Author Topic: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl) (Read 2023057 times)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1770 on:** July 04, 2014, 01:43:11 AM »

Quote from: isim on July 03, 2014, 11:33:29 PM

@TinselKoala
I think know why you get a discrepancy between the measurement of power in and power out.
The current multimeter is giving a false reading, because the current from the battery to the amplifier("generator") is pulsed and this dvm "does not see all the signal".
- And a simple capacitive filter between the multimeter and amplifier will cure the problem.
Can-you send me the amplifier schematic or it's reference if it's a commercial one?
Just to justify my ideas.
Thank-you.
@+

HI isim
Thanks again for taking a look at my data.
I'll post the results of the new tests in a little while, after doing some household chores. I'll also post the schematic of the circuit I'm using. Since the inductances I am working with are so small, physical layout is also going to be important for the tank part of the circuit and inserting the measurement resistor in there may not be the best way to do the measuring.

I'll also determine the waveform of the DC input and smooth it if necessary. Meanwhile, you may be interested in looking at these videos from Poynt99, concerning the DMMs accuracy when measuring pulsed signals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2KhGpmXPjc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXTbcToC5T4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70sPnpG2JO4

PCB · « **Reply #1771 on:** July 04, 2014, 01:57:39 AM »

It's interesting my last post at be-do was also completely ignored where I pointed folks to the results of the "German" QEG simulation matching the oscilloscope output from Morocco. Vgray, the techno fantasist and essay writer, normally comes right back with a comment. He chose this time to steer well clear. It's interesting that the two most recent postings are his and he has chosen to ignore mine. I think I will make an explicit offer to ship the Penn QEG prototype on my own buck. Also a lot of these guys posting at be-do are ostriches, with their head down researching materials, etc, and not looking at the broader horizon where they would clearly see that this whole thing is a giant con.

I changed the title of my posting http://be-do.com/index.php/en/forum/welcome-mat/490-pennsylvania-qeg-prototype-ship-to-the-uk

MileHigh · « **Reply #1772 on:** July 04, 2014, 05:25:53 AM »

It's still Year Zero in Queegeeland. Soon you will have to queue up for toilet paper.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1773 on:** July 04, 2014, 09:31:23 AM »

@isim:
I've confirmed that the input power to my system is straight DC. I connected a current viewing resistor in-line with the battery supply and scoped it: total flat-line DC without any ripple or spikes. The input current is DC at the value shown on the DMMs.

isim · « **Reply #1774 on:** July 04, 2014, 01:40:16 PM »

Hi TimselKoala,
This is intriguing!
Ok, may be you already have a capacitor at the input of your Amplifier!

I know these DVM's test video, it's a good job. But with pulse you can have & saturation in the input stage, witch give bad measurement.

I intend to simulate all your system, if you agree, so I need a very detailed information on it.
Thank-you,
@+

ACG · « **Reply #1775 on:** July 04, 2014, 06:27:58 PM »

A group in Europe has put the brakes on their build because of the results of FTW's Morocco attempt. PDF path in the post.
http://be-do.com/index.php/en/forum/manuals-documents-and-tutorials/493-full-set-of-mechanical-drawings-for-qeg

Second section under My Own Development explains the initial claim of 9kW with the decision to stop their order of parts. Followed by a very good question.
"Why the FTW team was not able to reproduce similar results with their Morocco prototype as they achieved with their first one, remains an unanswered question for me."

What will Shean, Larry, or Vgray35 have as a response if any at all or just ignore the all important question.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1776 on:** July 04, 2014, 09:18:04 PM »

From the pdf:

Quote

During the interview with FTW by alternative energy reporter Sterling Allan, James Robitaille from FTW told that he had about 9kW of equipment running (as a load) on his prototype QEG with less than 1 kW of input:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJKE5DJRMFQ .

Initially my business partners and I planned to order components and build one ourselves. However, when FTW released a well documented test report with energy input and output measurements from a new prototype they built in Morocco, we pulled the handbrake. The measurements showed that no more than 590W of usable output was achieved with an input of 607W:

https://hopegirl2012.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/morocco-qeg-june-2014-test-and-measurement-report-v2-011.pdf

Although the report also stated that this Morocco prototype was not tuned/optimized yet, a new test report showing similar results as mentioned in the Sterling Allan interview has not yet been released. Until such a new report is available, we decided to wait with ordering any components.

Why the FTW team was not able to reproduce similar results with their Morocco prototype as they achieved with their first one, remains an unanswered question for me.

I can answer the "unanswered question" and I'll do it for a lot less than "three hundred dollars an hour".

Are you ready, QEGers? Here you go.

The claim that there ever existed a "working prototype" that ran itself, for any amount of time much less 150 hours, and/or also provided 9 kW power to an external load while drawing only 1 kW from its supply is FALSE.

And there is nothing wrong with the "reproductions" in the other QEG builds around the world: they are performing exactly as expected and exactly in line with Robitaille's "prototype".

To put it very plainly: You, QEG builders around the world.... have been misled. The information you were given that caused your interest and donations in the first place was, and remains, UTTERLY FALSE.

Don't believe me? Then pool your resources and send one person, with all your money, to TIMOTHY THRAPP and pay him to see his "working prototype". Since James R. cannot under any circumstances show you his, because he hasn't got one. Or don't you believe in Timmy Thrapp and WITTS either?

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1777 on:** July 04, 2014, 10:09:27 PM »

@isim:
Thanks for your interest in this little measurement problem. Hopefully the QEGers are also following along and will take this experience to heart when making their own measurements and interpretations.

Here's the schematic for the wireless power transmitter system, with the voltage and current monitoring points indicated. The output current viewing resistor is the 2 parallel 0.5 ohm Ohmite noninductive ones, datasheet posted earlier. The input CVR is just an ordinary cement power resistor (to confirm DC waveform on the scope) or the DMM in ammeter mode (impedance about 1.8 ohm).
I apologize for the non-conventional schematic! I did it this way some time ago for a reason that isn't really relevant here... poking at LMM!

Also, another picture of the underside of that particular circuit board showing the layout. Note that the output side of the circuit: mosfet Drains, capacitors and connection to output loop/coil, is made with heavy conductors and direct, low inductance pathways as far as possible.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1778 on:** July 04, 2014, 10:27:44 PM »

Ugh. I do hate that pad-per-hole prototyping method and I rarely use it, but I was experimenting with different methods and that was the result.

But here is another much cleaner layout following the same principles (before mounting the chokes):

Farmhand · « **Reply #1779 on:** July 04, 2014, 11:51:42 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 04, 2014, 09:31:23 AM

@isim:
I've confirmed that the input power to my system is straight DC. I connected a current viewing resistor in-line with the battery supply and scoped it: total flat-line DC without any ripple or spikes. The input current is DC at the value shown on the DMMs.

I was going to comment yesterday that Your input looked right to me, in my experiences with a lot lesser input and using transformers
I found that the readings from my True RMS DMM are pretty mush just as accurate as using the scope and a 0.1 Ohm CSR (wire one)
I also checked with a analogue panel meter. But if the scope shows flat DC and the DMM agrees with the scope then I usually use the DMM.

Tinsels input just looks correct for the power he is developing in the tank.

Only the power dissipated in the tank can be considered output. I would expect to see more power in the tank than is being input.

The bit that makes me wonder with Tinsels setup is the power dissipated in the circuit. Seems to me there would be a bit of juice
dissipated in the circuit.

Will be good to see the sim. Can we run the sims ? I still haven't leaned the basics of Spice.

..

P.S. Tinsel you usually get a god 21 watts or more out don't you, I seen you show what i think was a 21 Watt auto globe lit right up,
probably over powered.
So 33 Watts input and 23 Watts output with a few Watts feeding the tank losses, a few watts "pumping" up the tank and a few
Watts dissipated in the driving circuit.

The power in the tank is kinda inconsequential compared to input and true output.

Your current sense resistor is more or less your load isn't it ?

..

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1780 on:** July 04, 2014, 11:58:15 PM »

Quote from: Farmhand on July 04, 2014, 11:51:42 PM

I was going to comment yesterday that Your input looked right to me, in my experiences with a lot lesser input and using transformers
I found that the readings from my True RMS DMM are pretty mush just as accurate as using the scope and a 0.1 Ohm CSR (wire one)
I also checked with a analogue panel meter. But if the scope shows flat DC and the DMM agrees with the scope then I usually use the DMM.

Tinsels input just looks correct for the power he is developing in the tank.

Only the power dissipated in the tank can be considered output. I would expect to see more power in the tank than is being input.

The bit that makes me wonder with Tinsels setup is the power dissipated in the circuit. Seems to me there would be a bit of juice
dissipated in the circuit.

Will be good to see the sim. Can we run the sims ? I still haven't leaned the basics of Spice.

(emphasis mine)

Hello, QEGgers! Is the light beginning to dawn upon you yet? Are you beginning to see the point of this "pointless diversion"?

(ETA: Actually if there is a receiver in use, coupled to the output loop across an air gap, the power in the receiver is also considered output, and can be seen as a corresponding rise in the DC input current.)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1781 on:** July 05, 2014, 12:29:11 AM »

Grr. I am forcing myself to listen carefully to the "long version" of the Sterling interview of James Robitaille.
It is maddening. I am trying to catch the moments when JR actually says that the prototype ran itself, how long it ran, and what kind of load it powered.
I have rarely heard such a waffling about. I am 20 minutes in, Sterling has asked the questions three times already, and Robitaille hasn't answered yet, although he has clearly dodged about trying to avoid stating the actual facts of the matter.

But.... at 22 minutes in.... we finally get the truth.

JR: ... but in resonance we've got about 150 hours on it.
SA: And ah, during that time, um... the output was...ah, I would imagine you didn't necessarily have it at the full, you know, 9300 Watts, you mentioned that's the highest you got, what would you say that was maybe the average output that you were, um, producing...
JR: .... Ah.... probably about ah, about 4 kiloWatts most of the time, so that most of the time, between 4 and 5 kiloWatts
SA: And, in terms of, you talked about, the generator only required about one tenth of what is, on the input side, what is coming on the output side... Have you actually um, run it through an inverter and self-looped it yourself?
JR: Ah, no, we ha, no, we haven't done that yet. Ahm.... we didn't, we didn't have the inverter, ahm, we put, I put this thing together in like a barn (laughter) and uh it was done with basic tools and....

And so on and so forth. NO, the prototype did not "run, operating a load of instruments of 9300 W for 150 hours" at all.

It was _tested_ in the resonant mode for perhaps 1.5 hours at a time, many times, estimated to total 150 hours. The PEAK output measured was 9300 watts... and we have good reason to believe that this was the usual peak-to-peak measurement as we have recently seen, thus overestimating the output power by a factor of at least 8. The "average" was "probably" 4-5 kW. Again, as usual and again most likely a gross overstatement. The decision was made to release it to the public... meaning to start the hyped up funding campaign and the crowdfunded world travel tour... at the point that the resonance phenomenon was reliably repeatable in the prototype. HE NEVER SELF-LOOPED the prototype. No "inverter"? Please give me a break. What is the next step after "have no inverter"? Hint: YOU GO OUT AND BUY ONE. G. Zis Cripes, how hard is that to figure out?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJKE5DJRMFQ

ACG · « **Reply #1782 on:** July 05, 2014, 12:37:43 AM »

The UK word is out!
http://be-do.com/index.php/en/forum/cicu-united-kingdom/495-phase-3-update-uk-build

Same pattern repeating.
* Hang in there we are almost there.
* Did not self loop.
* Ran out of time. - Humm, perhaps not speeding so much time installing 11 gongs, and overhead curtains, you would have had more time.
* "...we will be releasing in our famous opensource style!" - A.K.A. disabling comments to various youtube channels and banning questions over at be-do.
* The obligatory Tesla reference.
* Fleeing the scene of the crime. - But down worry, the prototype in Pennsylvania is now scheduled to be self running in 30 days. How many times have this been said?

Holding to see the title of the next fund raising caption. Should be something appropriate like "Stick Em Up!"

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1783 on:** July 05, 2014, 12:44:45 AM »

Farmhand said,

Quote

P.S. Tinsel you usually get a god 21 watts or more out don't you, I seen you show what i think was a 21 Watt auto globe lit right up,
probably over powered.
So 33 Watts input and 23 Watts output with a few Watts feeding the tank losses, a few watts "pumping" up the tank and a few
Watts dissipated in the driving circuit.

The power in the tank is kinda inconsequential compared to input and true output.

Your current sense resistor is more or less your load isn't it ?

Yes, if you count the output as what the receiver outputs to the light bulb or the DC output to a motor or something, that is probably about right. But if you look at the power circulating in the _receiver's_ tank circuit it also will seem quite a bit higher!

Yes, the CSR sitting where it is probably represents the highest impedance portion of the output load, even with the non-inductive Ohmite current-sense resistor pair. Taking the known value of the capacitor stack and the measured resonant frequency of the output tank (around 800 kHz when the battery is full) I get a total inductance in the output side of something like 0.7 microHenry, and the loop itself in isim's calculation is estimated to be only under 0.2 microHenry.

So I think you got the point of the whole exercise. The QEG folks are measuring power circulating in a tank, as well as overestimating that power by citing peak-to-peak values. The way to measure the true output power of such a resonating system is to measure the power dissipated in a load, and this does _not_ mean measuring the V and I "supplied" to the load!

ETA: The current sense resistor does get really hot, really fast, and so I can only operate the circuit a few seconds at a time when it is in there, I don't have any spares of this item. With only the loop itself as output, I can operate for some minutes before the loop warms up much. Three parallel strands of #12 solid copper wire and it does warm up perceptibly. The capacitors are the parts that heat up the most, and that's why they should be high quality, poly film, overrated for voltage, and built up total capacitance from smaller units in parallel.

isim · « **Reply #1784 on:** July 05, 2014, 01:08:34 AM »

@TinselKoala
I was busy this evening, and the sim will be for the end of the WE. I just have the time to draw and adjust the sim parameters.
One problem: the generator does not want start alone, so I will test it with an external command signal on the drain!
And I confirm your measurement: no pulse in the current from the battery... (because C9, L1 and L2)
@+

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl) (Read 2023057 times)

TinselKoala

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

PCB

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

MileHigh

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

TinselKoala

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

isim

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

ACG

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

TinselKoala

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

TinselKoala

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

TinselKoala

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

Farmhand

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

TinselKoala

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

TinselKoala

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

ACG

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

TinselKoala

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

isim

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