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: 84253
  • *Latest: januszb0

  • *Total Posts: 898087
  • *Total Topics: 15836
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)  (Read 1675626 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #765 on: May 06, 2014, 04:36:55 PM »
So let's agree to disagree on the interpretation of this law.  There is nothing to be gained by arguing over formalities.
No, let's stick to the accepted definitions of established scientific laws.  If one decides that one can make up their own definitions for established laws then one can play all kinds of ridiculous games claiming to violate the made up definitions.  That is a completely pointless undertaking.
Quote

Perhaps you call the tendency to minimize the change of flux through the hole of a shorted coil by another name. I am interested to know by what?
You can decide to adopt the same language that the rest of the world uses to describe induction or not.
Quote

If however you claim that a constant magnetic flux is not maintained through the hole of an ideal closed conductive loop, then let's discuss that.
Faraday cages still work.  If you want one to work in all three axes, then it needs to be a closed surface.
Quote
But the subject of this conversation is a superconducting loop with a hole, not some holeless superconducting disk, etc...
The subject as stated was the false assertion that the flat toroid violates Lenz' Law.  It does not violate Lenz' Law.
Quote
We are discussing the magnetic flux through that hole - not flux within the superconducting material.
You seem to keep changing what it is that you wish to discuss.  Are we done with Lenz' now?
Quote
You do not claim that a superconducting loop rejects all the magnetic flux in that hole, do you?
I never said such a thing.
Quote
( Note: This is very different from claiming that a superconducting loop rejects all changes to the magnetic flux in that hole )
You misunderstood. It did not.
I claim that a constant magnetic flux is maintained through the hole of an ideal conductive loop, and any current induced in that loop will achieve the exact magnitude to keep that flux constant.
No.
As there is nothing to create an image in the perpendicular axis, I disagree.
Quote

First of all, changing magnetic flux density (dB/dt) does not cause any voltage to be induced across any coil nor any current in any coil.  I guess that dB was a typo.
Tell that to the ignition coil in your automobile.  If it is perpendicular to the length of a conductor, dB/dt most certainly induces a voltage.
Quote

It is the changing magnetic flux (dΦ/dt) that causes a voltage (EMF) to be induced across a non-shorted coil. 
Which can be found as dB/dt x L and the induction occurs whether or not the coil is shorted.
Quote

Secondly, because a constant magnetic flux is maintained through the hole of an ideal closed conductive loop, then the dΦ/dt=0.
In the plane of the flat torus that is true.  Perpendicular to it is a different matter.  If that were not true, think of all the money we could save shielding circuits, EMC chambers and the like by leaving two opposite sides open.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3465
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #766 on: May 06, 2014, 05:31:03 PM »
You can decide to adopt the same language that the rest of the world uses to describe induction .
So what do you call the tendency to minimize the change of flux through the hole of a shorted coil ?

Faraday cages still work.  If you want one to work in all three axes, then it needs to be a closed surface.
Now you are changing the subject

The subject as stated was the false assertion that the flat toroid violates Lenz' Law.
No you misunderstood.  I agree with the Lenz law.

As there is nothing to create an image in the perpendicular axis, I disagree.
So are you claiming that this simulation is incorrect ?
If not, I do not see the total flux in the hole varying as the magnet is pulled out.
Which axis? What image?

Tell that to the ignition coil in your automobile. 
I did and she said that it cares about varying flux only.  It does not care about local flux density.

If it is perpendicular to the length of a conductor, dB/dt most certainly induces a voltage.
Which can be found as dB/dt x L and the induction occurs whether or not the coil is shorted.
Only when magnetic flux lines cut the conductor.  That does not happen in a superconductive loop.

In the plane of the flat torus that is true. 
And the flux penetrating the inside plane of the loop is all that influences the current flowing in the loop.
The distribution of that flux (B) across that plane does not affect the current flowing in that loop.

Perpendicular to it is a different matter.  If that were not true, think of all the money we could save shielding circuits, EMC chambers and the like by leaving two opposite sides open.
Yes, it is a different matter.  The height of the torus is negligible - that's why I call it a loop.
We are not discussing Faraday's cages. We are discussing whether the rate of attempted change of flux (dΦ/dt) penetrating the inside plane of the loop (or a Gaussian surface bounding the inside of that loop) affects the final magnitude of the current induced in that loop.

The answer is yes: changing dB/dt changes the induced current.
Varying dB/dt was not even the subject of the original question.

However if changing dΦ/dt changes the induced current then inserting the magnet slowly into the hole and pulling it out quickly, and doing that repeatedly would increase the magnitude of the current flowing in the closed superconducting loop with each cycle, until HC was reached and all hell broke loose ... yet somehow this does not happen

Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #767 on: May 06, 2014, 08:17:49 PM »
It's impossible for anything to achieve an infinite value because no such set value exists by definition. Anything that points to any value that is infinite is inadequate. Infinity cannot even be approached. I say that some folks ought to seriously think about restricting the use of terms like infinite current and approaching infinity because they are impossibilities.

Only the continuance of events in the Universe will go on without end, that is the only infinity, and that isn't time either, "time" as a human contrivance will end when people do.

Bottom line is that any output energy is simply captured or transformed, if a device can capture energy and produce over unity operation of some tens or hundreds of watts it should be able to be measured easily and if the C.O.P. is over 2 looping to self power should be a simple process.

Everything else is just people experimenting and or making claims for various reasons, the actual reasons behind the claims are not as important as the actual performance of the device compared to the claims made.

No OU has been shown by the claimants of OU, they lied. Apparently routinely they lie.

They need to fess up and admit what they have. Their scam is so very similar to Witts it's painful to see, make false claims to get "donations" not legitimate investment. It's a scam pure and simple.

Others seeing this will want to get in on the action so we can expect even more scams because of the success of previous ones.

Cheers

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #767 on: May 06, 2014, 08:17:49 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3465
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #768 on: May 06, 2014, 09:00:01 PM »
It's impossible for anything to achieve an infinite value because no such set value exists by definition. Anything that points to any value that is infinite is inadequate. Infinity cannot even be approached. I say that some folks ought to seriously think about restricting the use of terms like infinite current and approaching infinity because they are impossibilities.
Yes but infinity is a useful mathematical and analytical concept. 
The word does not warrant a knee-jerk rejection without consideration of the context in which it was used.

Why should I use restrict my usage of the phrase "infinite current" if it can be used to show the absurdity of some situations, such as EMF in zero-resistance loop ?
Did you ever hear about the fine debating technique Reductio ad Absurdum ?

Offline mscoffman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #769 on: May 06, 2014, 09:05:16 PM »

Wouldn't it make sense to have F_Brown try an evolutionary design to put one turn of each
coil "on" then take one turn "off" in an attempt to tune the design for maximum (non ou)
power. The measured .2KVA output relative to the amount of copper and iron (steel) in this
device does not seem to be correct when the original device seemed targeted to 20KVA.
This would suggest to people how to adjust their efficiency of their core upward. While
no-one truly understands the OU paradigmn of this device, I would expect it to start with
the most efficient underlying normal generator possible. I would try this before I varried
steel amounts in the core. One run could target maximum power. Another the maximum
power efficiency relative to drive horse-power near maximum power.


:S:MarkSCoffman

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #769 on: May 06, 2014, 09:05:16 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ariovaldo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 331
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #770 on: May 06, 2014, 09:12:49 PM »
Would a tape wound core work in this application? I understand there are articulations in the center ring, but maybe there are ways around this. The tooling cost would probably be a lot less than a custom die or laser cut laminations. Tapewound cores are often used in large Variacs and toroidal power transformers.

How much does the core weigh?


My first QEG using material that I had in my shop... Now I will test it in my motionless version.
The weigh is 40 pounds, diameter 11 inches,






Cheers


Ariovaldo

Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #771 on: May 06, 2014, 09:36:24 PM »
Yes but infinity is a useful mathematical and analytical concept. 
The word does not warrant a knee-jerk rejection without consideration of the context in which it was used.

Why should I use restrict my usage of the phrase "infinite current" if it can be used to show the absurdity of some situations, such as EMF in zero-resistance loop ?
Did you ever hear about the fine debating technique Reductio ad Absurdum ?

I didn't say you should restrict it, I said you should consider it. I would say that many people on here are not engineers and some would take it literally that there is infinite current. I just thought it might be a good idea to consider modifying the way it is used. People can do as they please and they will, including myself. I probably should have said it might be helpful to add that these values are theoretically impossible.

It is impossible to approach infinity or to have infinite current. Am I wrong? Maybe just adding the word theoretically could help.

..

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #771 on: May 06, 2014, 09:36:24 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline herm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #772 on: May 06, 2014, 10:42:04 PM »
I tried adding clamp on pole pieces to a tape wound core and abandoned it since we only got 8% variation in inductance.  Let me know how you do with your mode.  A pic of my core is attached.

Offline T-1000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1739
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #773 on: May 06, 2014, 11:29:39 PM »
I tried adding clamp on pole pieces to a tape wound core and abandoned it since we only got 8% variation in inductance.  Let me know how you do with your mode.  A pic of my core is attached.

Then you might try this one in the left:
http://filebin.net/84mauc7noc/00555190-1-generator.png
The bifilar coils F are electromagnets in Tesla patent. The coils E are generator coils. The "a" is iron on 90 degrees to the magnet. The electromagnets are for redirecting Lenz force around the ring instead of magnet. Also the rotor is very close to coils.
I assume if to keep balance you can have 0 reaction to magnet and electromagnets will help to spin rotor there... ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #773 on: May 06, 2014, 11:29:39 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline F_Brown

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #774 on: May 07, 2014, 02:12:00 AM »
I tried adding clamp on pole pieces to a tape wound core and abandoned it since we only got 8% variation in inductance.  Let me know how you do with your mode.  A pic of my core is attached.

Is that a toroidal core with pole pieces bolted on?

You should find that the inductance varies greatly with current.   You'd have to put some power through the thing to see the self-inductance drop as the power goes up, or maybe less to see a greater difference.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 04:57:21 AM by F_Brown »

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #775 on: May 07, 2014, 03:07:35 AM »
Quote
Quote
Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    You can decide to adopt the same language that the rest of the world uses to describe induction .

So what do you call the tendency to minimize the change of flux through the hole of a shorted coil ?
Induction.
Quote

Quote
Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    Faraday cages still work.  If you want one to work in all three axes, then it needs to be a closed surface.

Now you are changing the subject
Not at all.  Induction creates an image current.  Ideal induction, IE induction where there are zero losses induces an exact image current.  A Faraday cage creates image currents on all sides.  That's what makes it work.  Your ring is not closed on all sides, cannot generate an image current regardless of the orientation of the changing flux and therefore cannot cancel the flux independent of orientation.
Quote

Quote
Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    The subject as stated was the false assertion that the flat toroid violates Lenz' Law.

No you misunderstood.  I agree with the Lenz law.

First you have claimed that Lenz' Law states things that it does not.  Who knows whether you are saying that you agree with the actual Lenz' Law or the one that you have made up for yourself.  Second, here is your post that started this: 
Quote
Quote
Quote from: MarkE on May 06, 2014, 02:50:42 AM

    Lenz' Law enforces CoE for Faraday's Law of Induction.

Yes it does, but sth is different in this situation when a closed coil is used with movable ferrite and KE is accounted for.

In an ideal shorted coil, any non-zero EMF (ℰ) would result in infinite current because I=ℰ/R.
So Faraday's Law of Induction (ℰ = -dΦ/dt) does not seem to apply in case of ideal shorted coils because the Lenz law always keeps dΦ/dt=0.

Quote
Quote
Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    As there is nothing to create an image in the perpendicular axis, I disagree.

So are you claiming that this simulation is incorrect ?
If not, I do not see the total flux in the hole varying as the magnet is pulled out.
I have not evaluated the animation.
Quote
Which axis? What image?
Flux can change in the Z axis without generation of corresponding matching image currents in the X-Y plane.
Quote
Quote

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    Tell that to the ignition coil in your automobile.

I did and she said that it cares about varying flux only.  It does not care about local flux density.
Are you unclear what dt means?
Quote
Quote

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    If it is perpendicular to the length of a conductor, dB/dt most certainly induces a voltage.
    Which can be found as dB/dt x L and the induction occurs whether or not the coil is shorted.

Only when magnetic flux lines cut the conductor.  That does not happen in a superconductive loop.
Now you seem to be unclear about what "x" signifies as in cross product.
Quote
Quote

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    In the plane of the flat torus that is true.

And the flux penetrating the inside plane of the loop is all that influences the current flowing in the loop.
But should not be confused for all of the flux from the magnet, much of which easily goes straight through that hole with its permeability of 1.  If you are having trouble with this, consider what happens when you make the ID of the donut approach the OD of the donut.  For a constant OD, do you think that  the current: 

a. gets bigger
b. stays the same
c. gets smaller

than with a small ID?
Quote
The distribution of that flux (B) across that plane does not affect the current flowing in that loop.
The rate at which the flux changes sure does.
Quote
Quote

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    Perpendicular to it is a different matter.  If that were not true, think of all the money we could save shielding circuits, EMC chambers and the like by leaving two opposite sides open.

Yes, it is a different matter.  The height of the torus is negligible - that's why I call it a loop.
Thin or thick torus is not the issue.  Intercepting or not intercepting all the flux is the issue.  where a conductor does not intercept flux, it does not intercept that flux when that flux changes and does not in turn generate an image of that changing flux.
Quote
We are not discussing Faraday's cages.
Oh, but we are.  If one wants to make it look like there is no changing flux, then one needs to intercept and image all the flux that participates in the change.
Quote
We are discussing whether the rate of attempted change of flux (dΦ/dt) penetrating the inside plane of the loop (or a Gaussian surface bounding the inside of that loop) affects the final magnitude of the current induced in that loop.
That has been asked and answered.  The answer is yes the current depends on the rate of change of the intercepting flux.
Quote
Quote

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 02:39:31 PM

    The answer is yes: changing dB/dt changes the induced current.

Varying dB/dt was not even the subject of the original question.
Oh but it is.
Quote

However if changing dΦ/dt changes the induced current then inserting the magnet slowly into the hole and pulling it out quickly, and doing that repeatedly would increase the magnitude of the current flowing in the closed superconducting loop with each cycle, until HC was reached and all hell broke loose ... yet somehow this does not happen
It doesn't happen because the work required for each new withdrawal similarly increases.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #775 on: May 07, 2014, 03:07:35 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3465
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #776 on: May 07, 2014, 12:11:35 PM »
The answer is yes the current depends on the rate of change of the intercepting flux.
However if changing dΦ/dt changes the induced current then inserting the magnet slowly into the hole and pulling it out quickly, and doing that repeatedly would increase the magnitude of the current flowing in the closed superconducting loop with each cycle, until HC was reached and all hell broke loose ... yet somehow this does not happen
It doesn't happen because the work required for each new withdrawal similarly increases.
Similarly to what?
To the work done by the pull-in ?

You have answered but you have not proven that the work done during fast withdrawal of a magnet from a closed ideal current loop is greater than the work done by the loop attracting the magnet back into the loop from the same distance.

Are you stating that if you connected that magnet to an ideal Whitworth mechanism (click here to see it animated) then it would take non zero work to turn that crank over integer number of revolutions and after a while the superconducting loop would explode?

I claim that not only the integrals of the force over the distance are equal in both of those cases but the functions of force vs distance are equal too.

In other words the loop is conservative as far as this work is concerned and it does not matter how fast that work is done on the loop or by the loop.

Magnet & Superconducting Loop Animated GIF Test
Click here to see it animated

I am not finished...
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 08:13:59 PM by verpies »

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #777 on: May 07, 2014, 01:16:29 PM »
Quote
It doesn't happen because the work required for each new withdrawal similarly increases.

Similarly to what?
To the work done by the pull-in ?
Similarly to the current increasing.  For your example of slow in and fast out, after the first cycle the work released pulling in increases each cycle and the work required to withdraw the magnet faster than it gets pulled in increases.  This continues until the magnet saturates.  Then the rate of change of flux drops way off and the increases each cycle become smaller and smaller.
Quote

You have answered but you have not proven that the work done during fast withdrawal of a magnet from a closed ideal current loop is greater than the work done by the loop attracting the magnet back into the loop from the same distance.
Ordinary text book induction backs my position.  What backs yours?  On what basis would you claim that induction fundamentally changes because the conductor gets really really good?
Quote

I claim that not only the integrals of the force over the distance are equal in both of those cases but the functions of force vs distance are equal too.
Lorentz would disagree for the same reasons as Faraday and Maxwell.  A different rate of change of flux changes the image current and the Lorentz force.
Quote

In other words the loop is conservative as far as this work is concerned and it does not matter how fast that work is done on the loop or by the loop.
You are greatly abusing the term "conservative".  There is not a fixed quantity of energy stored in a superconductor.  Consider that if there were that superconductors would offer no promise for energy storage.
Quote

Magnet & Superconducting Loop Animated GIF Test
Click here to see it animated

I am not finished...
Well I hope you eventually learn something from this.

Offline F_Brown

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #778 on: May 07, 2014, 04:51:43 PM »
I have yet o work out the math for your magnet and super-conductor gizmo, although I expect the law of conservation of mass and energy would apply to this in such a way that if the super-conducting ring has zero current to begin with, then if the magnet was moved a fixed distance into the center of the loop, then withdrawn exactly the same distance, the current in the loop would return to zero, at the end, regardless of how fast the insertion or withdrawal were each separately done.

In simple terms a faster motion might take a higher value of instantaneous energy to accomplish although since the action is happening at a faster rate, the total amount of power used will equal the amount required to move the magnet in the opposite direction at a slower speed.  Fast action means more energy for less time, and slow action means less energy for more time.  I would expect the area under the curves for both cases to equal the same amount. 

Offline F_Brown

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)
« Reply #779 on: May 07, 2014, 05:30:58 PM »
I'd also like to explore a potential misconception about the CEG and harmonic frequencies.

People have been saying they they intend to or that he CEG can operate with its fundamental resonant frequency higher than the modulating or driving frequency.  Such a state would be like a rotor rpm of 100Hz and a tank resonance of 400Hz.

The Russian paper on parametric excitation that I read, http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Parexcit.pdf, only talks about modulating the system with harmonic frequencies that are higher than the primary resonant frequency.  In other words it avoids discussion of modulating the system with sub-harmonic frequencies, that is frequencies that are lower than the fundamental resonant frequency of the system.
The paper goes on to say the best way to drive the system is with a modulating frequency that is twice the fundamental resonance, that is with the 2nd harmonic, and that driving the system with higher harmonics is possible, although that works significantly less well.

Now, driving the system with a sub-harmonic may be possible, however if it was a useful and or efficient way to do so, my guess is that the paper, which was quite thorough otherwise, would have mentioned so.

 

OneLink