Please look this 1986 patent's of of John W. Ecklin.

We see the exact same rotor and stator than the QEG

And in this patent there is no external motor because John W. Ecklin combined both in the same design.

Hi Luc,

When I played with normal off-the-shelf mains transformers (with laminated core) by tuning their primary coil to (my mains) 50Hz frequency with some capacitors, I found very similar behaviour: very near to 50Hz the transformer started to buzz up very loudly and snapped through resonance and then started it again. It was impossible to tune to exactly resonate the primary and to manage I had to decrease the input AC voltage to about 20-30V from the 200V-220V with a variac to get a more or less stabil resonance. Any attempt to increase input voltage to the transformer detuned the primary coil and I had to retune it with the capacitor bank.

The explanation was that near or at the resonance frequency, the AC current in the LC tank circuit increased so high (several Ampers, maybe over 10A peak) that I do think the core went into saturation, hence the primary coil inductance changed to a lower value, effectively detuning the L from the vicinity of 50Hz to a higher frequency. When I reduced input AC voltage amplitude, the primary had a much less excitating current when it reached near or at resonance so the circulating AC current in the tank remained "workable" and "acceptable" for the core and it did not saturate. (Notice that a mains transformer designed for 200VA or so power level cannot readily handle several ampers of primary current without pushing the core's magnetic operation point on the B-H curve towards the saturation area.)

I think  the same happens in your setup: near or at resonance the AC current becomes so high in the LC tank (i.e. in the HV coils of the MOTs) that the cores of the MOTs get saturated, thus effectively changing the inductance value of the two HV coils of the MOTs.
In your case the MOTs have a quasi 'open' core vs a normal transformer, this would work against saturation but there should be an "average" inductance developed from the periodically opened and closed core structure which establishes the resonance with your capacitors  (2.5uF in the 2nd video).

I believe that you and some others have noticed that the input AC frequency to the 3ph motor was about twice as high as the resonance frequency of the LC tank shown by the scope: about 61-62Hz input vs the 30.5-30.7Hz shown by the scope nearing to the resonance in your 2nd video. (If I recall correctly, this was also the case in the second half of your first video.)  You got parametric resonance drive: your exciting input was at 2 x f frequency while the output was tuned to f frequency.

Your simple setup included two nonlinear components, the first was the saturating cores of the MOTs and the second was the lamps (the loads).  The lamps make such setups even more difficult to tune: they have a low resistance when they are dim i.e. when the LC tank is not at resonance and although the lamps low resistance is transformed towards the LC tank as a higher value, they still shunt the parallel Z impedance of the LC tank, making the loaded Q relatively low all the way towards reaching the resonant frequency. And when the coils inductance is brought by the rpm of the prime mover near to or on to a value which gives a resonance (a parametric resonance in this case) with the 2.5uF cap, then the impedance of the tank increases, this increases the AC voltage across it, hence the filaments in the lamps can start heating up, this increases their resistance manyfold: the result is a sudden jump in AC voltage amplitude because the shunting effect of the transformed lamp resistances are much reduced when the ligths flash occurs. After these events, the process repeats itself because the filaments cool down, their resistance decreases so their shunting effect returns. In this process the coils wire resistance also heats up, this can explain why you found after a while the repetitive process should be given a "smack" by a slight retuning of the frequency drive: a warmer coil resistance represents more loss for the LC tank so the sudden increase in amplitude is further controlled (kept at bay) with the less Q of the tank.

This is why it is a better "trick" to include the bulb or bulbs in the LC tank itself as yfree referred to: you do not need to worry too much that the bulbs would be 'gutted', the moment the tank reaches to or at the resonant frequency,  the tank circulating current would "see" an increasing filament resistance as the bulbs would light up, so the nonlinearity of the bulbs would somewhat compensate for the nonlinearity of the saturating cores. You can even see a series variable resistor in series with the bulb inside the LC tank in Fig. 62 yfree referred to, that would further control the circulating current (and causing further loss of course) in the tank but the level of core saturation could be kept under certain, further control.

My above "rambling" did not mean to characterize the performance of the QEG in any way, it just refers to your excellent tests shown in your 2 recent videos. I hope that all what I wrote above are understandable, if you have questions, please ask.

...
Also, to be safe and allow the high voltage to go through it would require more bulbs in series then I have available.

Inside the LC tank there is no HV but high current, the HV develops across the tank.  So the lamps would be "treated" by some Ampers at resonance, which they would have to "bare".

Gyula

I was testing hitting the MOT cores with metal like woopy did and found what causes the voltage.

I also checked for magnetism in my I cores and could not conclude anything.

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3v2d2czTZg

Luc

Luc,
   I am the guy that PMed Woopy about striking the transformer. In my best tests last night I obtained 481 volts from the secondary winding of a 17 pound microwave oven transformer from a 1978 Sharp microwave. I used a 2 1/2 pound rod of hardened steel. Results can be obtained from striking anywhere on the laminations in any direction. The steel is not magnetic but I am aware that the core could be shifting in the bobbin although I can not detect and movement and I have the equipment to do that. Just to be sure I tried a second transformer from an old oscilloscope which have visible runs of hardened varnish still dripped all over it. The winding has taps for 130 120 110 24 12 volt. It weighs about 1.5 lbs and is about the size of my hand. The best it has produced is 108 volts. I have an old choke about the same size with only one winding that makes 10 volts every time.
    Using the microwave transformer I hooked a neon bulb across the secondary and it will blink long enough to see easily. The scope shows six or seven breaks each hit at about 170 volts.
    The first spike wave lasts almost always 250 us.
     When I strike the laminations I use a good blow but power is not as useful as sharpness. Think of striking a bell.
     I am not disputing anyone's results only saying the effect is very interesting to me.
Garry

Jbignes5:

It is indeed possible that the compass magnet itself is causing the deflection.  Also, it's undetermined if a small piece of metal will show any residual magnetism because the field can be very weak.

See this is the misdirection people employ to discredit findings. Very bad test indeed...

You should stop this.  There is no misdirection employed nor is there any intention to discredit findings.  It is a perfectly good test to make.  This is all in your head and you should get over it.  I have indeed stated that I do not expect anything to come from HopeGirl and the QEG project based on my experience.  But Luc's test is a completely different thing and the suggestions are real and done with good intentions.

What almost always happens is that there is a peer pressure to try to use every observation to support the latest free energy proposition.  This is done without doing any due diligence and checking of measurements, considering other explanations, doing or inventing other tests to check hypotheses, etc.  That is the wrong way to experiment and do investigations.  This idea that you put on blinders and use tunnel vision to reach your objective is just plain wrong.

Take a look at the "delayed Lenz effect" as an example.  It's almost certain that everybody got that one wrong.  Farmhand pointed out the problems with that notion over a year ago and more recently Conradelectro replicated it.  We looked at the power dissipation in the pick-up coil and realized that when you add the load resistor the power dissipated in the pick-up coil goes down and therefore rotor speeds up.  The problem is that people replicated it, saw what they were expecting to see, and "confirmed" that there was a "delayed Lenz effect."  I am pretty sure nearly none of them made the total power dissipation measurements in the pick-up coil before and after adding the load resistor.

And I know Luc that you may have originated the "delayed Lenz" tests but there is no offense intended.  It's all just part of a learning experience.  If anybody is going to experiment with electronics you can just about never stop learning.

MileHigh

Jbignes5:

It is indeed possible that the compass magnet itself is causing the deflection.  Also, it's undetermined if a small piece of metal will show any residual magnetism because the field can be very weak.

You should stop this.  There is no misdirection employed nor is there any intention to discredit findings.  It is a perfectly good test to make.  This is all in your head and you should get over it.  I have indeed stated that I do not expect anything to come from HopeGirl and the QEG project based on my experience.  But Luc's test is a completely different thing and the suggestions are real and done with good intentions.

What almost always happens is that there is a peer pressure to try to use every observation to support the latest free energy proposition.  This is done without doing any due diligence and checking of measurements, considering other explanations, doing or inventing other tests to check hypotheses, etc.  That is the wrong way to experiment and do investigations.  This idea that you put on blinders and use tunnel vision to reach your objective is just plain wrong.

Take a look at the "delayed Lenz effect" as an example.  It's almost certain that everybody got that one wrong.  Farmhand pointed out the problems with that notion over a year ago and more recently Conradelectro replicated it.  We looked at the power dissipation in the pick-up coil and realized that when you add the load resistor the power dissipated in the pick-up coil goes down and therefore rotor speeds up.  The problem is that people replicated it, saw what they were expecting to see, and "confirmed" that there was a "delayed Lenz effect."  I am pretty sure nearly none of them made the total power dissipation measurements in the pick-up coil before and after adding the load resistor.

And I know Luc that you may have originated the "delayed Lenz" tests but there is no offense intended.  It's all just part of a learning experience.  If anybody is going to experiment with electronics you can just about never stop learning.

MileHigh

 I will stop no such thing. It is healthy to be a skeptic even on the current accepted dogma. I do it boths way not just in this example.


 The argument that they should measure this and measure that when they are trying to understand what is happening is not the proper way to experiment. Yes it will help along the way as time and data is present. They are trying to work out the bugs or unthought of hindrances to the system. And if the output is only 25% of what they claim that is still more out then in. I agree that they should have a better knowledge of the unit by testing it out but they are in the process of getting everything else done including structural integrity tests. Obviously you will not be able to snow a trained engineer and fool him. They are doing just that in Taipe. IF this company doesn't know how it is working then obviously they would drop it wouldn't they?


 Just hang on a bit longer and see the results before claiming anything yourself. If they have to teach electrical engineers something in order to build it then it has to be a new "Something".


 This is soo close to the system I am building that I am excited to try to get back to the building of the system I know will work. My excitement wanes fast knowing I can not leave my bed for days at a time. It's depressing to know a good amount of information and not be able to put it into action. I am glad they are doing where I can not. I am glad that the open source theory is proving to be the winner as opposed to keeping this stuff in secret and trying to hoard everything from that work. Keep it open and in the public eye and no one will be able to control it.

Jibgnes5:

You are welcome to question and be a skeptic about the current accepted dogma.  That's a technical issue and don't be surprised if you get technical responses.

Stop trying to allege that I am something that I am not.  I am not a 'bad guy' so get over it.  My discussion about the remnant magnetism is 100% legitimate and you tried to suggest that this was being done to derail this investigation and that is not true.

Going back to the Far East, I thing it's too soon to get a response from the engineers in Taipei.  I assume sometime later we will hear from them.  Based on my real-world experience, it's honesty hard for me to believe that they got an audience with some engineers.  Just like it's hard to believe that Wayne Travis has real engineers working for him.  But that's just me.  So let's hope that we hear from the Taipei engineers directly, and not via HopeGirl's blog.

I am sorry that you have heath issues and I hope that you can devote some time to your projects.

MileHigh

Luc:

I am going to give you a suggestion for using the compass with a simple example that perhaps you can apply in your own way with your setup.

We know the compass is a magnet itself.  So it has the ability to disturb it's own measurements.  This is an issue that comes up all the time in all sorts of applications of sensors.  For an example, when you use an ammeter, it disturbs the current measurement by introducing an extra resistance into the current loop.  However, you understand in most cases the disturbance is insignificant.

The way to overcome this issue with the compass is to make differential measurements.

Suppose you have a rectangular block of metal to check for residual magnetism, and you also have an identical block of metal that is not magnetized.

The compass is lined up North-South and you approach the compass with the unmagnetized metal block and place it so the compass deflects 45 degrees.  Now, since the block of metal is unmagnetized, if you turn it around by 180 degrees and put it in the same position, the compass will still be deflected by 45 degrees.

Now if you do the same test with the slightly magnetized block you will get different results.  In one position the compass might be deflected by 43 degrees.  Turn the block around and the compass might be deflected by 47 degrees.  That is clearly telling you that there is some residual magnetism in the second block of metal.

Note that you don't need the unmagnetized block of metal as a reference.  I simply used it in the description to make the point.

Your box is built so I don't know if you can make this measurement.  If you had the "I" core and the "E" core on your bench you could in theory do these tests.  Note that you have to test for the three main polarization directions for a block also, x, y, and z.  You assume that you don't know what the direction of the polarization is.

MileHigh