Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84149
  • *Latest: jerryrig

  • *Total Posts: 896264
  • *Total Topics: 15782
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)  (Read 1629203 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #795 on: May 09, 2014, 02:16:30 AM »
A quote from Mr Tesla's patent, http://www.google.com/patents/US512340 .

..
The Tesla quote is a restatement of series resonance where 1/jwC identically equals jwL.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #796 on: May 09, 2014, 02:34:20 AM »


But the work done by the pull-in is proportional to the magnitude of current flowing in that SC loop because the current exerts force on the magnet via the magnetic field it generates.  So Work ∝ Current.
Are you claiming that the integral of force over distance is disproportionate to the current flowing in the SC loop?
Why?
Where do you get such funny ideas reading things that I have not stated?  Work performed is not proportional to the current.  It is proportional to the square of the current.
Quote

You have not proven yet that a greater dΦ/dt leaves greater current in the SC loop than smaller dΦ/dt, thus you cannot use that to prove the other statement about disproportionality of work between two halves of the cycle.
Faraday and Maxwell would both beg to differ. 
Quote

Only with a real magnet and it is not saturation but irreversible coercive demagnetization.
Actually the one thing that I overlooked is that the coil looking like a perfect inductor will identically integrate the rate of change in flux with respect to time, which should lead to a constant induction for a given magnet starting from a fixed distance.  Retracting the magnet in the opposite direction to its initial position relative to the ring reverses out whatever current was induced by bringing the magnet closer to the ring.
Quote

That limit does not occur in our ideal system and in a real system it can be mitigated.
Logic and empiricism.
I do not consider an appeal to authority as proof.
If you don't believe Maxwell then it is up to you to show that you have found a violation.
Quote
Logic and empiricism.
I don't claim that induction works differently that it does.
I am trying to convince you that induction does not work like you think and a SC loop act like a spring or I'm trying to find a flaw in my thinking with your help.
See above.
Quote

Much of their wisdom is not applicable in this case, because flux lines do not cut the loop and non-zero EMF cannot exist across a SC loop.
In resistive coils cut by flux lines - yes, but in superconductive coils not cut by flux lines - no.
Please prove that I am wrong.
You seem highly resistant to the notion of BEMF from the inductance of the loop exactly matching the induced EMF.
Quote

I don't think so. A magnetic field of a SC loop is conservative analogically to Earth and its gravitation field or mechanical energy stored by a spring..
I never claimed that energy stored in a SC loop is fixed.  I still believe that it is variable and equal to ½LI2
Then you should consider how E = 0.5*LI2 is derived.  The big hint should be that I is the time integral of V/L.  The "spring's" energy is defined by the magnet and the path it travels relative to the ring.  A different magnet, such as a power source driving a winding coupled to the ring can transfer a variable amount of energy into the ring's field.
Quote

They do because energy stored in them is still proportional to the product of flux and current flowing in them.
Mechanical springs are also conservative yet they can store energy without problems.
One of us will ;)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #797 on: May 09, 2014, 02:35:34 AM »
Yep never trust people with the name Mark.    ::)    While you may be right about Aesop what proof do you have or are you just expressing your opinion and we all know about opinions ....
I have seen written statements of former employees.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #797 on: May 09, 2014, 02:35:34 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline F_Brown

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #798 on: May 09, 2014, 03:29:14 AM »
A quote from Mr Tesla's patent, http://www.google.com/patents/US512340 .

..

Yep, Nicola know all about this.  In the case of the QEG with its tune tank circuit, adding any reactance to that tuned primary either capacitive or inductive would throw off the tune of the circuit.  Thus the inductive reactance of the added transformer must be offset with added capacitive reactance in order to maintain the balance of the circuit at it intended operating point.

I just realized a little while ago that the double winding pattern found in that patent rather then maximizing the capacitance of the winding, which I expect to remain relative the same regardless of single wound or double wound, maximizes the energy that is capacitively stored in the winding by maximizing the voltage difference between each adjacent turn.  Tesla might even had said that in the patent, it's been a while since I've read it, although it just clicked about the energy storage difference. 

Now, what effect would that have on things?

Offline verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3465
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #799 on: May 09, 2014, 10:33:25 AM »
Where do you get such funny ideas reading things that I have not stated? 
Because you stated:
It doesn't happen because the work required for each new withdrawal similarly increases.
And the word "similarly" was later clarified to refer to current, so your revised quote now reads:
"It doesn't happen because the work required for each new withdrawal increases similarly to current."
So if the work increases than so does the current.

According to you the work required to move the magnet depends on its speed and so does the current.
Or: If the work required to quickly withdraw the magnet is different than the work required to slowly push in the magnet, then currents must be different, too... and the absurd machine woulld accumulate current without a theoretical limit at the expense of the work performed by the agency turning the Whitworth mechanism.  - yet "it does not happen".

Let's remember what we are discussing here:
You claim that the current left in the superconducting loop after the movement of the magnet
depends on dΦ/dt and I claim that it depends on ΔΦ. 
That's what the whole discussion boils down to.

As a side note, it worth to remember, that the ratio of to flux to current (a.k.a. inductance) stays constant in that SC loop.

Work performed is not proportional to the current.  It is proportional to the square of the current.
Yes. It is merely more precise to state that work is proportional to the square of the current.
When the current does not change its direction (as in the absurd machine scenario) work increases with the square of the current and also the work increases with the current itself.  The derivatives of x an x2 have the same sign for x>0.
I was trying to keep it simple but that lack of precision does not invalidate my line of thinking.

Actually the one thing that I overlooked is that the coil looking like a perfect inductor will identically integrate the rate of change in flux with respect to time,
...and the integral of dΦ/dt with respect to time evaluates to Φ.

Retracting the magnet in the opposite direction to its initial position relative to the ring reverses out whatever current was induced by bringing the magnet closer to the ring.
Yes, and for clarity for other readers, the word "reverses" in that statement should not mean reversing the direction (sign) of current.

If you don't believe Maxwell then it is up to you to show that you have found a violation.
You seem highly resistant to the notion of BEMF from the inductance of the loop exactly matching the induced EMF.
I believe Maxwell. I just don't want to misapply his equations.
I am not resistant to the notion of EMF - BEMF = 0 across a superconducting loop. 
I just do not go the "EMF route" and analyze voltage across zero-resistance because it leads to division by zero.

Then you should consider how E = 0.5*LI2 is derived.  The big hint should be that I is the time integral of V/L.
Derivation by Kirchhoff's voltage law is just one of the derivations. Using it means using voltage.
For the energy stored by a coil I prefer to use the derivation that does not involve voltage and uses L=Φ/I to prove that W=½ΦI.

The "spring's" energy is defined by the magnet and the path it travels relative to the ring. 
Yes, "path" - not the speed along this path.

... a power source driving a winding coupled to the ring can transfer a variable amount of energy into the ring's field.
...but the energy transferred to the SC loop by such winding does not depend on the risetime or falltime of the current in that winding (as in e.g. sawtooth waveform).

For example the energy and current in the secondary superconducting winding (W2) of an aircore transformer shown below does not increase from cycle to cycle and its maximum value is always be proportional to IMAX even if the current in the primary (W1) exhibits different di/dt generating different dΦ/dt. 
Over the integer number of cycles the work done by the current source is zero ...+ resistive losses.

Furthermore the line integral of the flux penetrating the contour of the SC secondary winding (W2) will be constant, regardless of the dΦ/dt generated by the primary winding (W1).

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #799 on: May 09, 2014, 10:33:25 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4660
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #800 on: May 09, 2014, 11:07:46 AM »
Teslas coil for e-magnets  http://www.google.com/patents/US512340  has his users/applicators/modernizers :
cited as reference:  http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments;jsessionid=248A077BDB818423145DA935A48B840D.espacenet_levelx_prod_1?CC=US&NR=512340A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=&date=18940109&DB=&&locale=en_EP


Probably new findings ? Internal statements ?


Sincerely
              OCWL

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #801 on: May 09, 2014, 12:27:57 PM »
Because you stated:And the word "similarly" was later clarified to refer to current, so your revised quote now reads:
"It doesn't happen because the work required for each new withdrawal increases similarly to current."
So if the work increases than so does the current.
Not to the current, to the current squared, which is aside from the point that you asked:
Quote
Are you claiming that the integral of force over distance is disproportionate to the current flowing in the SC loop?
Why?
  So you seem bent on asking questions about statements that I never made, and when pressed on that point to invent new junk.
Quote

According to you the work required to move the magnet depends on its speed and so does the current.
The rate at which the current increases is proportional to the induced EMF.  Move the magnet faster and that rate increases.  Where I have corrected myself is to note that the current integrates and therefore for a given magnet and starting position, the end flux will be the same regardless of the time taken.
Quote
Or: If the work required to quickly withdraw the magnet is different than the work required to slowly push in the magnet, then currents must be different, too... and the absurd machine woulld accumulate current without a theoretical limit at the expense of the work performed by the agency turning the Whitworth mechanism.  - yet "it does not happen".
With a given magnet oscillating between two fixed positions that the current cannot build up.
Quote

Let's remember what we are discussing here:
You claim that the current left in the superconducting loop after the movement of the magnet
depends on dΦ/dt and I claim that it depends on ΔΦ. 
No, I assert that it depends on the integral of dphi/dt.  See the immediate discussion above.
Quote
That's what the whole discussion boils down to.

As a side note, it worth to remember, that the ratio of to flux to current (a.k.a. inductance) stays constant in that SC loop.
It's nice that you are now taking inductance into account instead of only resistance where you started.
Quote

Yes. It is merely more precise to state that work is proportional to the square of the current.
Wrong is wrong.  It is not less precise to refer to something that has a square dependency as linearly dependent, it is just wrong. 
Quote

When the current does not change its direction (as in the absurd machine scenario) work increases with the square of the current and also the work increases with the current itself.  The derivatives of x an x2 have the same sign for x>0.
I was trying to keep it simple but that lack of precision does not invalidate my line of thinking.
Where I agree with you is that for a fixed magnet coming from some defined starting position the energy that can be transferred is fixed independent of speed.  The speed sets the power of the transfer.
Quote
...and the integral of dΦ/dt with respect to time evaluates to Φ.
Yes, and for clarity for other readers, the word "reverses" in that statement should not mean reversing the direction (sign) of current.
I believe Maxwell. I just don't want to misapply his equations.
No one should.
Quote
I am not resistant to the notion of EMF - BEMF = 0 across a superconducting loop. 
It solves the problem that you started with.  You expressed the idea that since the resistance is zero that there could not be an EMF.  In fact there is, and the BEMF results from the inductance.  The lack of resistance makes the device completely reactive.
Quote
I just do not go the "EMF route" and analyze voltage across zero-resistance because it leads to division by zero.
No it does not.  See above.
Quote
Derivation by Kirchhoff's voltage law is just one of the derivations. Using it means using voltage.
As Professor Lewan would say:  Faraday is always right.  Kirchhoff ( if one fails to account for induction ) is not always right.  He has a relatively famous classroom demonstration of this point where he induces a voltage across a wire using a big core in the middle of the table.  Your situation differs only in that instead of Lewan's negligible resistance, your problem really has zero resistance.  Yet voltage is induced in both cases.
Quote
For the energy stored by a coil I prefer to use the derivation that does not involve voltage and uses L=Φ/I to prove that W=½ΦI.
Either way you have to account for the fact that it takes an increasing amount of effort to induce each successive increment of current.  IE the current that exists at any moment directly affects the effort required to either increase or decrease that current.
Quote
Yes, "path" - not the speed along this path.
...but the energy transferred to the SC loop by such winding does not depend on the risetime or falltime of the current in that winding (as in e.g. sawtooth waveform).
As above the power does.  How long one sustains the input power depends on the source one has available.
Quote

For example the energy and current in the secondary superconducting winding (W2) of an aircore transformer shown below does not increase from cycle to cycle and its maximum value is always be proportional to IMAX even if the current in the primary (W1) exhibits different di/dt generating different dΦ/dt. 
Yes a fixed energy source = fixed energy transfer.
Quote
Over the integer number of cycles the work done by the current source is zero ...+ resistive losses.
That's what inductors do.
Quote

Furthermore the line integral of the flux penetrating the contour of the SC secondary winding (W2) will be constant, regardless of the dΦ/dt generated by the primary winding (W1).
See above.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #801 on: May 09, 2014, 12:27:57 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #802 on: May 09, 2014, 01:55:28 PM »



  Professor Lewin.
                  John.

Offline Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #803 on: May 09, 2014, 06:51:57 PM »
A quote from Mr Tesla's patent, http://www.google.com/patents/US512340 .

..


Farmhand,  of course there is a point that has no opposition.  It surely could be when the movement of both the negative going energies and the positive going energies are balanced.  Then there would NOT be forces causing "Ringing or Back EMF" seeking to balance (due to it already being in balance).  Thank you for that insert from Tesla.  You found a one KEY..




Richard Williams  (NOT HopeGirl) and WE are all another part of Hope.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #803 on: May 09, 2014, 06:51:57 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #804 on: May 09, 2014, 07:09:44 PM »
In correlation to this non opposition key would be a PMH.  Where as when making the PMH (closing the keeper or creating the magnetics) the circuit is complete and the charge placed in the PMH is pure (balanced).  This is why it keeps the charge undiminished.   So the closer to perfect balance we tune a circuit the less waste from opposition there is. 


And MarkE this is the proof you asked for, when we learn to balance all forces flows and ebbs (in a open circuit) then we can null opposition.
Maybe that is a new definition for COP at 100%,  now learning to bump that bloch of perfect balance is where COP>1.

Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #805 on: May 09, 2014, 11:01:20 PM »

Farmhand,  of course there is a point that has no opposition.  It surely could be when the movement of both the negative going energies and the positive going energies are balanced.  Then there would NOT be forces causing "Ringing or Back EMF" seeking to balance (due to it already being in balance).  Thank you for that insert from Tesla.  You found a one KEY..




Richard Williams  (NOT HopeGirl) and WE are all another part of Hope.

Oh but there is resistance in the DC resistance of the wires, determining the actual utilized output energy compared to the actual input energy is all that matters. The oscillating power is just a side show, which needs to be known only for the purposes of circuit design ect.

Inductive reactance does not consume energy, it restricts it. It can restrict input and/or output depending on the device and the load.

Nor does counter emf consume energy. ie. if we apply a capacitor charged to 20 volts to a 12 volt battery then we are only really applying 8 volts potential difference to the battery due to the counter emf of 12 volts that the battery possesses, however the capacitor ends up charged to 12 volts not 0 volts so the potential equal to the counter emf is not consumed, it's just a kind of offset to get to the point where a potential difference will happen if more voltage is given to the cap.

Similarly when a transformer sees a high counter emf at idle the input is small, then when loaded the transformer sees less counter emf which allows more current to flow and the transfer of energy happens. If counter emf consumed energy the transformer would use more at idle when the counter emf is high. But it doesn't the counter emf restricts the current and power and saves energy.

..

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #805 on: May 09, 2014, 11:01:20 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #806 on: May 10, 2014, 12:47:02 AM »
So what happens when you have an ideal battery at 12 volts, and you connect an ideal capacitor charged to 20 volts to the battery?

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #807 on: May 10, 2014, 02:19:49 AM »
In correlation to this non opposition key would be a PMH.  Where as when making the PMH (closing the keeper or creating the magnetics) the circuit is complete and the charge placed in the PMH is pure (balanced).  This is why it keeps the charge undiminished.   So the closer to perfect balance we tune a circuit the less waste from opposition there is. 


And MarkE this is the proof you asked for, when we learn to balance all forces flows and ebbs (in a open circuit) then we can null opposition.
Maybe that is a new definition for COP at 100%,  now learning to bump that bloch of perfect balance is where COP>1.
You can make all the unilateral declarations that you want.  You have not made and cannot make a self running machine much less one that self runs and delivers surplus energy.  You have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to deliver on your blatantly false claims.

Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #808 on: May 10, 2014, 04:34:19 AM »
So what happens when you have an ideal battery at 12 volts, and you connect an ideal capacitor charged to 20 volts to the battery?

Not a whole lot. ;D

My observations tell me that with real components the voltages equalize and some energy is transferred from the capacitor to the battery and it gains some charge, some energy is lost and some energy remains as charge in the capacitor. Not sure if I can be any more vague than that.  ;D


Give me a minute I'll see if I can work out a better answer.
..

Offline verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3465
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #809 on: May 10, 2014, 12:02:53 PM »
@MarkE

So what is your answer to the venerable question, now?

Q: "A magnet is pulled out of a shorted superconducting aircoil.  Does the magnitude of the final current induced in that coil depend on how quickly the magnet is pulled out ?".

 

OneLink