wish them luck that they will achieve this shortly.

Here's that link: http://be-do.com/index.php/en/forum/qeg-news/393-qeg-morocco-overunity#1677

The world should just wait a while and give him a chance, instead of bad mouthing him from the start. James is no dummy. Too many people on these forums just wants to show that they understand some electricity principles like AC measurements and rms values. Maybe there are deeper things they don't understand?

cheers
chrisC

MarkE · « **Reply #1081 on:** May 21, 2014, 06:08:08 PM »

Quote from: chrisC on May 21, 2014, 05:43:42 PM

Here's that link: http://be-do.com/index.php/en/forum/qeg-news/393-qeg-morocco-overunity#1677

The world should just wait a while and give him a chance, instead of bad mouthing him from the start. James is no dummy. Too many people on these forums just wants to show that they understand some electricity principles like AC measurements and rms values. Maybe there are deeper things they don't understand?

cheers
chrisC

This part is not encouraging. He insists that everyone should be using peak to peak values, and then he freely mixes in rms labels without stating whether he is still using peak values or has scaled them. He makes no statement as to how he is measuring his input power. If he is reading it from an instrument like a "Kill-a-Watt", that instrument does not report peak to peak voltage times peak to peak current.

There is no good reason not to use consistent measurements. Is this choice to mix in peak to peak voltage and current readings a problem with naivete, or is it an intentional effort to mislead?

Quote

Here's what I've got so far. Firstly, I want to make sure we're all using peak readings at this point. Can you confirm? So here is the data from 3100 turn coils loop wired as secondary: At 2588 RPM (173Hz output frequency), for 1000W input (at the wall), I'm getting 3000W output. At 600W input, It's 1360W, and at 500W in, I've got 836W out. I'm using roughly the same cap value in series (167nF) as the original config., with the six 100W, 240 volt lamps in the loop as the load. So it's just the original C value, in series with the six lamps. For the 350 turn coils loop, I'm using 14.2uF in series, with no R value in the loop. I don't have any high wattage variable resistors here, but I have an 1800 W (30 ohms) heating element that I want to try in the circuit today.

I may be able to move the tap on the heating element... Some things I've noticed: With this configuration, I've actually got 3 resonances as I spin up the rotor (to 2588 RPM). The 1st and 2nd do not phase lock (I can dial right through) and are multi-phasic (power going back and forth as Jeremy mentions), and when I get to the 2588 RPM main resonance, the phase lock is amazing! I can vary the input power between about 500W to over 1000W and RPM change is less than 5. If I increase the cap value (to about 200nF), I get a resonance at very low RPM (about 1200) that really locks in, and has even more power (measured 4200W), but there is some sinewave distortion (peaks are not all the same amplitude) and it's really too slow mechanically. The main resonance has a clean sinewave.

I remembered Evens said there was also power in the 350 turn coils (as primary) with this configuration, so I decided to see how much... and this was a big surprise... at 86Hz (half of output frequency), I measured 9,460W with 600W input, and 13,326W at 800W input! I verified with a current probe, and there is over 6 amps in the circuit! At 800W input, this is about 1590W RMS - enough to power the motor. I measured the output from the 350 turn loop previously with the original configuration, and with 700W input, I had only 1,836W peak (about 175W RMS).

chrisC · « **Reply #1082 on:** May 21, 2014, 07:03:46 PM »

Quote from: MarkE on May 21, 2014, 06:08:08 PM

This part is not encouraging. He insists that everyone should be using peak to peak values...

Mark:
I really don't think you should intentionally misread him. He was just making sure everyone started with some basis measurement that every scope reads ie peak values; after all not everyone has rms enabled sampling scopes. Chill out. Wait for a while for more solid measurements before pouring hot oil on some hard working soul. As for Hope girl, I can't speak for her - she's probably delusional on some cult goddess.
cheers,
chrisC

PIH123 · « **Reply #1083 on:** May 21, 2014, 07:07:04 PM »

Quote from: chrisC on May 21, 2014, 05:43:42 PM

The world should just wait a while and give him a chance.........................

Agreed, the world should wait ( Including STOPPING funding ) until such time that something which has been promised or CLAIMED is achieved.

But wait, haven’t we already hit that point.

According to James himself in Sterling Allan’s video interview with him and HopeForMoreFundingGirl back in April
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJKE5DJRMFQ
at 20:28 – James states that he has already tested it up to 9300 watts (he corrected himself from 10 Kw, so obviously that is not an estimation of what is possible, but what has been achieved).
He claims 10 more out than in. Not in theory, but already achieved.

And that all it needs is a simple inverter to self loop. He makes it sound like it would take no more than an hour or so to achieve. But they were just so excited to share their discovery……………….

Has James put an inverter on his completed build? 9.3 Kw achieved remember.
Haven’t Taiwan put an inverter on their completed build?
And the hum-dinger for me: Have the 3000 plus (claimed at the gofundme site) engineers from China that worked with them in Taiwan (all sorts of visa issues stated on the video) had time to follow up on this? Would be fairly simple for 3000 engineers to get this going if you have already gone to the trouble of international travel in this involvement.

So since claims have been that OU has been achieved, it must be time to start examining those claims and all associated evidence.

PIH123 · « **Reply #1084 on:** May 21, 2014, 08:07:41 PM »

Quote from: chrisC on May 21, 2014, 07:03:46 PM

He was just making sure everyone started with some basis measurement that every scope reads ie peak values; after all not everyone has rms enabled sampling scopes. Chill out.

So are you saying that maybe not everyone has RMS capable measuring technology?
Fair enough.
So everyone should use peak – to –peak values for both output AND INPUT.
Agree ?

So why is that kill-a-watt device in the “Morrocco overunity achieved” video measuring RMS input.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwgkCweVpt0 at 1:35

It is used (incorrectly) as the evidence that overunity has been achieved, and to subsequently source more funds.

Please re-read (and digest) post #1034 by TK that explains all about output power.
Once you understand that output power is “drawn” by the load, it may become obvious why some dimly lit bulbs highlight the issues with the output power claims.
We can clearly (visually) see the evidence (without the need for misrepresented scope and / or meter measurements).
At 0:14
In the video above, 6 bulbs of around 100 W stated rating are drawing less than 60 percent of their max load. Output power anyone ? Is it over 655 rms as measured with the “kill-a-watt”.

So I bench tested with the same bulb setup (I only had a box of 75 Watters, but visually, theirs were slightly more dimly lit than mine), whereby the last bulb only just light up as evidenced in the videos. Guess what power was being drawn ?
Hint : it was within 10 watts of one of the values given in MH’s post #1021
I can also tell you it was not in the range 600 to 700 W

If you want to wait and ignore the evidence, fine.
But it is so blatant, and somewhat surprisingly (to me at least) is pointing to the fact that James knows fully well what is going on judging by his words and actions.
I first thought it was the girl that was leading the fraud, either willfully or through ignorance.
But now I know that James is not the claimed skilled Engineer or is a fully paid up, card carrying member of the scam team.
These are very basic mistakes and hence are being willfully made.

ACG · « **Reply #1085 on:** May 21, 2014, 08:09:02 PM »

@MileHigh

I just read the youtube comments on that latest overunity claim video from the user accounts "user2718218" (assuming MileHigh) and "EsotericScience ."
"EsotericScience ." right off the back said you are calculating RMS incorrectly. But it looks like you have a victory in clearing up the misconceptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwgkCweVpt0

The poster made the mistake of combining divisor 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/2(error). Correct is 1/4
The poster made the mistake of combining multiplier 0.707 * 0.707 = 0.707(error). Correct is 0.499

(2000Vpp/2)0.707 x (1Vpp/2)0.707
Claimed
(2000Vpp x 1App)/2 x (.707) = incorrect 707Wrms

Should be
(2000Vpp x 1App)/2^2 x (.707^2) = correct 250Wrms

If you may, ask "EsotericScience .", I use the space dot name because seems to be multiple accounts, are you aware of this misconception and for how long has this misconception been going? What would be even better is to have the user safely measure on an oscilloscope the peak volts and amps of a 100W light bulb and compare that to a kill-a-watt meter. But then again if the user could perform that it shows the power of the mysticism the QUANTUM has over people.

MarkE · « **Reply #1086 on:** May 21, 2014, 08:20:58 PM »

Quote from: ACG on May 21, 2014, 08:09:02 PM

@MileHigh

I just read the youtube comments on that latest overunity claim video from the user accounts "user2718218" (assuming MileHigh) and "EsotericScience ."
"EsotericScience ." right off the back said you are calculating RMS incorrectly. But it looks like you have a victory in clearing up the misconceptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwgkCweVpt0

The poster made the mistake of combining divisor 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/2(error). Correct is 1/4
The poster made the mistake of combining multiplier 0.707 * 0.707 = 0.707(error). Correct is 0.499

(2000Vpp/2)0.707 x (1Vpp/2)0.707
Claimed
(2000Vpp x 1App)/2 x (.707) = incorrect 707Wrms

Should be
(2000Vpp x 1App)/2^2 x (.707^2) = correct 250Wrms

If you may, ask "EsotericScience .", I use the space dot name because seems to be multiple accounts, are you aware of this misconception and for how long has this misconception been going? What would be even better is to have the user safely measure on an oscilloscope the peak volts and amps of a 100W light bulb and compare that to a kill-a-watt meter. But then again if the user could perform that it shows the power of the mysticism the QUANTUM has over people.

V_PP*I_PP = 2*2^0.5V_rms*2*2^0.5I_rms = 8*VA.

ACG · « **Reply #1087 on:** May 21, 2014, 08:34:42 PM »

Quote from: chrisC on May 21, 2014, 05:43:42 PM

Here's that link: http://be-do.com/index.php/en/forum/qeg-news/393-qeg-morocco-overunity#1677

The world should just wait a while and give him a chance, instead of bad mouthing him from the start. James is no dummy. Too many people on these forums just wants to show that they understand some electricity principles like AC measurements and rms values. Maybe there are deeper things they don't understand?

cheers
chrisC

chrisC, what is not you before I made the comment on the Wait See virus? I will have to do a scour search. But for the now in short form. Existing Running Working Over Unity. Again, what is it you are waiting for again?

ACG · « **Reply #1088 on:** May 21, 2014, 08:41:36 PM »

Quote from: chrisC on May 21, 2014, 07:03:46 PM

Mark:
I really don't think you should intentionally misread him. He was just making sure everyone started with some basis measurement that every scope reads ie peak values; after all not everyone has rms enabled sampling scopes. Chill out. Wait for a while for more solid measurements before pouring hot oil on some hard working soul. As for Hope girl, I can't speak for her - she's probably delusional on some cult goddess.
cheers,
chrisC

Are you referring to any DSO scopes that do not have rms enabled? And why mention what others may or may not have. And from where do you derive James was making sure of anything. There are people who do not own a pair of shoes. What does this have to do with James?. Again this Wait See virus has taken hold of you.

ACG · « **Reply #1089 on:** May 21, 2014, 08:44:20 PM »

Quote from: PIH123 on May 21, 2014, 07:07:04 PM

Agreed, the world should wait ( Including STOPPING funding ) until such time that something which has been promised or CLAIMED is achieved.

But wait, haven’t we already hit that point.

According to James himself in Sterling Allan’s video interview with him and HopeForMoreFundingGirl back in April
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJKE5DJRMFQ
at 20:28 – James states that he has already tested it up to 9300 watts (he corrected himself from 10 Kw, so obviously that is not an estimation of what is possible, but what has been achieved).
He claims 10 more out than in. Not in theory, but already achieved.

And that all it needs is a simple inverter to self loop. He makes it sound like it would take no more than an hour or so to achieve. But they were just so excited to share their discovery……………….

Has James put an inverter on his completed build? 9.3 Kw achieved remember.
Haven’t Taiwan put an inverter on their completed build?
And the hum-dinger for me: Have the 3000 plus (claimed at the gofundme site) engineers from China that worked with them in Taiwan (all sorts of visa issues stated on the video) had time to follow up on this? Would be fairly simple for 3000 engineers to get this going if you have already gone to the trouble of international travel in this involvement.

So since claims have been that OU has been achieved, it must be time to start examining those claims and all associated evidence.

People infected with the Wait See virus cannot process the claim of an Existing Running Working Over Unity machine. Ignoring history is the symptom of the sickness.

MarkE · « **Reply #1090 on:** May 21, 2014, 08:57:21 PM »

Quote from: chrisC on May 21, 2014, 07:03:46 PM

Mark:
I really don't think you should intentionally misread him. He was just making sure everyone started with some basis measurement that every scope reads ie peak values; after all not everyone has rms enabled sampling scopes. Chill out. Wait for a while for more solid measurements before pouring hot oil on some hard working soul. As for Hope girl, I can't speak for her - she's probably delusional on some cult goddess.
cheers,
chrisC

I read his words very carefully. My post did not misread or misrepresent his statements. He started out asking for peak measurements. Then he switched to talking about input measurements that ostensibly come from the "Kill-a-Watt" device which does not report Watts as the product of peak to peak voltage and current. Then he switched to talking about rms power without even a peep of whether he had applied any conversion from his peak to peak measurements. All that ambiguity came from James. Even $400. digital scopes perform rms calculations.

The recent Morocco video offers clues as to what is going on. In the video clip the "Kill-a-Watt" measured input power at 655W, the scope read 1900V_PP and 920mA - 1A_PP, indicating ~250VA. James and Dave joyfully declared that demonstrated ~36% efficiency result was over unity. James had complete control over what measurements to take and how to interpret those measurements. His conclusions were completely wrong. Does that mean he hasn't the slightest clue as to what he is doing, that he is actively scamming or both? Does it matter when we can see that what he declares as over unity does not even exhibit pedestrian efficiency?

chrisC · « **Reply #1091 on:** May 21, 2014, 09:05:27 PM »

Quote from: PIH123 on May 21, 2014, 08:07:41 PM

So are you saying that maybe not everyone has RMS capable measuring technology?
Fair enough.
So everyone should use peak – to –peak values for both output AND INPUT.
Agree ?

So why is that kill-a-watt device in the “Morrocco overunity achieved” video measuring RMS input.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwgkCweVpt0 at 1:35

It is used (incorrectly) as the evidence that overunity has been achieved, and to subsequently source more funds.

Please re-read (and digest) post #1034 by TK that explains all about output power.
Once you understand that output power is “drawn” by the load, it may become obvious why some dimly lit bulbs highlight the issues with the output power claims.
We can clearly (visually) see the evidence (without the need for misrepresented scope and / or meter measurements).
At 0:14
In the video above, 6 bulbs of around 100 W stated rating are drawing less than 60 percent of their max load. Output power anyone ? Is it over 655 rms as measured with the “kill-a-watt”.

So I bench tested with the same bulb setup (I only had a box of 75 Watters, but visually, theirs were slightly more dimly lit than mine), whereby the last bulb only just light up as evidenced in the videos. Guess what power was being drawn ?
Hint : it was within 10 watts of one of the values given in MH’s post #1021
I can also tell you it was not in the range 600 to 700 W

If you want to wait and ignore the evidence, fine.
But it is so blatant, and somewhat surprisingly (to me at least) is pointing to the fact that James knows fully well what is going on judging by his words and actions.
I first thought it was the girl that was leading the fraud, either willfully or through ignorance.
But now I know that James is not the claimed skilled Engineer or is a fully paid up, card carrying member of the scam team.
These are very basic mistakes and hence are being willfully made.

@PIH123
I really don't have a lot of time but i will try to respond to your post above.
No good engineer would measure output power based on light bulbs. Standard practices have already been 'taught' by electrical engineering text books and also from the likes of TK. I don't know enough of what James is doing in details to comment further on his power measurements. That said, all of you can either wait until proper results are released and then start your finger pointing exercise or continue what you're doing - after all it's a public forum and nobody knows you're a dog on the other side of the web browser. But just assuming the QEG is a standard transformer should tell you not to waste your time. As for ACG, I don't understand your English and can't comment further.
cheers,
chrisC

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1092 on:** May 21, 2014, 09:33:09 PM »

@ChrisC:
You seem to be missing something: the measurements we see in the video are _perfectly valid_ for what they are. And what they actually indicate is an output of about 250W. We don't need to "wait for good measurements", as long as we are shown the raw data from correctly positioned probes with correct settings on the scope. James Robitaille can point to those measurements and make false claims about what they indicate.... but this is not a problem with the measurements!

More precise measurements can certainly be made. Actual power analyzers could and should be used... but why bother? When you are presented with a device that hovers around 100 or 102 percent efficiency, then you need to break out the "big guns". When you have a device that measures roughly 35 percent non-OU and the only indications of OU come from the claimant's blatant misinterpreting of his own data.... a 400 dollar scope and a Rogowski coil current transformer are going to get you close enough for "due diligence".

And nowadays, MarkE's estimate is way too large: even 100 dollar DSOs can calculate RMS values from a trace.

MarkE · « **Reply #1093 on:** May 21, 2014, 09:56:33 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 21, 2014, 09:33:09 PM

@ChrisC:
You seem to be missing something: the measurements we see in the video are _perfectly valid_ for what they are. And what they actually indicate is an output of about 250W. We don't need to "wait for good measurements", as long as we are shown the raw data from correctly positioned probes with correct settings on the scope. James Robitaille can point to those measurements and make false claims about what they indicate.... but this is not a problem with the measurements!

More precise measurements can certainly be made. Actual power analyzers could and should be used... but why bother? When you are presented with a device that hovers around 100 or 102 percent efficiency, then you need to break out the "big guns". When you have a device that measures roughly 35 percent non-OU and the only indications of OU come from the claimant's blatant misinterpreting of his own data.... a 400 dollar scope and a Rogowski coil current transformer are going to get you close enough for "due diligence".

And nowadays, MarkE's estimate is way too large: even 100 dollar DSOs can calculate RMS values from a trace.

$400. is for a standalone scope. I didn't want to quote a USB scope price and get into a silly battle over the price not including the PC.

I see absolutely no reason that they report their output values using peak rather than rms values. Their scope reports rms. If someone did not have rms reporting equipment, then it is easy enough to instruct them how to convert peak sine wave values to their rms values. Recording in different units invites error and misinterpretation. Is it just happen stance that the FTW people massively misinterpret their measurements so as to report over unity when they really have just very poor efficiency?

Farmhand · « **Reply #1094 on:** May 21, 2014, 10:32:04 PM »

Yes I have a little battery powered hand held nano scope and it can calculate RMS fairly well at up to a few kHz.

They are using the measurements to claim OU, and have already claimed OU, previously even though they don't seem to be able to show anything even approaching 50% efficient yet.

Either they can make the measurements already or they lied about the OU they claimed to have already, before asking for donations, or they are trying on a ruse or they have no idea what they are measuring. There may be other possibilities but none that would make them look good.

..

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl) (Read 2013246 times)

chrisC

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

MarkE

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

chrisC

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

PIH123

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

PIH123

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

ACG

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

MarkE

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

ACG

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

ACG

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

ACG

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

MarkE

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

chrisC

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

TinselKoala

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

MarkE

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

Farmhand

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