Author Topic: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl) (Read 2011124 times)

Johan_1955 · « **Reply #1125 on:** May 23, 2014, 08:34:17 PM »

Quote from: MarkE on May 23, 2014, 06:14:11 PM

The truth does always come out. It is immune to opinion.

Dear MarkE,

Yes, your right, its now so clear!
They can nag easy on lot of people, like last week: Bedini, LindeMann or RotoVerter!
But no building or testing experience!

Regards, Johan

MarkE · « **Reply #1126 on:** May 23, 2014, 10:14:21 PM »

Quote from: Johan_1955 on May 23, 2014, 08:34:17 PM

Dear MarkE,

Yes, your right, its now so clear!
They can nag easy on lot of people, like last week: Bedini, LindeMann or RotoVerter!
But no building or testing experience!

Regards, Johan

Do you object that I agree with you that the truth is ultimately known?

Don't you know the truth yet about: Bedini, Lindemann, or the Rotoverter? If you don't, just compare the claims made these many years against the evidence.

As to what I've built, you have no knowledge on which to base your claim.

Johan_1955 · « **Reply #1127 on:** May 24, 2014, 08:02:58 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on May 23, 2014, 10:14:21 PM

Do you object that I agree with you that the truth is ultimately known?

Don't you know the truth yet about: Bedini, Lindemann, or the Rotoverter? If you don't, just compare the claims made these many years against the evidence.

As to what I've built, you have no knowledge on which to base your claim.

Your right: Its always coming out, just time!

May I ask: What is your idea about Chemtrails?

Regards, Johan

MarkE · « **Reply #1128 on:** May 24, 2014, 08:23:22 AM »

Quote from: Johan_1955 on May 24, 2014, 08:02:58 AM

Your right: Its always coming out, just time!

May I ask: What is your idea about Chemtrails?

Regards, Johan

What are you asking?

gravityblock · « **Reply #1129 on:** May 24, 2014, 09:50:56 AM »

Quote from: Johan_1955 on May 24, 2014, 08:02:58 AM

May I ask: What is your idea about Chemtrails?

Regards, Johan

Quote from: MarkE on May 24, 2014, 08:23:22 AM
What are you asking?

@ AI,
This is an interesting and fascinating question for one to ask who has participated in this discussion, titled "German Scientists Proves Chemtrails".

@ All,
The original question asked, "What is your idea about Chemtrails?", is off-topic and totally irrelevant to this discussion, so this question probably has no real meaning to the AI or it's sybil seconds in regards to the QEG discussion.

Gravock

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1130 on:** May 24, 2014, 02:45:43 PM »

I thought this was the "Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)" thread. I don't think it's about Rotoverters or chemtrails....

Anyhow, here are a couple of frame grabs from the recent "Overunity" video from QEG Morocco.

The first one shows the channel settings and clearly reveals that their oscilloscope has both channels set to "AC Coupled". Is there an electrical engineer in the house? Well, at least this incorrect setting probably does not change the peak-to-peak values computed by the scope, although it usually WILL change the positive and negative peak values and other math performed on the traces.

The second one shows that the scope is indeed computing the peak-to-peak values for both traces and that the claims made in the video of OU are indeed coming from these computed peak-to-peak values. One must assume that the channel attenuations do not match the probes: one High-Voltage probe with 1000:1 attenuation, presumably... and one coil-type current monitor with unknown ratio of sensed current to voltage output but presumed to be 10:1 or 1 Amp:100 mV. They must have both scope channels set to no probe attenuation ie 1:1, since the channel values are reported in milliVolts and we must do the multiplication for the probe attens ourselves. (Misuse of scope).

Regardless, the glaring error of the power computation is confirmed and the evidence for scoposcopic incompetence is preserved for the record.

PCB · « **Reply #1131 on:** May 24, 2014, 03:18:17 PM »

1. What disturbs me is that no evidence has been shown for the supposed overunity case that Jamie reported on this week (1590W out for 800W in). No scope traces, no nothing!

2. I'm willing to believe that the load is not impedance matched to the generator. I doubt that they are using the tank circuit. I doubt that they know why its there in the first place? If they where using it I would expect to see not quite so perfect phase alignment, and more waveform distortion. Why 6 light bulbs? Getting the load impedance right is sort of import is you want to get maximum power transfer.

3. We really do not know what the current circuit arrangement is any more. If this was truly open source they would publish their ideas so others could work with them. Folks who are perhaps actual engineers.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1132 on:** May 24, 2014, 03:33:01 PM »

Quote from: PCB on May 24, 2014, 03:18:17 PM

1. What disturbs me is that no evidence has been shown for the supposed overunity case that Jamie reported on this week (1590W out for 800W in). No scope traces, no nothing!

They are making progress in their journey! They have learned, from the responses to the May 18 video, that they must NOT show any raw data or scopetraces, along with their claims of OU.

It's typical for scoposcopic incompetents to forget that people -- some of them -- can actually read the _traces_ rather than just the numbers in boxes on a DSO, and they also forget that some people actually do know how to use a modern, high bandwidth, expensive math-capable DSO effectively and can interpret readings and scope settings in order to draw valid conclusions from the raw data.

The QEG crew now realize that is true, so they won't be showing any more raw data.

Quote

2. I'm willing to believe that the load is not impedance matched to the generator. I doubt that they are using the tank circuit. I doubt that they know why its there in the first place? If they where using it I would expect to see not quite so perfect phase alignment, and more waveform distortion. Why 6 light bulbs? Getting the load impedance right is sort of import is you want to get maximum power transfer.

All true. Why 6 light bulbs? Because anyone can read the nameplate on the bulbs and see that six of them in series, lighting up, MUST represent 600 Watts of power! Why else?
Choosing a non-linear load like a filament--- whose resistance changes radically with temperature -- is also SOP for OverUnity claimants. Using a proper loadbank of power resistors with low temperature coefficients of resistance is not impressive because it doesn't light up. Why not put the QEG's output thru a HV FWB and then charge up some capacitors with the ripply DC, then run an inverter off the cap charge? I know why, and so do you.

Quote

3. We really do not know what the current circuit arrangement is any more. If this was truly open source they would publish their ideas so others could work with them. Folks who are perhaps actual engineers.

Open Source? Give me a break. This is only "open source" if you have the time and money to go to wherever Robitaille happens to be working at the moment, which is probably Peru by now.

Besides, they have claimed repeatedly that they have many actual engineers working with them, already, both on-site and around the world. And James Robitaille himself is a Great Engineer, we are told, with patents and lots of experience at ShopVac Corporation and everything.

Do you think that this claim is somehow... false? I do. I str we haven't seen anybody display credentials like a P.E. licence or even an engineering degree from an accredited school....

ETA: The scope shown in the video, some flavor of the Tektronix 3054, can display a Math trace that computes the instantaneous power curve, and it can further INTEGRATE that result over a selected interval. Why are these people not using this capability of this very expensive and capable oscilloscope? I know why and so do you.

MarkE · « **Reply #1133 on:** May 24, 2014, 03:45:39 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 24, 2014, 02:45:43 PM

I thought this was the "Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)" thread. I don't think it's about Rotoverters or chemtrails....

Anyhow, here are a couple of frame grabs from the recent "Overunity" video from QEG Morocco.

The first one shows the channel settings and clearly reveals that their oscilloscope has both channels set to "AC Coupled". Is there an electrical engineer in the house? Well, at least this incorrect setting probably does not change the peak-to-peak values computed by the scope, although it usually WILL change the positive and negative peak values and other math performed on the traces.

The second one shows that the scope is indeed computing the peak-to-peak values for both traces and that the claims made in the video of OU are indeed coming from these computed peak-to-peak values. One must assume that the channel attenuations do not match the probes: one High-Voltage probe with 1000:1 attenuation, presumably... and one coil-type current monitor with unknown ratio of sensed current to voltage output but presumed to be 10:1 or 1 Amp:100 mV. They must have both scope channels set to no probe attenuation ie 1:1, since the channel values are reported in milliVolts and we must do the multiplication for the probe attens ourselves. (Misuse of scope).

Regardless, the glaring error of the power computation is confirmed and the evidence for scoposcopic incompetence is preserved for the record.

While it is a very good idea and standard practice to enter the probe attenuation and measurement type: voltage / current so that the oscilloscope displays directly indicate the measured quantities in the correct units, it's OK not to do that provided the attenuation and units are noted elsewhere. On occasion a particular oscilloscope won't have the right attenuation setting to read directly in correct units, although that is not the case here.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1134 on:** May 24, 2014, 03:55:49 PM »

Quote from: MarkE on May 24, 2014, 03:45:39 PM

While it is a very good idea and standard practice to enter the probe attenuation and measurement type: voltage / current so that the oscilloscope displays directly indicate the measured quantities in the correct units, it's OK not to do that provided the attenuation and units are noted elsewhere. On occasion a particular oscilloscope won't have the right attenuation setting to read directly in correct units, although that is not the case here.

Agreed, of course. My venerable and trusty HP180A doesn't even have any "probe atten" settings or markings.... the makers assumed that anyone using such an instrument can keep track of... and report properly... such information and its effect on the value of the traces displayed. People who watch my videos showing scope data might note that I always report scope channel and probe attenuations -- but then, I am trying to convey information, rather than obscuring it as the QEG people appear to be doing. It was hell scanning through that video looking for a frame or two where one could actually READ the scope screen... and of course the scope itself can save a screen shot at full resolution. Since there are still shots in the video... why isn't there a clear screenshot from the scope itself displayed as a still frame? I know why... and so do you.

Is there some place where the details of the QEG mob's Current Transformer are noted? I must have missed it. But at least they are now using a proper BNC patch cord to connect this current sensor instead of the banana-jack adapter and clipleads to a scope probe.

MarkE · « **Reply #1135 on:** May 24, 2014, 04:23:17 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 24, 2014, 03:55:49 PM

Agreed, of course. My venerable and trusty HP180A doesn't even have any "probe atten" settings or markings.... the makers assumed that anyone using such an instrument can keep track of... and report properly... such information and its effect on the value of the traces displayed. People who watch my videos showing scope data might note that I always report scope channel and probe attenuations -- but then, I am trying to convey information, rather than obscuring it as the QEG people appear to be doing. It was hell scanning through that video looking for a frame or two where one could actually READ the scope screen... and of course the scope itself can save a screen shot at full resolution. Since there are still shots in the video... why isn't there a clear screenshot from the scope itself displayed as a still frame? I know why... and so do you.

Is there some place where the details of the QEG mob's Current Transformer are noted? I must have missed it. But at least they are now using a proper BNC patch cord to connect this current sensor instead of the banana-jack adapter and clipleads to a scope probe.

I have not seen where they have detailed out, much less checked their instrumentation set-up. The 1000:1 voltage probe is obvious in some pictures. I don't know if they have ever identified the particular current sense transformer that they are using. A 100mV/A sensitivity for a current transformer is common. They are reporting values as though that is what they use.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1136 on:** May 24, 2014, 04:40:12 PM »

Here are the best views I could find in the May 18 video of the current transformer. It sure doesn't look to me like anyone is really expecting voltages in the tens of kV to appear in this apparatus.

ETA: The automotive spark plugs used as a spark gap are cute, aren't they? I wonder if those are Bosch brand Platinum electrode plugs, like I'm running in my car. They really do last longer and give better mileage performance!

Hoppy · « **Reply #1137 on:** May 24, 2014, 04:50:33 PM »

We must remember that QEG scope shots show how free energy type power measurements are taken because the peak value of the QEG waveform represent the peak of inrushing aetheric energy, so the units of power are those assumed to do real work termed: 'Wattnots'. These are considered distinctly superior to the ordinary Watts used by conventional electrical engineers and the new revolutionary QEG machines will see the end to the reign of the greedy oil barons by giving Hope to all.

MarkE · « **Reply #1138 on:** May 24, 2014, 05:23:25 PM »

A lot of people do not understand insulation and clearances that are necessary to safely work with voltages above what they have in their homes.

PCB · « **Reply #1139 on:** May 24, 2014, 06:37:47 PM »

Quote from: Hoppy on May 24, 2014, 04:50:33 PM

We must remember that QEG scope shots show how free energy type power measurements are taken because the peak value of the QEG waveform represent the peak of inrushing aetheric energy, so the units of power are those assumed to do real work termed: 'Wattnots'. These are considered distinctly superior to the ordinary Watts used by conventional electrical engineers and the new revolutionary QEG machines will see the end to the reign of the greedy oil barons by giving Hope to all.

I think the output power equation for the overunity QEG is something like this;

P_out (Wattnots) = V_rms x I_rms x cos(angle) + P_hope where P_hope = n x P_input(W) and where n>= 1

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl) (Read 2011124 times)

Johan_1955

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

MarkE

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

Johan_1955

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

MarkE

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

gravityblock

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

TinselKoala

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

PCB

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)

TinselKoala

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

MarkE

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

TinselKoala

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

Hoppy

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

MarkE

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

PCB

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