Khwartz:

The damper keeps the two components that produce the power in phase.  You can just Google a transformer circuit.

You talk about the "infinite reservoir tapped into by high voltage."  Why high voltage?  Why not medium voltage?  Why not high-voltage, high-slew-rate?  Why not voltage that changes exponentially?  Why not high AC voltage that has an exponential decay envelope?  Do you see the point?  Is there any evidence that high voltage taps into an unknown source of power?  Not that I am aware of.  The argument that goes "anything is possible" is a hollow argument because then literally anything is possible.  Why should free energy enter at high voltage?  Why not have energy disappearing into the reservoir at high voltage?  If a circuit is speculated to be over unity, then just as easily you can look at the last 10 circuits played with around here  (like the Akula stuff) and speculate that they are actually under unity.  Energy "disappears" when you run them.  Why not?

Please don't confuse or reinterpret making a statement with issuing orders or being argumentative about the use of a pronoun.  Or if I talk about the QEG and you respond discussing a point about one of your own statements.  That's called "constructing a straw man argument."

Not in the context of what we mean when we say "reactive power" for the QEG.

The _real_ meaning of reactive power is determined by the AC impedance of the load in the context of an AC power source flowing into some kind of load.  Power flows from the AC source, through the wires, and then into the load where it gets converted into something else.   Power has to flow to be power.  If it all flows in one direction (source to load) then it's all real power.  If the power is bidirectional where power flows from a power station into an electric motor, and then half a cycle later power flows from the motor to the power station then you have a reactive power situation.  The power that the motor sends to the power station did not come from the motor itself, it's just the power station's originally supplied power being kicked back by the motor.  I am repeating myself here to make the point as clear as possible for the general readers.

The forums have adopted the term "reactive power" for the energy circulating back and forth in a tank circuit.  That is not power that is flowing.  Rather, it is a static storage of energy in two reactive components.  They are not the same thing at all.

The reason the power companies don't like reactive loads is they draw extra current and that heats all of the distribution transformers up needlessly.  Extra power is lost in the transformers and the wires for nothing.  It also makes the load on the generators in the generating station irregular, and they don't want that.  You don't want energy from reactive loads circulating all over the electrical grid, it's simply not good.  I am not an expert on this stuff (power distribution and how they balance the grid), so these points are just about the general principles at play.

Even in the case of AC power distribution, the reactive power circulating in the power lines is NOT "extra power that you can convert into real power and get over unity."  The reactive power comes from the real power that was supplied by the generating station one-half cycle before in the sine wave.  It's nothing more than the power the generating station output being thrown right back at the generating station.  Reactive power is just temporally borrowed real power that came from the AC power source.  Likewise the "reactive power" in the QEG primary tank is just stored energy that came from the external power source.

In other words, there is no "new power" that can come from reactive power associated with AC mains power distribution, or from the "reactive power" circulating in the primary LC tank circuit in the QEG.

I am writing this all out in detail so the lurkers from the Be-Do forum and all of the QEG replication groups and the QEG team itself can absorb and understand this information.  If any lurkers have questions I am sure myself and other people around here can try to answer them.   At this point you should all understand that the power conversion proposal from James to convert the "VARs" in the QEG primary resonant tank into real output power will not work because it simply does not work like that.  They are proposing converting "reactive watts" into "real watts" and this is WRONG.  It's not "reactive watts" it's reactive joules.  You can't convert reactive joules into real watts.  This reality has to be made abundantly clear to James.

The energy circulating in the QEC primary tank is like an "inflatable balloon" of energy.  When you "convert VARs to real power" you deflate the balloon (filled with joules) and that's it, you are done.  The resonant tank circuit empties and the resonance is killed or is rendered very feeble.  The input power source (the spinning rotor) has to reinflate the balloon before you can even think about outputting real power into a load again.

Finally, just for the sake of completeness:  Power can indeed flow though a circuit with a resonant LC tank circuit.   Here is an example:   An AC power supply outputs 5 watts of power.   The five watts of power flow though the resonant tank, then get coupled to a secondary transformer winding, and then the 5 watts of power flow out of the secondary and then flow into the load.   While this power flow is happening, at the same time the resonant tank circuit is storing 12 joules of energy.  That very simple example can also be scaled up and apply to the QEG.

MileHigh

Thanks for your comments but you've missed my point.

ALL WHAT YOU'VE TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO ME ABOUT REACTIVE POWER KNEW! And I know how to tune a line to avoid the reactive power and make that all the power of the power supply be absorbed by the installation or the device, even in electronic I am not skill at all.

For harvesting extra energy by high voltage pics, I have very precise reasons to think it could work like this, but sorry, I don't think you worth for now to share it with you. But your true, and again you taught me nothing about: anything can be imagine as workable but it doesn't mean it is pertinent. But again, I don't think your, imo close mind and fixed concepts attitude I see from you now, even you're obviously skill in electronics,  worth the sharing. Just up to me now to create time and meanst (which is far to be done, I think :/) to try my own ideas and see if my analysis of the possibilities is correct.  But if I could succeed, sure you would be a very useful opponent to hepl me to improve the quality of my experiments! Lol

Have fun!

Albert, perhaps this will make things even simpler than MileHigh has already explained:

Reactive energy is energy that is stored.  Reactive power is the rate at which energy is moved into and out of an energy store.  Resonant circuits shuttle electrical energy between electrostatic potentials:  charge stored in a capacitor, and magnetic potentials:  the magnetic field surrounding current.  A resonant circuit that has a high quality factor: Q, loses only a small fraction of the stored energy on each cycle from maximum voltage across the capacitor to maximum current through the circuit and back to maximum voltage across the capacitor.  Such high Q networks can collect up a lot of energy a little bit at a time.  All energy that is directed into a resonant network from some source is energy that is not applied to a useful load.  If the network is high Q then most but never all of the energy diverted into the resonant network is available to return to the source or perform useful work.

Reactive components and resonant networks made from reactive components:

Store energy.
Dissipate some energy.
Can build up very high voltages and/or currents.
Can release their stored energy at much higher instantaneous power levels than the energy was input, or vice-versa.
Do not create energy.
Do not amplify energy ( same as saying they don't create energy ).

100 % agree with this; except that IF my conjecture is true, we could use the building of the resonance to produce high pics voltage to break the stability of the Dirac's plenum and haverst exceeding energy; NOT BECAUSE OF THE REACTIVE ENERGY STORED IN THE TANK, but because of the "HARMONIC BUILDING" of high voltage pics.

But nevermind: to do is better than to discuss, at this point imo.

So see you all in around if I succeed to have anything factual, observable, to present you all here I will probably continue to follow what is going on around but will do need to economise my time if I want to run any experiments, so stop to comment.

I have said for my part all I had to say here and in other threads, so nobody will be fully surprised if I come back "with something"; otherwise, it will be just an other "megalomaniac" from around; any I am, not you?

Cheers.

It will certainly help the local communications regulators (FCC in the USA) to find them and their illegal noise/jamming transmitter which is disrupting radio and TV reception for many meters around.

Just one other comment about the QEG.  I believe that some people believe that it can be a generator without mechanical back torque that resists the driving motor.  Something about the variable inductance in the primary, or the variable reluctance, or calling it a "parametric" device, etc.  Also the fact that the rotor is just a spinning piece of metal without magnets or coils might lead some to believe that the "problem" of back torque under load has been "bypassed" by the QEG.

There are a handful of QEG clips out there where they achieve resonance and the light bulb array lights up.  You notice in all the clips when the light bulbs light up the QEG makes a groaning sound.  That groaning sound is parts in the QEG responding to the new internal mechanical stress it is experiencing because of the back torque.  There is a decent chance the individual arms of the rotor are vibrating like tuning forks because of this stress.  That might be just one component in the groaning sound, if it is happening at all.  No matter what is actually happening to create the groaning sound, the groaning sound itself is due to mechanical stresses in the QEG.

When you think of an individual rotor arm, as it rotates it's like it is getting a "ping" of tangential mechanical force when it passes the four extra "posts" that form the toroidal core.  That ping of force bends the rotor arm and then it resonates.  How much it resonates depends on the individual build.  Note some of the mechanical energy supplied by the motor is lost in the mechanical ring-down of the rotor arms.

When this happens, of course that's when the rotor arm is injecting a "nugget of energy" into the primary coil.  A "ping of EMF" happens inside the primary coil when the rotor arm passes and that is what sustains the LC tank circuit.  Then of course some of that energy nugget makes its way through the secondary and then into the light bulb load.

So, for all the "fancy" mechanical architecture of the device, it still places back torque on the drive motor when it is driving a load just like any conventional generator.  The groaning sound is giving you auditory confirmation that this is happening.

The idea that the "parametric inductance," or whatever, changes things and "reduces or eliminates the mechanical load" is not true.

I once asked for a measurement of the drive motor power draw just before resonance hits and at resonance.  The main reason I asked for that was to get confirmation that the QEG was putting a greatly increased mechanical load on the drive motor when resonance happens.  Every single group building a QEG should make these types of measurements and share them freely with the other groups and share them online.  It's almost shocking how little data there is out there.  I read Stuart on PESN stating that everybody decided to not share any data because of the online comments and critiques.  My response to that is if you truly believe in what you are doing and you believe in open-sourcing this design then you just have to bite the bullet and share your data because it is the right thing to do.  Comments from people cannot "ruin your experiments."  I am also assuming that many teams were created where the members are not really that familiar with electronics.  You still have to go forward if you believe in your project.  James was chastised for failing to understand his waveform and for not identifying the phase shift in the tank circuit.  This is not overly harsh or unwarranted criticism, it's just the truth.  Plus don't forget he wants to charge people $300/hr for his services.

I will close by repeating the fact that we are a few months into the QEG project and we have barely seen any preliminary data or hard test data shared publicly from the different QEG build groups.  The challenge for all of you is to be transparent and take the bad with the good, that's what peer review is all about and that's how real progress is made.  Believe it or not, if you all share your data and share it publicly, and the majority of you arrive at the conclusion that it doesn't work as claimed, then that is a good thing and that represents real progress.  That represents a bunch of people around the world that got together and looked past the hype and in a responsible fashion they made their measurements, analyzed their data, and collectively arrived at a conclusion.  That's the real challenge.

MileHigh

From my FEMM analysis and QEG SPICE 2.1 model the claim or believe that the parametric excitation of the QEG reduces or eliminates "back torque" or what I call cogging torque appears false.   From the FEMM analysis that I posted graphs of a couple of weeks ago it is plain to see that that more the current in the primary rises the more the rotor is attracted back toward the poles as it is driven away from them. 

Now one might argue that the timing of the current in the primary and the relationship between the rotor and the poles is such that the attraction of the rotor to the poles is minimized as the rotor moves away from the pole, although again the SPICE simulation made from the FEMM analysis data seems to suggest this belief is also false.

From my SPICE 2.1 simulation along with what the replicators have reported, it would seem that more load on the output generates more load on the drive motor though this cogging torque phenomena.  So it would appear that hopes that the QEG will operate without cogging torque loading down the drive motor will remain unsatisfied.

F_Brown:

Thanks for your comments, great stuff.  It's like I did a "top-down" analysis, and you did a "bottoms-up" analysis and they agree.

It's funny sometimes because I think a lot of people don't realize how powerful a top-down analysis can be.  I don't have to literally know that the rotors experience tangential pings of force or that there is an injection of EMF into the primary coils, but I know that it has to happen like that.  It's just a question of making the measurements to confirm it.

TK:

Your analysis was compelling and I love the quote at the end!  I never read it before.  Nonetheless, I am going to be an idealist and hope.  Hope hope hope hope hope.

MileHigh

There are various circuits out there that are suppose to convert the reactive power to real power from the rotoverter device information (you can do a search on this).  The principle is one based on extracting through voltage (capacitor charging) and drawing power from them. Note that voltage is a maximum when current is at a minimum (charging interval near voltage maximum), so BEMF is minimized in terms of impact back to the source, i.e. the motor turning the generator.  Also, it is desirable to extract the power from the capacitor when it is not being charged, so this is another way not to impact the source current draw.


As I understand it, not all the reactive power should/can be withdrawn as it would kill the resonance.[size=78%] [/size]
[size=78%]
[/size]
In any case, I believe the QED may yet show OU.

I'm not sure how that could work. Jamie would like to extract real  power from the primary as I understand him.  This being a tank circuit the energy is going back and forth between the cap and the inductor, we are simply moving charge between two storage elements, no work is being done, there is no power there either hence the reason its called "imaginary" power.  Also if you switch in capacitance at specific times to harvest some of the charge, you are going to chance the resonance of the circuit.