About the Quantum Energy Generator (QEG)

I have noticed some discussion on various web sites about a product called the Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) — and haven’t looked into it in much detail at all. Since it maybe of interest to some here, I thought I would repost a comment by ECW reader Fortyniner who provides some information and links about the QEG for readers’ consideration and comments:

A group calling itself ‘Fix the World’ is claiming to have built working ‘free energy’ generators, based on an 1894 Tesla motor-generator patent. The machine is called the “Quantum Energy Generator (QEG)” developed by electronics engineer James M. Robitaille, and his group have just released a full set of build plans for the device into the public domain.

http://hopegirl2012.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/qeg-user-manual-3-25-14.pdf

There is the usual YouTube demo video which I would normally ignore, but the release of full instructions for building the generator make this a bit different from the usual run of claims. The video claims to show how a community in Morocco built a working unit in only 3 days.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/04/30/free-energy-live-action-quantum-energy-generator-morocco/

http://hopegirl2012.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/qeg-we-are-serious-and-we-are-making-it-happen/

The claim is that this machine directly derives from Tesla’s free power device that J P Morgan squashed, when he realised that it would be the end of his power business. For some reason this does not feel like a hoax, but of course it could be a fundraising sc*m (donations are being actively requested).

Reactions?

  • Curbina

    IMHO this is, at best, a group of technically challenged people with great intentions but just fooling themselves, and at worst, a downright scam.

  • Slayaan

    Learn more about Tesla, the guy was a real genius.

    • yes, but genius makes mistakes….
      They just can use their mistakes better than us.
      they are not prophet….
      Tesla ideas also were based on erroneous theory of aether, so not surprising he made mistakes.

      • Slayaan

        Yeah right he might have be wrong sometimes, just that people should be more aware of what Tesla did. I’m not saying the machine we see is has a positive ration or anything. Nor do I claim the Wardenclyff Tower story is true.

      • lkelemen

        you could check Stoyan Sarg’s theory about ether (and LENR) http://www.slideshare.net/stoyansarg/sarg-sse2012-16314336

  • Charles

    I totally believe Tesla could have (may have) done it. I rate him right up there 6 floors above Edison, Bell, etal.

  • Ophelia Rump

    This has been around for a very long time, and claiming to be production quality a very long time.
    You can judge the reality of this from the fact that I do not own one. No one I know owns one.
    Perhaps there is a reason he has moved his operations to Morocco.

    Rossi got 20 Million funding in a blink of the eye, this guy got “mafee”.

  • Ophelia Rump

    This has been around for a very long time, and claiming to be production quality a very long time.
    You can judge the reality of this from the fact that I do not own one. No one I know owns one.
    Perhaps there is a reason he has moved his operations to Morocco.

    Rossi got 20 Million funding in a blink of the eye, this guy got “mafee”.

    • Mats

      Can you give some examples of QEG and similar devices of Tesla being around a very long time? And what is the meaning of “mafee”? I tend to agree with you but some clarifications would help me doing so.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Mafee is Arabic for “Nothing”.

        QEG has been around a long time. I have memories of this on the internet maybe more than a decade. This dates back to the days of Tom Bearden.

        Invoking the name of Tesla does not make you the heir to his knowledge.
        He has to stand on his own name, what was that name?

  • georgehants

    How about just for once people stop giving “opinions” expert or otherwise and start looking into the history for only Evidence and Facts.
    And I do mean Facts not just the censored content of Wiki-rubbish.
    Every “opinion” is a waste of space whereas, Facts and Evidence are interesting, useful and worthwhile.
    Would it not be good on all subjects to just know the Truth.
    Weird am I not.

    • Recursive Thinker

      George… you just have us your opinion

      • georgehants

        Recursive Thinker, are you saying that science asking for Facts, Evidence and Truth is just an opinion.

        • Broncobet

          yes

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Does anyone know something about the theory behind this machine?

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Does anyone know something about the theory behind this machine?

  • Gerard McEk

    I do not believe in energy coming from ‘nowhere’. A Perpetuum Mobile does not exist.

    • georgehants

      Gerard McEk, do you know if our universe is open or closed?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        At the moment, it’s closed due to intergalactic consultations.

        • georgehants

          Andreas Moraitis, do you know if our universe is open or closed?
          Here you have to prove your knowledge, skeptical tactics just make one look foolish.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Where do you see “skeptical tactics”?

          • georgehants

            Now you have resorted to circular conversation you are nearly ready for abuse.
            I will ask you again —
            do you know if our universe is open or closed?

          • georgehants

            Our scientists are wonderful, full of “expert opinion” on every subject but ask them one simple scientific question and they run a mile.
            Perhaps some other “scientist” would like to answer my question?

          • georgehants

            siteguy18, a scientist always seems to find a way out of their errors by blaming others.
            Just par for the course, I would suggest you stick to “science” websites where debunking and abusing a subject like Cold Fusion for 25 years is applauded and admired.
            I do not respect anybody that tries to defend incompetence and corruption that can lead to suffering and loss of life.
            I suggest you write a comment here demanding that all the “qualified” scientists and administrators responsible for the crimes regarding the delay of Cold Fusion be removed from their positions with a loss of all pension rights etc.

      • Gerard McEk

        I believe our universe is closed. I do not believe in the Big Bang theory. The ever increasing speed of galaxies at the end of the universe, discovered by the astronomers, is what you see at the brink of the ‘other end’ of the black holes, where new matter is created from the old matter flowing in in all the black holes in our universe. Light never leaves our universe as it is curved back by the gravity of the total mass of our universe. Energy is matter. At the far distance from a black hole where we are, matter plays the main role and the rules of physics are true. I further believe that in the singularity point of the black hole, where there is endless energy available, you will find the birth of the atoms of the new born galaxies. The universe has always been and will be always there.
        And God? God lives in our universe. Read the book ‘The Gods from Aïs’ which I wrote and which is the first of a trilogy. Then you may understand their role in the universe. (Sorry it is just issued in Dutch).
        But I am just an engineer, not a scientist and I do not know for sure.

  • Gerard McEk

    I do not believe in energy coming from ‘nowhere’. A Perpetuum Mobile does not exist.

    • georgehants

      Gerard McEk, do you know if our universe is open or closed?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        At the moment, it’s closed due to intergalactic consultations.

        • georgehants

          Andreas Moraitis, do you know if our universe is open or closed?
          Here you have to prove your knowledge, skeptical tactics just make one look foolish.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Where do you see “skeptical tactics”?

          • georgehants

            Now you have resorted to circular conversation you are nearly ready for abuse.
            I will ask you again —
            do you know if our universe is open or closed?

          • georgehants

            Our scientists are wonderful, full of “expert opinion” on every subject but ask them one simple scientific question and they run a mile.
            Perhaps some other “scientist” would like to answer my question?

      • Gerard McEk

        I believe our universe is closed. I do not believe in the Big Bang theory. The ever increasing speed of galaxies at the end of the universe, discovered by the astronomers, is what you see at the brink of the ‘other end’ of the black holes, where new matter is created from the old matter flowing in in all the black holes in our universe. Light never leaves our universe as it is curved back by the gravity of the total mass of our universe. Energy is matter. At the far distance from a black hole where we are, matter plays the main role and the rules of physics are true. I further believe that in the singularity point of the black hole, where there is endless energy available, you will find the birth of the atoms of the new born galaxies. The universe has always been and will be always there.
        And God? God lives in our universe. Read the book ‘The Gods from Aïs’ which I wrote and which is the first of a trilogy. Then you may understand their role in the universe. (Sorry it is just issued in Dutch).
        But I am just an engineer, not a scientist and I do not know for sure.

  • bachcole

    Until I see a good demo by reasonably credible people, I won’t believe it.

  • bachcole

    Until I see a good demo by reasonably credible people, I won’t believe it.

  • JDM

    They are selling cores for this unit I believe from Tesco? Crowd fund a unit ($3K?) and post the results here. Alan Smith, R U in da house? I’m in for $100.

    • JDM

      Correct that – Torelco in New Jersey.

      • Alan Smith

        @JDM I love the idea that Tesco -Britain’s equivalent of Safeway USA are selling overunity generator components. In between the Cabbages and the canned goods I expect!

        • Fortyniner

          If we can catch them doing a ‘bogof’ perhaps we could group buy and come away with a profit.

  • JDM

    They are selling cores for this unit I believe from Tesco? Crowd fund a unit ($3K?) and post the results here. Alan Smith, R U in da house? I’m in for $100.

    • JDM

      Correct that – Torelco in New Jersey.

      • Alan Smith

        @JDM I love the idea that Tesco -Britain’s equivalent of Safeway USA are selling overunity generator components. In between the Cabbages and the canned goods I expect!

        • If we can catch them doing a ‘bogof’ perhaps we could group buy and come away with a profit.

  • georgehants

    Interesting that Cold Fusion has blown all the closed-minded “opinion experts” out of the water and yet change the subject slightly and there they all are again.
    Learning by example does not seem to be the way of many in this World.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I’m sceptofrustrated, can’t find evidence to ignore, heh

      • georgehants

        Peter in his report above seems to be willing to give it a little more chance to prove itself, that is open-minded like all good scientists should be.
        I will go along with Peter until the final story is fully known.

    • Curbina

      George, I’m not pseudoskeptic. I have been researching as closely as I can some notorius free energy claims (LENR included, of course) and I’m waiting some of them to become real products. When I say the QEG is at best a group of deluded people and at worst a scam, is not to be taken lightly. I don’t think a device like what they pretend to develop is impossible. I think it requires the correct design and research people behind. These people don’t seem to have the right set of skills, and on the other hand, they have been asking for money and more money (there are confirmed reports that they charge US$300 per hour on their consultancy by phone to the people that is trying to replicate). Please understand I don’t doubt a device like a QEG might eventually be possible, but I really doubt this particular group’s goal is that, and they are using the naivety and gulibility of well meant enthusiasts to make a living for a small group of people that has been at this for a long time.

      • georgehants

        Curbina, “doubt” simply means you do not know, therefore an open-mind is the only scientific course.
        One can give “opinions” forever, bit scientifically I think we want, just the Truth.
        Truth comes from Research and Evidence, not “opinion”

        • Curbina

          I agree, and the research and evidence, again, about this group in particular, is pointing towards a good will and naivety abusing scam.

          • georgehants

            In your “opinion” which of course means absolutist nothing regarding the Truth of the matter.

          • Curbina

            Do you have any evidence on the contrary?

          • georgehants

            I have an open-mind that will allow me to wait and see what Evidence comes in the future.
            In the meanwhile I can make no decision as I do not have sufficient Evidence.

          • Curbina

            Well, then we are in the same boat, but I have seen enough litter in the river to have this negative opinion, while, always, hoping to be proven that my opinion is wrong.

          • georgehants

            Curbina, do you mean like with Cold Fusion.

          • Curbina

            No, in the case of cold fusion (I prefer using LENR anyway) I’m waiting for commercialization and wide recognition.

          • georgehants

            That makes no logical sense.
            Why are you not waiting for the “commercialization and wide recognition.” of the Tesla subject?

          • Ivone

            Curbina and Georgehants, I’m replicating with materials from Maplin something called a Rotoverter. The RV is a three phase motor with two of the phases disabled and replaced with boosting from parallel connected capacitators. (warning about QEG, its caps are connected in series. Tsk, tsk.) The thing about QEG is that it is ten times as expensive as an off the shelf motor that would do the same thing. The RV was used inn Second World war gun turrets which had a limited energy supply to deliver the necessary torque. I’m using AC computer fan motors one large one small. AC in, AC out. Google rotoverter.

          • georgehants

            Ivone, I wish you every success in your efforts, you will find no debunking from me.
            Science is Research and investigation.
            Dumb brained, closed-minded science has had its day
            Only the Truth is of interest now.
            Good luck.

          • Ivone

            Thanks. I am a great supporter of LENR, but it’s not something you can do at home, nor can you bring it to an African village wanting water. Incidentally the QEG is in an African village wanting water.

          • georgehants

            Ivone, coincidental my wife is in Ghana now delivering five water filters that we have raised money for.
            She is due back on Monday, I am suffering on changing the bed sheets for one Month.
            Best wishes.

          • Curbina

            Thanks for commenting your interesting replication. The rotoverter is well known but not very well understood AFAIK, and there is at least one person that I’m aware that has developped this to obtain completely counterintuitive and repeatable results (Thane Heins).

          • Ivone

            Thane Heins is more of a Lenz’s Law avoider, and his machine looks more like Bedini’s. The Rotoverter works on leveraging the phase angle caused by the capacitor bank. Its attraction lies in motors and capacitors that are conventionally built. There are youtubes and worked examples that indicate that it may not be a waste of time.

          • Curbina

            Yes Ivonne. I have read a lot on the subject and I recall that Thane started studying the Rotoverter, that’s where I find the relationship. The rotoverter is quite interesting, but the good sources of information are not really abundant. Do you have some technical source of engineering grade stuff on the Rotoverter?

          • Ivone

            Due to the open sourced nature of the RV, and that Torres is Puerto Rican and therefore English is not his mother tongue, you will find it a slog getting information in sufficient detail. Also Torres leaves it to the reader to play around with the exact values of motor run capacitors. I have collected all the information worth having, and I recommend the diagram showing the sizes of motors and caps and the in wattage with the out wattage. I find it heartening that a German used a British website for his construction, which he shows on youtube. I also recommend getting the same supplier that supplies your motors to build the RV for you. But, start small with 13 watt AC computer fans driving AC 22 watt motors. I’ll be having a cap bank with the smaller motor (the driver) and a single cap with the generator. Now for the materials: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Njwdwd86Gec

            http://www.rexresearch.com/rotoverter/rotoverter.htm
            http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter2.pdf
            http://www.panaceatech.org/RV.pdf
            http://www.rexresearch.com/rotoverter/AdvRVRD.pdf
            http://www.sharingtechnology.net/Tecnologie/Hector%20D%20Perez%20Torres/pdf/Rotoverter%20Operating%20Principles.pdf
            Start from page 20.
            http://panacea-bocaf.org/files/RE-OU-v6_1.pdf

            I recognise that none of these are engineering drawings. But there is sufficient stuff for the guy at the local rewind/supplier to knock out a system for you. But experiment first and start small. Good luck.

          • Curbina

            Thanks Ivonne. I have Rexresearch and panacea bocaf in my bookmarks for some years already, and that’s why I say there’s not much good information, as there is for other stuff like Hydrogen Electrolysis, for example, or other neat energy stuff, other example is that you can find very well detailed information (blueprints, bills of materials) on how to build a gasogen for running your car or a generator on wood pellets, but there’s not anything like this for doing a Rotoverter set up that one could carry to the local university to leave the people puzzled, as Thane Heins has managed to do with his much more complex set ups. If you can later share with us your results of RV replication, I would be very grateful. My Best Regards!!! I’m Chilean BTW, so English is not my native languaje and I hope to be barely readable.

          • Fortyniner

            I read about the Rotoverter and it’s ‘ghost’ electrical phases some time ago, but about all I can recall is something about it needing to be tuned to the load in order to work properly.

            It’s great to see someone actually trying something out, rather than ‘opinonating’. I hope you’ll keep us armchair pundits informed about your progress.

          • Ivone

            Fortyniner, the Rotoverter is stunningly simple. It consists of a an AC power supply, two connected AC machines, two asymmetric capacitor banks, and a load. Unlike LENR before Justin Church, it is easy to build. LENR is now possible at home because of the catalytic converter – some people are going to be sorry that they marketed the device! I will create a toy version of the RV, and if I’m happy, get the local electric motor company to build me an RV. If I continue to be happy, then it is time to cut the gas bills in a massive way. I will then publish my version of the RV.

          • Ivone

            I will keep the pundits posted about the RV regardless of the actual subject matter under discussion!

          • Curbina

            It makes logical sense for me as LENR is proven independently by many and we are here following its road to become a mass market technology. About the current group in charge of the QEG, I’m almost certain that their are into this for the money. Call it a “gut feeling” if you wish, not really logical, I know. But I do see the possibility that from the replication groups some more capable and really interested persons will, after being dissapointed initially, keep digging and get to interesting results that at the end might become of use. In that sense the QEG initiative is positive even if it’s a scam.

          • georgehants

            Curbina, my last reply to you as your logic is ridiculous.
            Before the present position Cold Fusion was deemed to be a scam.
            Without the Evidence all opinion is worthiness and un-scientific.
            If you don’t mind I will just withhold judgement, wish them all good luck and wait for the Truth to emerge.

          • Curbina

            I certainly hope we can keep dialoguing, if about other topics. I have seen many of your comments and I tend to agree with you. In fact this is the first time I find me in disagreement with you. Perhaps something on the same lines would happen if we would discuss about Keshe. I am not a pseudoskeptic. Keep in mind that I am always waiting to be surprised. And I have been tailing the whole QEG stuff since months ago. And so do have many people much more technically capable than me. We are still hoping to be proven wrong about the QEG, (as about Keshe) but not holding our breaths. I invite you to the Free Energy Party Facebook Group where this has been under scrutiny from multiple persons. My Best Regards!!!

          • Obvious

            Please do not expose the builders of the device to your doubt, as the doubt may be contagious.
            If the Doubt Field increases sufficiently to contaminate the device, the presently functioning device will cease to work.

          • Curbina

            Well, I have read about the possibility of the working of this device depending on the faith of the surrounding people. Interesting theory anyway.

          • Obvious

            The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-Meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea) were of course well understood — and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the hostess’s undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance to the theory of indeterminacy.

            Many respectable physicists said that they weren’t going to stand for this, partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn’t get invited to those sorts of parties.

            Another thing they couldn’t stand was the perpetual failure they encountered while trying to construct a machine which could generate the infinite improbability field needed to flip a spaceship across the mind-paralyzing distances between the farthest stars, and at the end of the day they grumpily announced that such a machine was virtually impossible.

            Then, one day, a student who had been left to sweep up after a particularly unsuccessful party found himself reasoning in this way: If, he thought to himself, such a machine is a virtual impossibility, it must have finite improbability. So all I have to do in order to make one is to work out how exactly improbable it is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea… and turn it on!

            He did this and was rather startled when he managed to create the long sought after golden Infinite Improbability generator. He was even more startled when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute’s Prize for Extreme Cleverness he was lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had realized that one thing they couldn’t stand was a smart-ass.

            http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Infinite_Improbability_Drive

          • Curbina

            Ah, one of the best serious and at the same time profound humor books that have been written. 🙂

          • georgehants

            Amazing how predictable qualified scientists are, as soon as they are out of their depth, they try to be funny and debunk.
            Your attempt to hide sciences lack of knowledge in almost every area of science is amusing.
            Perhaps you would like to prove yourself and discuss with me sciences ignorance on any subject you choose?

  • georgehants

    Interesting that Cold Fusion has blown all the closed-minded “opinion experts” out of the water and yet change the subject slightly and there they all are again.
    Learning by example does not seem to be the way for many in this World.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I’m sceptofrustrated, can’t find evidence to ignore, heh

      • georgehants

        Peter in his report above seems to be willing to give the subject a little more chance to prove itself, that is open-minded like all good scientists should be.
        I will go along with Peter until the final story is fully known.

    • Curbina

      George, I’m not pseudoskeptic. I have been researching as closely as I can some notorius free energy claims (LENR included, of course) and I’m waiting some of them to become real products. When I say the QEG is at best a group of deluded people and at worst a scam, is not to be taken lightly. I don’t think a device like what they pretend to develop is impossible. I think it requires the correct design and research people behind. These people don’t seem to have the right set of skills, and on the other hand, they have been asking for money and more money (there are confirmed reports that they charge US$300 per hour on their consultancy by phone to the people that is trying to replicate). Please understand I don’t doubt a device like a QEG might eventually be possible, but I really doubt this particular group’s goal is that, and they are using the naivety and gulibility of well meant enthusiasts to make a living for a small group of people that has been at this for a long time.

      • georgehants

        Curbina, “doubt” simply means you do not know, therefore an open-mind is the only scientific course.
        One can give “opinions” forever, but scientifically I think we want, just the Truth.
        Truth comes from Research and Evidence, not “opinion”

        • Curbina

          I agree, and the research and evidence, again, about this group in particular, is pointing towards a good will and naivety abusing scam.

          • georgehants

            In your “opinion” which of course means absolutist nothing regarding the Truth of the matter.
            Or are you saying that all the “opinion experts” where correct about Cold Fusion

          • Curbina

            Do you have any evidence on the contrary?

          • georgehants

            I have an open-mind that will allow me to wait and see what Evidence comes in the future.
            In the meanwhile I can make no decision as I do not have sufficient Evidence.

          • Curbina

            Well, then we are in the same boat, but I have seen enough litter in the river to have this negative opinion, while, always, hoping to be proven that my opinion is wrong.

          • georgehants

            Curbina, do you mean like with Cold Fusion.

          • Curbina

            No, in the case of cold fusion (I prefer using LENR anyway) I’m waiting for commercialization and wide recognition.

          • georgehants

            That makes no logical sense.
            Why are you not waiting for the “commercialization and wide recognition.” of the Tesla subject?

          • Ivone

            Curbina and Georgehants, I’m replicating with materials from Maplin something called a Rotoverter. The RV is a three phase motor with two of the phases disabled and replaced with boosting from parallel connected capacitators. (warning about QEG, its caps are connected in series. Tsk, tsk.) The thing about QEG is that it is ten times as expensive as an off the shelf motor that would do the same thing. The RV was used inn Second World war gun turrets which had a limited energy supply to deliver the necessary torque. I’m using AC computer fan motors one large one small. AC in, AC out. Google rotoverter.

          • georgehants

            Ivone, I wish you every success in your efforts, you will find no debunking from me.
            Science is Research and investigation.
            Dumb brained, closed-minded science has had its day
            Only the Truth is of interest now.
            Good luck.

          • Ivone

            Thanks. I am a great supporter of LENR, but it’s not something you can do at home, nor can you bring it to an African village wanting water. Incidentally the QEG is in an African village wanting water.

          • georgehants

            Ivone, coincidental my wife is in Ghana now delivering five water filters that we have raised money for.
            She is due back on Monday, I am suffering on changing the bed sheets for one Month.
            Best wishes.

          • Curbina

            Thanks for commenting your interesting replication. The rotoverter is well known but not very well understood AFAIK, and there is at least one person that I’m aware that has developped this to obtain completely counterintuitive and repeatable results (Thane Heins).

          • Ivone

            Thane Heins is more of a Lenz’s Law avoider, and his machine looks more like Bedini’s. The Rotoverter works on leveraging the phase angle caused by the capacitor bank. Its attraction lies in motors and capacitors that are conventionally built. There are youtubes and worked examples that indicate that it may not be a waste of time.

          • Curbina

            Yes Ivonne. I have read a lot on the subject and I recall that Thane started studying the Rotoverter, that’s where I find the relationship. The rotoverter is quite interesting, but the good sources of information are not really abundant. Do you have some technical source of engineering grade stuff on the Rotoverter?

          • Ivone

            Due to the open sourced nature of the RV, and that Torres is Puerto Rican and therefore English is not his mother tongue, you will find it a slog getting information in sufficient detail. Also Torres leaves it to the reader to play around with the exact values of motor run capacitors. I have collected all the information worth having, and I recommend the diagram showing the sizes of motors and caps and the in wattage with the out wattage. I find it heartening that a German used a British website for his construction, which he shows on youtube. I also recommend getting the same supplier that supplies your motors to build the RV for you. But, start small with 13 watt AC computer fans driving AC 22 watt motors. I’ll be having a cap bank with the smaller motor (the driver) and a single cap with the generator. Now for the materials: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Njwdwd86Gec

            http://www.rexresearch.com/rotoverter/rotoverter.htm
            http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter2.pdf
            http://www.panaceatech.org/RV.pdf
            http://www.rexresearch.com/rotoverter/AdvRVRD.pdf
            http://www.sharingtechnology.net/Tecnologie/Hector%20D%20Perez%20Torres/pdf/Rotoverter%20Operating%20Principles.pdf
            Start from page 20.
            http://panacea-bocaf.org/files/RE-OU-v6_1.pdf

            I recognise that none of these are engineering drawings. But there is sufficient stuff for the guy at the local rewind/supplier to knock out a system for you. But experiment first and start small. Good luck.

          • Curbina

            Thanks Ivonne. I have Rexresearch and panacea bocaf in my bookmarks for some years already, and that’s why I say there’s not much good information, as there is for other stuff like Hydrogen Electrolysis, for example, or other neat energy stuff, other example is that you can find very well detailed information (blueprints, bills of materials) on how to build a gasogen for running your car or a generator on wood pellets, but there’s not anything like this for doing a Rotoverter set up that one could carry to the local university to leave the people puzzled, as Thane Heins has managed to do with his much more complex set ups. If you can later share with us your results of RV replication, I would be very grateful. My Best Regards!!! I’m Chilean BTW, so English is not my native languaje and I hope to be barely readable.

          • I read about the Rotoverter and it’s ‘ghost’ electrical phases some time ago, but about all I can recall is something about it needing to be tuned to the load in order to work properly.

            It’s great to see someone actually trying something out, rather than ‘opinonating’. I hope you’ll keep us armchair pundits informed about your progress.

          • Ivone

            Fortyniner, the Rotoverter is stunningly simple. It consists of a an AC power supply, two connected AC machines, two asymmetric capacitor banks, and a load. Unlike LENR before Justin Church, it is easy to build. LENR is now possible at home because of the catalytic converter – some people are going to be sorry that they marketed the device! I will create a toy version of the RV, and if I’m happy, get the local electric motor company to build me an RV. If I continue to be happy, then it is time to cut the gas bills in a massive way. I will then publish my version of the RV.

          • Ivone

            I will keep the pundits posted about the RV regardless of the actual subject matter under discussion!

          • Curbina

            It makes logical sense for me as LENR is proven independently by many and we are here following its road to become a mass market technology. About the current group in charge of the QEG, I’m almost certain that their are into this for the money. Call it a “gut feeling” if you wish, not really logical, I know. But I do see the possibility that from the replication groups some more capable and really interested persons will, after being dissapointed initially, keep digging and get to interesting results that at the end might become of use. In that sense the QEG initiative is positive even if it’s a scam.

          • georgehants

            Curbina, my last reply to you as your logic is ridiculous.
            Before the present position Cold Fusion was deemed to be a scam.
            Without the Evidence all opinion is worthiness and un-scientific.
            If you don’t mind I will just withhold judgement, wish them all good luck and wait for the Truth to emerge.

          • Curbina

            I certainly hope we can keep dialoguing, if about other topics. I have seen many of your comments and I tend to agree with you. In fact this is the first time I find me in disagreement with you. Perhaps something on the same lines would happen if we would discuss about Keshe. I am not a pseudoskeptic. Keep in mind that I am always waiting to be surprised. And I have been tailing the whole QEG stuff since months ago. And so do have many people much more technically capable than me. We are still hoping to be proven wrong about the QEG, (as about Keshe) but not holding our breaths. I invite you to the Free Energy Party Facebook Group where this has been under scrutiny from multiple persons. My Best Regards!!!

          • Obvious

            Please do not expose the builders of the device to your doubt, as the doubt may be contagious.
            If the Doubt Field increases sufficiently to contaminate the device, the presently functioning device will cease to work.

          • Curbina

            Well, I have read about the possibility of the working of this device depending on the faith of the surrounding people. Interesting theory anyway.

          • Obvious

            The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-Meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea) were of course well understood — and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the hostess’s undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance to the theory of indeterminacy.

            Many respectable physicists said that they weren’t going to stand for this, partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn’t get invited to those sorts of parties.

            Another thing they couldn’t stand was the perpetual failure they encountered while trying to construct a machine which could generate the infinite improbability field needed to flip a spaceship across the mind-paralyzing distances between the farthest stars, and at the end of the day they grumpily announced that such a machine was virtually impossible.

            Then, one day, a student who had been left to sweep up after a particularly unsuccessful party found himself reasoning in this way: If, he thought to himself, such a machine is a virtual impossibility, it must have finite improbability. So all I have to do in order to make one is to work out how exactly improbable it is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea… and turn it on!

            He did this and was rather startled when he managed to create the long sought after golden Infinite Improbability generator. He was even more startled when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute’s Prize for Extreme Cleverness he was lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had realized that one thing they couldn’t stand was a smart-ass.

            http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Infinite_Improbability_Drive

          • Curbina

            Ah, one of the best serious and at the same time profound humor books that have been written. 🙂

          • georgehants

            Wonderful day

  • Obvious

    The Tesla patent listed in the instructions doesn’t have anything to do with free energy. It is an AC generator that uses EMF and counter-EMF to stabilize the output frequency. I would guess low hundreds of Hz would be about right for a unit of moderate size and typical winding magnet wire sizes to be effective. It was designed to be powered by a steam engine, with an air cushion double piston to allow an indirect (soft) mechanical connection to the steam engine, so that the generator was capable of stabilizing its resonant frequency electrically itself. The idea was to avoid transmitting mechanical shock into the generator, which would upset the stable harmonic frequency. (Edit: and therefore smooth/constant AC frequency)

    The QEG device is a rather substantial departure from the Tesla device in the patent that they list. It may be based on other Tesla tech, or a possibly even an original design. But it has little to do with the Tesla patent 511916 as Tesla intended. Maybe the QEG works, but the electrical output overunity would have to be rather high in order to offset mechanical losses to manage break even, let alone produce extra power. The QEG has replaced the steam engine with an electric motor, and possibly the air cushion connection with a combination of capacitors and a belt drive.
    The Tesla device in the patent, built suitably to accept 60 Hz AC power as input and run in reverse (without the steam engine, etc.) is similar to a brushless constant speed fan motor.

    • georgehants

      Obvious, it would be good if the people from Peter’s report where to come on page to confirm your conjecture.

      • Obvious

        Yes. That would be interesting.
        If I remember correctly, the 511916 patent is the first AC generator design with a stable, constant frequency. It was exhibited at the Chicago World Fair.

    • Fortyniner

      Thank you for your factual input, Obvious.

      • Obvious

        Sorry, my fault, for straying from the topic of the construction of the universe…

  • Obvious

    The Tesla patent listed in the instructions doesn’t have anything to do with free energy. It is an AC generator that uses EMF and counter-EMF to stabilize the output frequency. I would guess low hundreds of Hz would be about right for a unit of moderate size and typical winding magnet wire sizes to be effective. It was designed to be powered by a steam engine, with an air cushion double piston to allow an indirect (soft) mechanical connection to the steam engine, so that the generator was capable of stabilizing its resonant frequency electrically itself. The idea was to avoid transmitting mechanical shock into the generator, which would upset the stable harmonic frequency. (Edit: and therefore smooth/constant AC frequency)

    The QEG device is a rather substantial departure from the Tesla device in the patent that they list. It may be based on other Tesla tech, or a possibly even an original design. But it has little to do with the Tesla patent 511916 as Tesla intended. Maybe the QEG works, but the electrical output overunity would have to be rather high in order to offset mechanical losses to manage break even, let alone produce extra power. The QEG has replaced the steam engine with an electric motor, and possibly the air cushion connection with a combination of capacitors and a belt drive.
    The Tesla device in the patent, built suitably to accept 60 Hz AC power as input and run in reverse (without the steam engine, etc.) is similar to a brushless constant speed fan motor.

    • georgehants

      Obvious, it would be good if the people from Peter’s report where to come on page to confirm your conjecture.

      • Obvious

        Yes. That would be interesting.
        If I remember correctly, the 511916 patent is the first AC generator design with a stable, constant frequency. It was exhibited at the Chicago World Fair.(1893)

    • Thank you for your factual input, Obvious.

      • Obvious

        Sorry, my fault, for straying from the topic of the construction of the universe…

  • georgehants

    For those on page unable to follow my question below regarding if science knows if the universe is open or closed.
    Science as always works on religiously dictated Dogma.
    All the Dogmatic laws of thermodynamics rely on the universe being a closed system.
    Science does not have a clue as to if our universe is open or closed.
    If it is open then all reports of O.U. are possibly valid.
    Is there a “scientist” on page that would like to argue my, I believe, Truthful points?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Open and closed when speaking of the universe mean different things than open and closed for a thermodynamic system. If a cosmologist says that the universe is “open” he usually means that the spacetime’s large-scale curvature is negative. It doesn’t mean that the universe would be open in the thermodynamic sense. At the level of whole universe, the notion of energy conservation loses its meaning or at least becomes difficult to define.

      • georgehants

        Pekka, Do you or any part of science know if the universe is open or closed?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          In the cosmological sense: no.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, thank you, that was like pulling teeth.
            You agree then that all Dogma regarding thermodynamics is baseless and only an assumption without that knowledge.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            No, I don’t agree with that, because it’s a different question from what we just discussed. Don’t mix concepts just because the same word is used to refer to them. If your apartment door is closed or open, it doesn’t imply that the earth is round or flat. That is analogous to mixing open/closed for a thermodynamic system and for the universe.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, do you agree that no part of science knows if the universe is open or closed?

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Yes.

          • georgehants

            Respect

      • Ophelia Rump

        While you are at it get me an answer to these questions.

        How did all this mass get way out here, if light from the beginning of the universe is just arriving?

        The mass of this and other galaxies would have had to travel faster than light. But it would supposedly take more energy than there is in the universe to move something tiny at the speed of light.

        How is it possible to look at any time at light just arriving here from the beginning of the universe if it is traveling at a constant speed?

        It should be a one time thing, not possible in any year you happen to look but at one particular date and time.

        • Obvious

          Good question, O.R.
          I think the standard (non-theological) answer is that space itself expanded, carrying mass objects (including us) with the along with expansion. Light is travelling at a constant speed, but the distance it must cross from the beginning of light itself is increasing between the source and us. The light that was formed at the same location as the matter-energy that we are made of has already moved away from us at the speed of light, and cannot be seen by us. The light heading towards us from mass-energy located near us at the beginning of light itself is the light we now see, to the distance limit of what light can cover in the time since the light began (a light bubble, centered around us). The universe should continue well beyond our visible light bubble, but we cannot see past our light bubble, since light hasn’t had the time to do so to reach us.

          As far as I understand the theory, there is no speed limit on mass-energy moved BY the expansion of space itself, only on mass-energy moved WITHIN space.

          We can only see only as far back (through time, because light takes time to arrive to us) as the beginning of the universe from our perspective. This would be the “same day” as you put it. In theory it would look the same from whatever vantage point in the universe you looked, at the same distance (in time) from the beginning of the universe.

          I hope that is mostly correct, as far as theory goes, in the severely shortened version I have written.

          • georgehants

            Obvious, do you agree that your answer is simply a theory trying to explain the problem without the slightest piece of Evidence to support it.
            The theory that a creator produced the known system is equally as valid as the guess you have outlined.

          • Obvious

            George, I would not say “without the slightest shred of evidence”, because evidence had lead to this theory, which is not intuitive based on our normal “reality”.
            Certainly it is a theory, and there are more than one way to assemble a fairly coherent theory that fits observations.

          • georgehants

            The Fact that we are here is possible fair-evidence of a creator so your explanation is on equal lines, why would you choose to believe one above the other?

          • Obvious

            Quite frankly, George, I don’t spend much time worrying about it unless someone asks. What happened 13 billion or whatever years ago doesn’t concern me often. Best to worry about hungry people now, etc.
            I don’t believe in an anthropocentric creator. Maybe one believes in me? I don’t know.

          • georgehants

            Obvious, that is a fair answer but of course then excludes you from all realistic discussion of the origin of our universe and certainly from a arbitrary point after the universe appeared.

          • Obvious

            One can draw all sorts of conclusions and discuss things ad infinitum, but it only makes a difference if it actually makes a difference.

          • georgehants

            Obvious, understand your point, please try to understand mine.
            Science does not have a clue about these things and should act with a little humility, admitting it’s lack of knowledge, leave things open for our young students to peruse and Research.
            One day one never knows the True answers may begin to appear.

          • LENR G

            Truth.

            Others may say comfort, love or happiness.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, anyway to give those precious gifts to anybody must be a good thing.

          • LENR G

            No argument there but with a caveat.

            IF it’s all a fairy tale that makes people happier than they would otherwise be, haven’t we collectively lost something by being actors in our own fictional construction rather than wide-eyed passengers of the truly awesome beauty and power and endless possibilities of the real Universe?

          • georgehants

            LENR G, you clearly have not Researched the Placebo Effect.
            Why would you worry what makes people feel the good things above if it makes life easier and more pleasurable without harming another soul.

          • LENR G

            Who said I was worried?

          • LENR G

            There is plenty of evidence. Centuries of astronomical observations of incredible sensitivity analyzed by some of the brightest minds that have ever walked the Earth.

            What happened before the Universe came into being is a nonsense question because time is part of the fabric of the Universe, defined by it. Undefined outside of it.

            What or who created the Universe or why it is here is outside, at least at this point, the ability of science to investigate.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, what happened before the universe came into being is a problem that makes scientists wet themselves and make every effort to avoid.
            I do not avoid it.

          • LENR G

            Because time is defined by and part of the fabric of the Universe. You know, Einstein, space-time all that stuff.

            “Before the universe” is nonsense because outside of the Universe time does not exist. That’s not to say that science can know whether the Universe is everything, but it does limit the questions we can ask. And “before the Big Bang” is one of the questions it doesn’t make sense to ask if you truly understand what the theory asserts.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, You have no Evidence of anything you are saying.
            You are just following unproven guesses.
            what happened before the universe came into being is a problem
            that makes scientists wet themselves and make every effort to avoid.
            I do not avoid it.

          • LENR G

            It’s like you’re being intentionally dense.

          • Iggy Dalrymple
          • Obvious

            Neat stuff.

          • Daniel Maris

            Yes, it’s a coincidence.

          • LENR G

            Obvious is correct Ophelia. Your question includes a mistaken assumption that the Big Bang was at a particular point in space and is now just reaching us.

            Instead the The Big Bang theory asserts that space-time itself was tiny and expanded rapidly. Energy was everywhere and very dense. As it thinned out due to the expansion, the energy formed matter everywhere. What didn’t clump into matter stayed as light and was then able to escape and travel across the rest of the universe. But that light energy was nearly simultaneously freed everywhere in the Universe and travelling in every direction. So we see the light that originated X distance away. but the little green men at point X are just getting the background radiation from our neck of the Universal woods.

            There is no center of the Universe. There is just Universe–as best we can make out from the observations and facts at our disposal.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, there is not the slightest convincing Evidence that the big bang is a reality.
            Just another scientific guess to be resolved when more Evidence is available.

          • LENR G

            That’s just a foolish statement. I mean I understand the limitations of science and what it can analyze, but you’ve gone off the deep end my friend. When you claim something definitively that can be disproven with 30 seconds of Googling, your ice is no longer thin, it’s water.

            You can say you don’t believe the evidence or disagree with its interpretation but you cannot say there is no evidence and expect us to take you seriously any longer.

            To you it seems everything that science asserts is unfounded guessing. I believe that is a very extreme position.

          • georgehants

            It is clear you only read Wiki-rubbish.
            There are many other fair theories of the origin of the universe.
            I cannot discuss with you if you are unaware of them
            I will ask you one simple question—-
            Does science know if the universe is expanding , static or collapsing?

          • LENR G

            What nerve. You don’t know what I read or how well educated I am. Or my exposure to different schools of thought.

            Yes, science currently believes based on the *evidence* that the Universe is expanding rapidly and does not have enough mass to keep it from expanding indefinitely.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, your reply’s are all based on scientific Dogma.
            We can achieve no more in our discussion.
            Thank you.

          • LENR G

            You make these ridiculous blanket statements about other people. Knock it off.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, you may one day realise that what science “believes” does not mean it is even remotely near the Truth.

          • LENR G

            Science is constantly re-evaluating its conclusions based on new evidence.

            I’d rather construct my model of reality based on observations than sermons and ancient tomes. But that’s just me. Honestly and respectfully, to each his own.

          • georgehants

            LENR G if as you say ——
            “Science is constantly re-evaluating its conclusions based on new evidence.”
            What is the slightest point in believing anything they say today.
            It is just working guesses, not to be followed but Researched to prove or disprove.
            Obviously.

          • LENR G

            Because they are the best educated “guesses” (and guesses is not the right word… maybe logical conclusions) that we have available to us that describe the world and Universe around us.

            Surely I don’t need to explain the value in that. Science and technology has spearheaded the advances to the modern world we live in today.

            Science and technology can’t address spiritual needs, I know. But it takes care of a lot of important things for us. Like not dying from Polio. Or getting you from NY to LA in 6 hours.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, you just said —-
            “Science is constantly re-evaluating its conclusions based on new evidence.”
            Now you are trying to justify believing those incorrect guesses, instead of treating them with the suspicion they deserve and never, ever let them become Dogma, like basing our thermodynamics on a closed system, when science does not have a clue as to if it is.
            O.k. for applied scientists to use in a local situation but crazy for so called intelligent people to take as gospel.
            Off now to cut my toenails and talk to my cat.
            Best

          • LENR G

            It’s not waffling or hand-waving, it’s a key component of the scientific process. The scientific method places great value on observations as the pivot point to test hypotheses and determine of they are true or false and worthy of being called “laws.”.

            I agree with you to the extent that scientific theories and laws are not and never should be considered unassailable — the dogma you rail against. Instead they should only ever be considered our best understanding at the time given the observations we can make. But new observations constantly roll in, new analysis tools are born and good hypotheses are often replaced by better ones (like Einstein’s relativity outdid Newton’s laws in specificity and edge cases).

            That’s one aspect of this LENR saga that drives me crazy. The nuclear physics guys not being willing to even consider that there might be some interesting undiscovered physics in condensed matter are being quite arrogant and IMHO misapplying lessons learned from high energy collisions to more subtle and chaotic environments.

          • oaklandthinktank

            I enjoy hiding comments in threads like this. 🙂

            You might enjoy Boeyens’ development of chemistry from foundational experiments, and his analysis of the structure of the nucleus, and its implications for the ‘age’ of the Universe. (“Number Theory and the Periodicity of Matter”, “Chemistry from First Principles”) Boeyens has made a career of examining the original texts of the physicists of the last 200 years, noticing differences between our modern didactic conception, and their original insights. Maxwell’s 20 equations, compared to the 4 presented in schools; the reading of diatomic structures’ shells as nested positive and negative fields, instead of a pair of billiards; viewing electron orbitals and energy levels as Bessel waves on a single surface, instead of overlapping and perturbed s & p orbitals… He has a convincing interpretation, with testable predictions. 🙂

            A note on the scientific method: we can perform an experiment, to DIS-prove a hypothesis. We can also fit data to a model function, with a level of certainty constrained by the size of our data set (provided we sample without bias…). And, we try to construct explanations of these disproofs and models, using the metaphors and relations we find familiar. I don’t hear ‘truth’ in there anywhere. Science excludes poor explanations, and suggests plausible fittings to the data. Humans tell stories, we don’t instantiate reality with vocalization or signs. Because of limitations of instruments, opportunity, language, and imagination, we don’t really test for everything – we mostly generalize and assume. (I find it ironic that we adhere to Occam’s Razor, pretending that the universe does…)

            If I had bet on the proposition that ‘Science has accurately described X’, I’d skip town before the bookie came looking.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, thank you for the discussion, it is the only way to find the Truth, open debate.
            I agree with all you have said above and now we just need all of science to learn, not to take any temporary knowledge that they may seemingly have and teach it to students etc. as if it is god given Fact.
            Science is a Wonderful profession that should not be made to look foolish by such people as you describe in your last paragraph.
            Best

          • bachcole

            Science has also spearheaded the bullshit diets that have been foisted upon us, like the bullshit diet pyramid and the bullshit cholesterol mythology. You worship science, LENR G, not the scientific method.

          • Obvious

            I think people that like to make money selling books try to foist BS diets on us, by abusing some shred of current dietary science and mixing it with a dash of old knowledge in order to seem both current and reasonable. But selling the diet book and associated merchandise is the prime motivator. Maybe a dash of desire for fame, too.

          • BroKeeper

            There are 11 Devine inspired references in the Old Testament that “God stretches out the heavens with his hands” explaining the accelerated
            expansion of the universe long before the universe was envisioned and that of the ‘k’ constant within Einstein’s equations of relativity.

          • Barry8

            If we look in one direction we see almost 14 billion light years away. If we look in the opposite direction we see almost 14 billion light years away, which means the big bang had to of originated somewhere in New Jersey.

        • GreenWin

          Pekka, when you have time I’d be interested in your comments re the Planck Inst. NEEC (electron capture) paper I referenced in Always Open Thread.

        • Private Citizen

          “How did all this mass get way out here, if light from the beginning of the universe is just arriving?”

          We do not see the light from the Big Bang. That light raced out ahead of matter. We see the aprox 3K “background radiation” leftover from lingering warm particles. At least, that is what we were taught, as illustrated by Minkowski diagrams.

    • LENR G

      If you mean by closed that no energy can enter or leave then the evidence hints at closed. But as a practical matter if energy can be transferred from one place to another in the Universe and it’s effectively infinite then it can certainly behave like an open system for all intents and purposes.

      Be advised though that when people use the terms open and closed with respect to the Universe they are usually referring to whether it will one day collapse on itself (closed) or whether it will expand indefinitely (open). Current evidence and understanding stringly points toward open (increasing rate of expansion due to “dark energy”).

      • georgehants

        LENR, it is indisputable that science does not have a clue as to if the universe is open or closed.
        Please do not keep putting up scientific Dogma as if it means something.
        Thank you.

        • LENR G

          If your argument to everything is I believe otherwise so BOO DOGMA then it’s nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.

          I said the evidence “hints” at closed. That implies massive uncertainty which is different than “does not have a clue” but not by much. Science is keenly aware of the uncertainty in its observations and conclusions.

          • georgehants

            LENR G
            It is indisputable that science does not have a clue as to if the universe is open or closed.
            If you believe otherwise simply put up the certain Evidence.

          • LENR G

            The evidence for closed is no observations of significant energy or mass suddenly appearing out of nowhere with no other explanation.

            The evidence for open is the spontaneous creation of matter-antimatter particles from the “vacuum” in space. Though it depends whether you consider that energetic “vacuum” part of the Universe or a conduit to something external to it.

            So it’s an open question.

            But having ambiguous evidence is different than “having no clue.” We have some clues. But we need more.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, yes an “open question” now you are getting somewhere.

          • bachcole

            George, we’ll beat him into submission yet. (;->)

          • bachcole

            I will give LENR G one point: It is an open question.

          • malkom700

            Georgehants is right in saying that the question of whether the universe is open or closed is not known with certainty. But he did not understand that now may not even know. Other it is the question of global warming. In this respect also we do not know, but we should know now.

    • Gerard McEk

      George, I am a bit disappointed that you did not reply on my response a few threads below. Finally somebody gives a plausible response on how the universe looks like without the need for the totally unlikely Big Bang theory and nobody reacts. I had hoped for a bit more response.

      • georgehants

        Gerard McEk, I am very sorry, after my efforts to teach things to scientists that really are the responsibility of their education system and themselves to know, I moved on,
        Is this your comment ——-
        I believe our universe is closed. I do not believe in the Big Bang theory. The ever increasing speed of galaxies at the end of the universe, discovered by the astronomers, is what you see at the brink of the ‘other end’ of the black holes, where new matter is created from the old matter flowing in in all the black holes in our universe. Light never leaves our universe as it is curved back by the gravity of the total mass of our universe. Energy is matter. At the far distance from a black hole where we are, matter plays the main role and the rules of physics are true. I further believe that in the singularity point of the black hole, where there is endless energy available, you will find the birth of the atoms of the new born galaxies. The universe has always been and will be always there.
        And God? God lives in our universe. Read the book ‘The Gods from Aïs’ which I wrote and which is the first of a trilogy. Then you may understand their role in the universe. (Sorry it is just issued in Dutch).
        But I am just an engineer, not a scientist and I do not know for sure.

        • georgehants

          Gerard, I do not get into discussions on the individual science of any subject except to prove a point.
          My reasoning on the big-bang and many other scientific topics is the simple logic that when looked at, say your interesting points above and many others it is clear that science, does not have clue as to the answer, it is a problem in progress, just like every other fundamental question in science.
          Science does not have one single answer at base for anything in this or any other reality.
          They live in a dream, everything they “know” is from a few measurements, that are all unconfirmed and changing almost daily, (the universal constants) and then it becomes guesswork, better known as theories,
          Theories are most important, but not the Truth.
          And then when handed on a plate something such as Cold Fusion, well we have all seen their incompetence and even corrupt response.
          Science is a disgrace to humanity.

          • Gerard McEk

            I am afraid you are fighting your battle on the wrong site. You will find only supporters of your ideas on this site. Most people agree that science is being dominated by the enormous pressure of consensus through which it has become extremely conservative. Phenomena which do not fit in the consent theories do not happen and are wrongly interpreted, -measured, –perceived or simply faulty and must therefore be ignored. Nevertheless there are many scientists who are still curious and want to know the truth, like Hagelstein, Essèn, McKubre etc. Those are the real scientists and should get the Nobel prize.
            Finally, I would like to hear from you why you want to know if the universe is open or close. Are you really interested?

          • georgehants

            Gerard, I am interested in everything of worth.
            It is not just a cosmological question but dimensional etc.
            There are many Wonderful scientists struggling along against the ridiculous Dogma of the majority in many areas, but the realisation that many answers lie in non reductionist science is I think growing.
            Any person who does not take delight in finding the TRUTH of our existence, I feel very sorry for.

    • Obvious

      I have Big Bang origin theory I came up with myself. Maybe someone else has thought of it, but I haven’t seen anything similar so far. Possibly it is not workable, I’m not too worried about it.
      It goes something like this:
      Big Bang, general theory, leading to present state. Expansion continues nearly infinitely. At some point all particles will be out of communication with all other particles. The inherent positional uncertainty of all particles makes it possible, in an infinity of time, that at some point all, most, or much of the particles could theoretically exist at the same point for an instant as they flash in and out of existence momentarily. Boom. Big Bang all over again. Maybe some Little Bangs could happen also, and repeat, until a Big One happens.
      Cheers!

  • georgehants

    For those on page unable to follow my question below regarding if science knows if the universe is open or closed and why no “scientist” will answer it.
    Science as always works on religiously dictated Dogma.
    All the Dogmatic laws of thermodynamics rely on the universe being a closed system.
    Science does not have a clue as to if our universe is open or closed.
    If it is open then all reports of O.U. are possibly valid.
    Is there a “scientist” on page that would like to argue my, I believe, Truthful points?

    • bachcole

      I am not a scientist, but my son thinks that I am.

      I think that that closed universe model is what we call a first approximation. It is like learning proper English before one starts to improvise with fancy writing. Dig? [Just writing “Dig?” is not good English, but I can’t do that until I know how to write properly.] Once we as students of physics understand what is happening in a closed system, like the laws of thermodynamics, then we can drop the closed system model and see what happens in an open system. But it seems that most scientists are piss-poor philosophers and can’t drop the closed system model.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Open and closed when speaking of the universe mean different things than open and closed for a thermodynamic system. If a cosmologist says that the universe is “open” he usually means that the spacetime’s large-scale curvature is negative. It doesn’t mean that the universe would be open in the thermodynamic sense. At the level of whole universe, the notion of energy conservation loses its meaning or at least becomes difficult to define.

      • georgehants

        Pekka, Do you or any part of science know if the universe is open or closed?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          In the cosmological sense: no.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, thank you, that was like pulling teeth.
            You agree then that all Dogma regarding thermodynamics is baseless and only an assumption without that knowledge.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            No, I don’t agree with that, because it’s a different question from what we just discussed. Don’t mix concepts just because the same word is used to refer to them. If your apartment door is closed or open, it doesn’t imply that the earth is round or flat. That is analogous to mixing open/closed for a thermodynamic system and for the universe.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, do you agree that no part of science knows if the universe is open or closed?
            I am afraid your attempts to confuse the simple Truth do not work with me.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Yes.

          • georgehants

            Respect

      • Ophelia Rump

        While you are at it get me an answer to these questions.

        How did all this mass get way out here, if light from the beginning of the universe is just arriving?

        The mass of this and other galaxies would have had to travel faster than light. But it would supposedly take more energy than there is in the universe to move something tiny at the speed of light.

        How is it possible to look at any time at light just arriving here from the beginning of the universe if it is traveling at a constant speed?

        It should be a one time thing, not possible in any year you happen to look but at one particular date and time.

        • bachcole

          This has bothered me for a very long time, and I thank you for saying it so well. So, I would give you 5 up-clicks, but Disqus won’t allow me to do that.

        • Obvious

          Good question, O.R.
          I think the standard (non-theological) answer is that space itself expanded, carrying mass objects (including us) with the along with expansion. Light is travelling at a constant speed, but the distance it must cross from the beginning of light itself is increasing between the source and us. The light that was formed at the same location as the matter-energy that we are made of has already moved away from us at the speed of light, and cannot be seen by us. The light heading towards us from mass-energy located near us at the beginning of light itself is the light we now see, to the distance limit of what light can cover in the time since the light began (a light bubble, centered around us). The universe should continue well beyond our visible light bubble, but we cannot see past our light bubble, since light hasn’t had the time to do so to reach us.

          As far as I understand the theory, there is no speed limit on mass-energy moved BY the expansion of space itself, only on mass-energy moved WITHIN space.

          We can only see only as far back (through time, because light takes time to arrive to us) as the beginning of the universe from our perspective. This would be the “same day” as you put it. In theory it would look the same from whatever vantage point in the universe you looked, at the same distance (in time) from the beginning of the universe.

          I hope that is mostly correct, as far as theory goes, in the severely shortened version I have written.

          • georgehants

            Obvious, do you agree that your answer is simply a theory trying to explain the problem without the slightest piece of Evidence to support it.
            The theory that a creator produced the known system is equally as valid as the guess you have outlined.

          • Obvious

            George, I would not say “without the slightest shred of evidence”, because evidence had lead to this theory, which is not intuitive based on our normal “reality”.
            Certainly it is a theory, and there are more than one way to assemble a fairly coherent theory that fits observations.

          • georgehants

            The Fact that we are here is possible fair-evidence of a creator so your explanation is on equal lines, why would you choose to believe one above the other?

          • Obvious

            Quite frankly, George, I don’t spend much time worrying about it unless someone asks. What happened 13 billion or whatever years ago doesn’t concern me often. Best to worry about hungry people now, etc.
            I don’t believe in an anthropocentric creator. Maybe one believes in me? I don’t know.

          • georgehants

            Obvious, that is a fair answer but of course then excludes you from all realistic discussion of the origin of our universe and certainly from a arbitrary point after the universe appeared.

          • Obvious

            One can draw all sorts of conclusions and discuss things ad infinitum, but it only makes a difference if it actually makes a difference.

          • georgehants

            Obvious, understand your point, please try to understand mine.
            Science does not have a clue about these things and should act with a little humility, admitting it’s lack of knowledge, leave things open for our young students to peruse and Research.
            One day one never knows the True answers may begin to appear.

          • Truth.

            Others may say comfort, love or happiness.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, anyway to give those precious gifts to anybody must be a good thing.

          • No argument there but with a caveat.

            IF it’s all a fairy tale that makes people happier than they would otherwise be, haven’t we collectively lost something by being actors in our own fictional construction rather than wide-eyed passengers of the truly awesome beauty and power and endless possibilities of the real Universe?

          • georgehants

            LENR G, you clearly have not Researched the Placebo Effect.
            Why would you worry what makes people feel the good things above if it makes life easier and more pleasurable without harming another soul.

          • Who said I was worried?

          • Mop

            I don’t see what’s to choose and why you try to rope faith and religion into questions like this. There’s measurements and there’s math playing with it. The math points a certain way and if you understand it a little, you can see what the theory does, a word like “belief” just does not apply. The measurements, you can try to understand how they came to be, how the machine half worked and what algortihms were used in the computer half.

          • There is plenty of evidence. Centuries of astronomical observations of incredible sensitivity analyzed by some of the brightest minds that have ever walked the Earth.

            What happened before the Universe came into being is a nonsense question because time is part of the fabric of the Universe, defined by it. Undefined outside of it.

            What or who created the Universe or why it is here is outside, at least at this point, the ability of science to investigate.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, what happened before the universe came into being is a problem that makes scientists wet themselves and make every effort to avoid.
            I do not avoid it.

          • Because time is defined by and part of the fabric of the Universe. You know, Einstein, space-time all that stuff.

            “Before the universe” is nonsense because outside of the Universe time does not exist. That’s not to say that science can know whether the Universe is everything, but it does limit the questions we can ask. And “before the Big Bang” is one of the questions it doesn’t make sense to ask if you truly understand what the theory asserts.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, You have no Evidence of anything you are saying.
            You are just following unproven guesses.
            what happened before the universe came into being is a problem
            that makes scientists wet themselves and make every effort to avoid.
            I do not avoid it.

          • It’s like you’re being intentionally dense.

          • bachcole

            The current system at this moment is a “natural” result of the infinitely unconscious striving to become infinitely conscious.

          • Obvious is correct Ophelia. Your question includes a mistaken assumption that the Big Bang was at a particular point in space and is now just reaching us.

            Instead the The Big Bang theory asserts that space-time itself was tiny and expanded rapidly. Energy was everywhere and very dense. As it thinned out due to the expansion, the energy formed matter everywhere. What didn’t clump into matter stayed as light and was then able to escape and travel across the rest of the universe. But that light energy was nearly simultaneously freed everywhere in the Universe and travelling in every direction. So we see the light that originated X distance away. but the little green men at point X are just getting the background radiation from our neck of the Universal woods.

            There is no center of the Universe. There is just Universe–as best we can make out from the observations and facts at our disposal.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, there is not the slightest convincing Evidence that the big bang is a reality.
            Just another scientific guess to be resolved when more Evidence is available.

          • That’s just a foolish statement. I mean I understand the limitations of science and what it can analyze, but you’ve gone off the deep end my friend. When you claim something definitively that can be disproven with 30 seconds of Googling, your ice is no longer thin, it’s water.

            You can say you don’t believe the evidence or disagree with its interpretation but you cannot say there is no evidence and expect us to take you seriously any longer.

            To you it seems everything that science asserts is unfounded guessing. I believe that is a very extreme position.

          • georgehants

            It is clear you only read Wiki-rubbish.
            There are many other fair theories of the origin of the universe.
            I cannot discuss with you if you are unaware of them
            I will ask you one simple question—-
            Does science know if the universe is expanding , static or collapsing?

          • What nerve. You don’t know what I read or how well educated I am. Or my exposure to different schools of thought.

            Yes, science currently believes based on the *evidence* that the Universe is expanding rapidly and does not have enough mass to keep it from expanding indefinitely.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, your reply’s are all based on scientific Dogma.
            We can achieve no more in our discussion.
            Thank you.

          • You make these ridiculous blanket statements about other people. Knock it off.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, you may one day realise that what science “believes” does not mean it is even remotely near the Truth.

          • Science is constantly re-evaluating its conclusions based on new evidence.

            I’d rather construct my model of reality based on observations than sermons and ancient tomes. But that’s just me. Honestly and respectfully, to each his own.

          • georgehants

            LENR G if as you say ——
            “Science is constantly re-evaluating its conclusions based on new evidence.”
            What is the slightest point in believing anything they say today.
            It is just working guesses, not to be followed but Researched to prove or disprove.
            Obviously.

          • Because they are the best educated “guesses” (and guesses is not the right word… maybe logical conclusions) that we have available to us that describe the world and Universe around us.

            Surely I don’t need to explain the value in that. Science and technology has spearheaded the advances to the modern world we live in today.

            Science and technology can’t address spiritual needs, I know. But it takes care of a lot of important things for us. Like not dying from Polio. Or getting you from NY to LA in 6 hours.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, you just said —-
            “Science is constantly re-evaluating its conclusions based on new evidence.”
            Now you are trying to justify believing those incorrect guesses, instead of treating them with the suspicion they deserve and never, ever let them become Dogma, like basing our thermodynamics on a closed system, when science does not have a clue as to if it is.
            O.k. for applied scientists to use in a local situation but crazy for so called intelligent people to take as gospel.
            Off now to cut my toenails and talk to my cat.
            Best

          • It’s not waffling or hand-waving, it’s a key component of the scientific process. The scientific method places great value on observations as the pivot point to test hypotheses and determine of they are true or false and worthy of being called “laws.”.

            I agree with you to the extent that scientific theories and laws are not and never should be considered unassailable — the dogma you rail against. Instead they should only ever be considered our best understanding at the time given the observations we can make. But new observations constantly roll in, new analysis tools are born and good hypotheses are often replaced by better ones (like Einstein’s relativity outdid Newton’s laws in specificity and edge cases).

            That’s one aspect of this LENR saga that drives me crazy. The nuclear physics guys not being willing to even consider that there might be some interesting undiscovered physics in condensed matter are being quite arrogant and IMHO misapplying lessons learned from high energy collisions to more subtle and chaotic environments.

          • oaklandthinktank

            I enjoy hiding comments in threads like this. 🙂

            You might enjoy Boeyens’ development of chemistry from foundational experiments, and his analysis of the structure of the nucleus, and its implications for the ‘age’ of the Universe. (“Number Theory and the Periodicity of Matter”, “Chemistry from First Principles”) Boeyens has made a career of examining the original texts of the physicists of the last 200 years, noticing differences between our modern didactic conception, and their original insights. Maxwell’s 20 equations, compared to the 4 presented in schools; the reading of diatomic structures’ shells as nested positive and negative fields, instead of a pair of billiards; viewing electron orbitals and energy levels as Bessel waves on a single surface, instead of overlapping and perturbed s & p orbitals… He has a convincing interpretation, with testable predictions. 🙂

            A note on the scientific method: we can perform an experiment, to DIS-prove a hypothesis. We can also fit data to a model function, with a level of certainty constrained by the size of our data set (provided we sample without bias…). And, we try to construct explanations of these disproofs and models, using the metaphors and relations we find familiar. I don’t hear ‘truth’ in there anywhere. Science excludes poor explanations, and suggests plausible fittings to the data. Humans tell stories, we don’t instantiate reality with vocalization or signs. Because of limitations of instruments, opportunity, language, and imagination, we don’t really test for everything – we mostly generalize and assume. (I find it ironic that we adhere to Occam’s Razor, pretending that the universe does…)

            If I had bet on the proposition that ‘Science has accurately described X’, I’d skip town before the bookie came looking.

          • bachcole

            I used to live in Oakland, California. Is “oaklandthinktank” sort of a one word oxymoron. Or are you and only you the Oakland Think Tank? (:->)

          • oaklandthinktank

            Yes, I am all that remains of a small group which began in oakland. 🙂 And, oakland actually has one of the highest levels of college education per capita of any city in the US, despite your wry implications! Folks who work in SF and Berkeley live here.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, thank you for the discussion, it is the only way to find the Truth of a situation, open, honest debate.
            I agree with all you have said above and now we just need all of science to learn, not to take any temporary knowledge that they may seemingly have and teach it to students etc. as if it is god given Fact.
            Science is a Wonderful profession that should not be made to look foolish by scientists making out they have answers to things that they do not and by such people as you describe in your last paragraph.
            Best

          • bachcole

            Science has also spearheaded the bullshit diets that have been foisted upon us, like the bullshit diet pyramid and the bullshit cholesterol mythology. You worship science, LENR G, not the scientific method.

          • Obvious

            I think people that like to make money selling books try to foist BS diets on us, by abusing some shred of current dietary science and mixing it with a dash of old knowledge in order to seem both current and reasonable. But selling the diet book and associated merchandise is the prime motivator. Maybe a dash of desire for fame, too.

          • bachcole

            Current so-called diet science is reductionistic and funded by people not really interested in our health. I trust it exactly not at all. I follow the Theory of Evolution, traditional diets as discussed by Weston A. Price and other paleo thinkers, my own experience, and other traditional healing systems such as Ayurveda and homeopathy. I am finished with mainstream so-called dietary science, diet books, and evidence based medicine. I am very successful with this approach as my improving health demonstrates. Just about 1 year ago I commented several times on this forum that I was is severe constant pain 24/7, and Krish (bless his heart), one of our commenters, offered to pay my health bill. I opted instead to go another route. I now have almost no pain and lots of signs that my approach is the correct one.

            I also eschewed the advice of a medical doctor in 1990 and I now have 2 wonderful children. Given my experience and their rejection of the Theory of Evolution and looking to the health of the whole person rather than their reductionistic approach, I puke on so-called scientific medicine. I will use them when it suits my purposes; but I will not follow them.

          • Brokeeper

            There are 11 Devine inspired references in the Old Testament that “God stretches out the heavens with his hands” explaining the accelerated
            expansion of the universe long before the universe was envisioned and that of the ‘k’ constant within Einstein’s equations of relativity.

          • If we look in one direction we see almost 14 billion light years away. If we look in the opposite direction we see almost 14 billion light years away, which means the big bang had to of originated somewhere in New Jersey.

        • GreenWin

          Pekka, when you have time I’d be interested in your comments re the Planck Inst. NEEC (electron capture) paper I referenced in Always Open Thread.

        • Private Citizen

          “How did all this mass get way out here, if light from the beginning of the universe is just arriving?”

          We do not see the light from the Big Bang. That light raced out ahead of matter. We see the aprox 3K “background radiation” leftover from lingering warm particles. At least, that is what we were taught, as illustrated by Minkowski diagrams.

    • If you mean by closed that no energy can enter or leave then the evidence hints at closed. But as a practical matter if energy can be transferred from one place to another in the Universe and it’s effectively infinite then it can certainly behave like an open system for all intents and purposes when examined from any particular location.

      Be advised though that when people use the terms open and closed with respect to the Universe they are usually referring to whether it will one day collapse on itself (closed) or whether it will expand indefinitely (open). Current evidence and understanding strongly points toward open (increasing rate of expansion due to “dark energy”).

      • georgehants

        LENR, it is indisputable that science does not have a clue as to if the universe is open or closed.
        Please do not keep putting up scientific Dogma as if it means something.
        Thank you.

        • If your argument to everything is I believe otherwise so BOO DOGMA then it’s nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.

          I said the evidence “hints” at closed. That implies massive uncertainty which is different than “does not have a clue” but not by much. Science is keenly aware of the uncertainty in its observations and conclusions.

          • georgehants

            LENR G
            It is indisputable that science does not have a clue as to if the universe is open or closed.
            If you believe otherwise simply put up the certain Evidence.

          • The evidence for closed is no observations of significant energy or mass suddenly appearing out of nowhere with no other explanation.

            The evidence for open is the spontaneous creation of matter-antimatter particles from the “vacuum” in space. Though it depends whether you consider that energetic “vacuum” part of the Universe or a conduit to something external to it.

            So it’s an open question.

            But having ambiguous evidence is different than “having no clue.” We have some clues. But we need more.

            ON EDIT: using your open/closed terminology to refer to energy conservation in the Universe.

          • georgehants

            LENR G, yes an “open question” now you are getting somewhere.

          • bachcole

            George, we’ll beat him into submission yet. (;->)

          • bachcole

            I will give LENR G one point: It is an open question.

          • malkom700

            Georgehants is right in saying that the question of whether the universe is open or closed is not known with certainty. But he did not understand that now may not even know. Other it is the question of global warming. In this respect also we do not know, but we should know now.

    • Gerard McEk

      George, I am a bit disappointed that you did not reply on my response a few threads below. Finally somebody gives a plausible response on how the universe looks like without the need for the totally unlikely Big Bang theory and nobody reacts. I had hoped for a bit more response.

      • bachcole

        Gerard, if it makes you feel any better, I also do not believe in the Big Bang theory. I believe in the infinite universe steady state theory.

        But worst than the Big Bang theory is the tendency to see that the value and purpose of life and consciousness can be ascertained by either theories and that we are an insignificant bit of contamination on an insignificant rock in an enormously huge universe (whether infinite or not). This is taking the objective perspective WAY too far. Every human being is infinitely valuable, even maryyugo.

        • Gerard McEk

          Thanks, at least an answer. If somebody only asks questions without further definition, then the thousand wise man on this website cannot give the right answer. It would be interesting to hear what Georges thoughts are about his own question.

      • georgehants

        Gerard McEk, I am very sorry, after my efforts to teach things to scientists that really are the responsibility of their education system and themselves to know, I moved on,
        Is this your comment ——-
        I believe our universe is closed. I do not believe in the Big Bang theory. The ever increasing speed of galaxies at the end of the universe, discovered by the astronomers, is what you see at the brink of the ‘other end’ of the black holes, where new matter is created from the old matter flowing in in all the black holes in our universe. Light never leaves our universe as it is curved back by the gravity of the total mass of our universe. Energy is matter. At the far distance from a black hole where we are, matter plays the main role and the rules of physics are true. I further believe that in the singularity point of the black hole, where there is endless energy available, you will find the birth of the atoms of the new born galaxies. The universe has always been and will be always there.
        And God? God lives in our universe. Read the book ‘The Gods from Aïs’ which I wrote and which is the first of a trilogy. Then you may understand their role in the universe. (Sorry it is just issued in Dutch).
        But I am just an engineer, not a scientist and I do not know for sure.

        • georgehants

          Gerard, I do not get into discussions on the individual science of any subject except to prove a point.
          My reasoning on the big-bang and many other scientific topics is the simple logic that when looked at, say your interesting points above and many others it is clear that science, does not have clue as to the answer, it is a problem in progress, just like every other fundamental question in science.
          Science does not have one single answer at base for anything in this or any other reality.
          Your “beliefs” have no value of any kind as to the Truth of a subject, of course.
          They live in a dream, everything they “know” is from a few measurements, that are all unconfirmed and changing almost daily, (the universal constants) and then it becomes guesswork, better known as theories,
          Theories are most important, but not the Truth.
          And then when handed on a plate something such as Cold Fusion, well we have all seen their incompetence and even corrupt response.
          Science today is a disgrace to humanity.

          • Gerard McEk

            I am afraid you are fighting your battle on the wrong site. You will find only supporters of your ideas on this site. Most people here agree that science is being dominated by the enormous pressure of consensus through which it has become extremely conservative. Phenomena which do not fit in the consent theories do not happen and are wrongly interpreted, -measured, –perceived or simply faulty and must therefore be ignored. Nevertheless there are many scientists who are still curious and want to know the truth, like Hagelstein, Essèn, McKubre etc. Those are the real scientists and should get the Nobel prize.
            Finally, I would like to hear from you why you want to know if the universe is open or close. Are you really interested?

          • georgehants

            Gerard, it is not a matter of right or wrong side, I fight only for the Truth, I hope you do as well, it will be good if science one day follows that rule.
            I am interested in everything of worth.
            It is not just a cosmological question but dimensional etc.
            There are many Wonderful scientists struggling along against the ridiculous Dogma of the majority in many areas, but the realisation that many answers lie in non reductionist science, is I think growing.
            Any person who does not take delight in finding the TRUTH of our existence, I feel could be missing much.

          • humblemechanic

            And so are pontificators.

    • Obvious

      I have Big Bang origin theory I came up with myself. Maybe someone else has thought of it, but I haven’t seen anything similar so far. Possibly it is not workable, I’m not too worried about it.
      It goes something like this:
      Big Bang, general theory, leading to present state. Expansion continues nearly infinitely. At some point all particles will be out of communication with all other particles once they have spread out into near infinite distances from each other. The inherent positional uncertainty of all particles makes it possible, in an infinity of time, that at some point all, most, or much of the particles could theoretically exist at the same point for an instant as they flash in and out of existence momentarily. Boom. Big Bang all over again. Maybe some Little Bangs could happen also, and repeat, until a Big One happens.
      Cheers!

  • Sandy

    Here is a test of the hypothesis that the QEG is based on.

    “resonance of steel creates electricity1 wmf”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLK1VG8h2Wc

    Whether a QEG can produce more energy than it consumes has not yet been established.

    • Anothercoilgun

      True, “has yet”. Remember the claim is it already did. So what is everyone waiting for? Claim was not to research or attempt. Claim was a working running model for 150 discrete hours. Why not put the gauntlet of tests to an existing working running prototype instead of traveling to far places to assemble other units and then not even share the results of the unit (i.e. Taiwan).

      Parametric excitation is the model the generator is based from. Not a hypothesis, but good old decades of many patents, engineering, and products mass produced and sold.

      Variable reluctance gave birth to WITTS’ version. WITTS’ version gave birth to QEG without WITTs approval mind you.

      Wiki is not only yours but all of ours friend.
      Principles of Electric Generators: http://bib.convdocs.org/v11950/?download=2

  • Iggy Dalrymple
    • Obvious

      Neat stuff.

  • oaklandthinktank

    Yes, I am all that remains of a small group which began in oakland. 🙂 And, oakland actually has one of the highest levels of college education per capita of any city in the US, despite your wry implications! Folks who work in SF and Berkeley live here.

  • Gerard McEk

    Thanks, at least an answer. If somebody only asks questions without further definition, then the thousand wise man on this website cannot give the right answer. It would be interesting to hear what Georges thoughts are about his own question.

  • Pinco Palla
  • Allan Shura

    Sterling Allen first classified this as a motor generator self looped. Indeed from hope girls blog

    on the first page : “You can then unplug the motor from the original power source and the generator will power itself.”

    but there is a twist: “the QEG exciter coil is external to the generator, and the excitation signal is conducted through the quantum field (zero point) into the generator core, to start oscillation. Once the machine builds up to the resonant frequency, it powers itself (self running).

    James M. Robitaille​ ”

    I admit by background is not in generators but I am learning what I can.

    What I note is that the theory has some parallel to the amplidyne generator theory of a 1 to 100 ratio of the input to the shorted exciter poles compared to the output.

    I have not resolved the issue of the amplidyne in my mind due to conflicting interpretation
    of the functioning of the machine that is not clear from general information. It is said to eliminate
    losses from eddy current resistance found in ordinary generators to make much greater use of induced power after excitation.

    The conflicting opinion says the amplidyne merely amplifies an external input power signal to another external servo generator and motor in practical application. This view says that servo signals have been replaced by ICs but I have not resolved that the IC are capable as acting as resistance free inductive electrical generators.

    Does anyone know from first hand experience?

    • Ivone

      What excites me about this whole saga is that if the amplidyne/rotoverter is correct (and they were used on WWII destroyers’ gun turrets), then free energy machines can appear in their millions within a year, for the RV/amplidyne is also the common AC motor/generator. Gas bills go!!!

      • Ivone

        But I do not hold out for the QEG. It costs ten times as much as the equivalent ac motor. What’s the point? Also the capacitors are in series, when they should be in parallel.

        • Allan Shura

          Ivone it appears not to be an expensive answer to find out if the amplidyne does what the technical claims indicate. Yet there is no clear answer with a
          demonstrable replication or data. The general electric patent would have
          long since expired.

          I just came across this recent link to a you tube video but I have been thinking about this for a while.

          Free electricity ? Over unity ? Amplidyne ? does it work …

        • siteguy18

          The 12 capacitors are in series in order to create an array with a 24 Kv. rating. Note that placing them in series also divides the capacitance by the number of units. Electronics 101.

    • DrillBabyDrill

      Who cares? The QEG is a Scam, a Fraud and a Fake. Want to bet that my $20 Orange Extension Cord is more efficient that this piece of junk? There is a “free energy” sucker born every minute. LOL !!!

  • siteguy18

    A careful examination of the QEG will reveal that it is a rather elaborate hoax. It does not and cannot draw on quantum energy (sometimes called zero-point energy) to provide 10kw of power with an initial 1kw. input. This is at best called “wishful thinking”. I suspect that anyone who attempts to build this device will quickly find that it generates but a fraction of the energy required to keep it going. If only it were true, then the inventor would deserve the Nobel Prize. Quantum energy experiments in the past have yielded minuscule, almost unmeasurably small output results, nowhere near COP .1 let alone COP 10. Not incidentally, a careful examination of the plans versus Tesla’s patent application will reveal that QEG is not, in fact, an improved copy of Tesla’s patented generator at all. In any case, it is unclear (to me, at least) what Tesla felt was the mysterious source of the energy that his device purportedly ran on. To the best of my knowledge there is also no evidence that Tesla’s device was ever demonstrated to work as it was described. It is, however crystal clear to me that the QEG device falls squarely in the class of unworkable “overunity” (read: perpetual motion) machines that have been popping up with monotonous regularity for the last hundred years or so and then quietly disappearing into obscurity. Unfortunately, despite a lot of hype and publicity, not a single one of these has *ever* been demonstrated to work as advertised. That includes QEG, and the free availability of plans does not change that fact. Sorry to be a party pooper.

  • siteguy18

    A careful examination of the QEG will reveal that it is a rather elaborate hoax. It does not and cannot draw on quantum energy (sometimes called zero-point energy) to provide 10kw of power with an initial 1kw. input. This is at best called “wishful thinking”. I suspect that anyone who attempts to build this device will quickly find that it generates but a fraction of the energy required to keep it going. If only it were true, then the inventor would deserve the Nobel Prize. Quantum energy experiments in the past have yielded minuscule, almost unmeasurably small output results, nowhere near COP .1 let alone COP 10. Not incidentally, a careful examination of the plans versus Tesla’s patent application will reveal that QEG is not, in fact, an improved copy of Tesla’s patented generator at all. In any case, it is unclear (to me, at least) what Tesla felt was the mysterious source of the energy that his device purportedly ran on. To the best of my knowledge there is also no evidence that Tesla’s device was ever demonstrated to work as it was described. It is, however crystal clear to me that the QEG device falls squarely in the class of unworkable “overunity” (read: perpetual motion) machines that have been popping up with monotonous regularity for the last hundred years or so and then quietly disappearing into obscurity. Unfortunately, despite a lot of hype and publicity, not a single one of these has *ever* been demonstrated to work as advertised. That includes QEG, and the free availability of plans does not change that fact. Sorry to be a party pooper.

    • Obvious

      Tesla did not expect free energy from the patent listed (511916) at all, or ever. It worked perfectly as described. Read about it in Tesla’s own words here starting page 35

      http://books.google.ca/books?id=KRg9HWakBmQC&pg=PA38&dq=patent+511916&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4ONmU5LfI8n1oATKkYLgAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=patent%20511916&f=false

      • siteguy18

        Thank you for setting me straight on Tesla’s work, I stand corrected. He certainly appears to have perfected some rather sophisticated techniques for generating precise alternating currents over a wide range of frequencies, and succeeded in using them to synchronize motors and external equipment with great accuracy.

        You have reinforced my point, however, that QEG disingenuously references Tesla’s patented device using vague and misleading words: “The QEG is not a complicated device, as it is designed (like Tesla’s other ‘discoveries’), to work in harmony with natural laws, rather than with the power-wasting symmetric motor and generator designs used in today’s mainstream industry.” I don’t even have a clue what that is supposed to mean, if anything.

        In any case, in re-reading the QEG “user manual” on page 2, I note that the supposed explanation as to where the thing draws its energy from is pretty much gobbledygook and double talk. I reiterate, then, that this is no more than a sham, and not worthy even of serious discussion, unless by some chance the “developer” can demonstrate a working model in strictly controlled conditions with unbiased observers.

        • Obvious

          I said the same thing about the way the QEG references the patent a couple of days ago, somewhere down below, buried in cosmology.

          • georgehants

            Obvious, or other dimensions or realities.

    • georgehants

      siteguy18, Your comment makes no scientific sense as you or any of science has no idea if the universe is open or closed therefore one does not need to invoke ZPE etc. as there could be any number of other unknown sources of OU energy.
      Sorry to be your party pooper.

      • siteguy18

        There is no need to take the discussion to where it was never intended. I remain agnostic regarding unknown potential sources of energy. After all, Rossi’s work involves tapping an energy source that conventional physics says should not exist. It simply means that there is much left to discover and that we’re barely on the threshold of understanding how the universe works. You have extrapolated far beyond my comment, which can be distilled as follows: The QEG device is based on fraudulent claims, and will remain so until its inventors can clearly prove otherwise. That’s it. I wasn’t invoking ZPE, the QEG folks already have–read their claims. I’m afraid this is about spurious claims of COP 10 for a device that anyone can build and test in their garage, not whether the universe is open or closed.

        • georgehants

          Your remaining “agnostic ” over “unknown potential sources of energy” does not make the slightest difference to there possible reality and therefore they must always be taken into account.
          More sensibly, QEG claims remains “valid” until they are proven incorrect.
          Your version leads to the kind of horrendous, childish behavior seen against P&F Rossi and many other brilliant scientists.
          I am sure you are not really one of those crackpots that goes around screaming “fraud” when you do not have the slightest proof it is.

          • siteguy18

            George, George. Making that kind of extrapolation is unbecoming. More to the point, it defies logic. What you seem to be saying is that anyone, anywhere can make fantastic claims about anything–and I MUST believe them until proven otherwise. That is the antithesis of good sense. Surely you don’t believe that.

            The burden of proof on anyone making outlandish claims for a new product or process is on the inventor! That applies to Rossi, and anyone else that claims to possess something new that the rest of the world considers to be utterly impossible according to known principles by which the physical world is governed. As something of an inventor myself, I would expect no less should I someday present a new device to the world, hoping for acceptance. After all, this forum is about rational but critical thinking in the area of energy technology, not blind acceptance of all things, is it not?

            In this case, a group of people have claimed to have invented a fantastic new generator of electrical power that requires no input source and for which there is no known principle of operation. Anyone who is NOT skeptical of such a thing, I believe, is in danger of falling prey to all kinds of schemes being foisted upon him. After all, the world has no shortage of charlatans, and no shortage of willing believers. No, when you are claiming an invention that is a true paradigm shift in every way, you had better be prepared to supply SOME measure of verifiable evidence. As I noted earlier, putting a set of plans in the public domain is not the same thing as demonstrating that the damn thing works in the real world.

            And before you leap to the attack with an accusation that I, as a reasonably cautious and mildly skeptical person, am the same sort of bloke who would have condemned heavier-than-air flight as impossible, rest assured that this is not the case. I have been one of the biggest proponents of Andrea Rossi almost since this forum began, partly because he has a proven (if colourful) track record as a true innovator, and who has acted from the beginning in ways that led me to believe that he was sincere and enthusiastic in his belief that he had uncovered a viable process that simply needed a great deal of additional work in order to perfect.

            Extreme skepticism leads to a damper on progress. LENR versus “conventional science” is a perfect example, especially when vested interests are threatened. On the other hand, extreme gullibility is just as bad. Like everything, there is a happy medium here, and I like to think that I have adopted that balance. I’m certainly not going to blindly accept the fantastic claims of QEG without something to back them up, and neither should you.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            It’s a good point that pathological scepticism and gullibility are just as bad and that there is a happy middle ground somewhere. I would say that in mainstream science, while there is pathological scepticism in some cases as we well know, there is also a lot of gullibility in many other cases. Perhaps mainstream science lies on average in the right acre or, if anything, maybe slightly on the gullible side. But of course getting the average right is not good enough because in each case where one errs in either direction, doors are closed and progress is blocked.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, do you think that the example of Cold Fusion and many other incompetent denials by science in many important areas needs to be highlighted and rectified as quickly as possible.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I hope they will become highlighted after the 3rd party report. Rectification is needed, in my opinion, at least in the sense that categorical editorial policies which block out papers without analysing/refereeing them (based on some buzzwords) should be used very sparingly or perhaps not at all.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I want to add:… and if they are used in some cases, they must be made public so that the reader knows about them. Secret editorial banning policies must not be tolerated.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, respect.

          • georgehants

            siteguy18, once a persons reply’s start getting longer and longer, we know we are into rhetoric, hand waving and the usual attempts at justification of erroneous thinking.
            I will refer you to my last reply that is logically, scientifically and sensibly indisputable.
            If you wish to put up another 10 pages trying to make out that attacking others with no final Evidence is a good thing, then fine.
            Science is an “expert” at that.
            Best
            Edit, perhaps you would like to give me a reply in the same way as your above about Hot Fusion and their claims?

          • siteguy18

            We’re going nowhere like this, I’m afraid. You honestly seem to believe that reasoned debate can take place in two or three-sentence sound bites, and I don’t. So I see no need for additional wheel-spinning. Instead, given that I have a solid professional technical background and have researched QEG thoroughly, my intention is to post a carefully-reasoned *article* in the near future on this site with links and ample proof as to why this is not “the real deal”. My guess is that my having stated that QEG is a hoax/scam without showing clear documentation and/or proof is what bothers you, and I concede that I should have been forthcoming with the proof. So stay tuned.

            By the way, I’m curious, how does 5 paragraphs become “ten pages”? And who, exactly, have I “attacked”? You? No. QEG? Hardly–stating an opinion is not an attack. But as I said, you’re right about providing proof, and that I fully intend to do. As far as your challenge on hot fusion–it’s not really a scam, given that it’s based on solidly-grounded conventional science and technology. But it also happens to be horribly misappropriated funding on a massive scale for a technology that has a consistent record of poor-to-miserable results, and shows every chance of continuing that way. No “overunity” there! In other words, a money pit. But that’s really a different discussion entirely.

          • georgehants

            siteguy18, I have no respect for your “professional technical background” unless used wisely, I have respect for good sense. logic. common decency etc.
            You are again trying to justify your erroneous view,
            Attacking people without clear proof of wrong doing is in error.

          • siteguy18

            georgehants, you have just crossed my personal “red line” with your above comment, and I have no respect for people posting in that manner. Therefore this will be my last comment in this discussion. You really need to respect opposing points of view even if you disagree with them, and stating that you have no respect for my professional technical background is not the way to do that, since you have no idea of what that background is. That’s also not part of civil discourse.

          • georgehants

            siteguy18, a scientist always seems to find a way out of their errors by blaming others.
            Just par for the course, I would suggest you stick to “science” websites where debunking and abusing a subject like Cold Fusion for 25 years is applauded and admired.
            I do not respect anybody that tries to defend incompetence and corruption that can lead to suffering and loss of life.
            I suggest you write a comment here demanding that all the “qualified” scientists and administrators responsible for the crimes regarding the delay of Cold Fusion be removed from their positions with a loss of all pension rights etc.

      • DrillBabyDrill

        @georgehants Unfortunately for you, James Robitaille, the inventor, posted his findings in a PDF. The QEG is UNDER-UNITY. The QEG is always powered by an electric motor plugged into the wall and it has NEVER been self-looped. The Electric Motor always consumes MORE power than any QEG produced. End-Of-Story … The QEG is proven UNDER-UNITY, not ever Over-Unity. There is no “Quantum Energy” in the QEG and never was. It is a Variable Reluctance Generator that has been in use for over 100 years. Sorry to rain on your parade but the QEG is a SCAM.

  • fritz194

    There is too much smoke (without obvious fire) that makes me think there is some possibility to tap energy from special material properties in combination with some effects, science has not yet on the radar like lenr and underlying effects.
    Otherwise I disagree that these effects are caused by non-standard or alternate electrodynamics or tapping ZPE via Back EMF (………..)

    But a comment like this one from “yfree” on some forum would capture my interest …..
    “QEG is real.

    This is a parametric oscillator (inductance is the parameter)
    oscillating at the ferro-resonance frequency of the core. This worked in
    1934 when Mandelstam and Papalexi experimented with it (concentrate on the experimental part of the paper on page 123). The original paper can be found here. It will also work this time. The excess energy is coming from the iron nuclei in the core through acoustic NQR excitation.”

    But from the point how it is introduced and described here – it fulfills all criteria for a scam/hoax.
    Even if there is some valid “magic” inside.

  • fritz194

    There is too much smoke (without obvious fire) that makes me think there is some possibility to tap energy from special material properties in combination with some effects, science has not yet on the radar like lenr and underlying effects.
    Otherwise I disagree that these effects are caused by non-standard or alternate electrodynamics or tapping ZPE via Back EMF (………..)

    But a comment like this one from “yfree” on some forum would capture my interest …..
    “QEG is real.

    This is a parametric oscillator (inductance is the parameter)
    oscillating at the ferro-resonance frequency of the core. This worked in
    1934 when Mandelstam and Papalexi
    http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Mandelstam_Papalexi/Mandelstam-Papalexi%20-%20Report%20on%20Recent%20Research%20on%20Nonlinear%20Oscillations%20-%201935.pdf
    experimented with it (concentrate on the experimental part of the paper on page 123). The original paper can be found here:
    http://www.cheniere.org/references/RussianParametric.pdf
    It will also work this time. The excess energy is coming from the iron nuclei in the core through acoustic NQR excitation.”

    But from the point how it is introduced and described here – it fulfills all criteria for a scam/hoax.
    Even if there is some valid “magic” inside.

  • Hope4Dbest

    Instead of open-sourcing plans and flying places all over the world to demonstrate “resonance”, why don’t the QEG promoters build a working unit?

    • bachcole

      What a freaking concept! (I let my inner angry skeptic out when I see inventors resisting demonstrations or when their demonstrations are pathetic.)

      • georgehants

        bachcole, calm and think.

    • They’re learning from Blacklight.

    • DrillBabyDrill

      Because they can charge YOU real money to provide “technical telephone support” when your device does not work. There is no profit in trying to sell the actual device (that does not). You see … If YOU build the QEG and then it does not work (it won’t ever), then it is your fault, not theirs.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    John Hutchison does some wild things with Tesla coils.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeUgDJc6AWE

    • Omega Z

      “John Hutchison”

      He’s got some weird sheet going on.
      The U.S. is always going on about getting students more involved with higher Mathematics & Science.

      If you want to motivate young students you first need to get them curious. Expose them to “Hutchison’s” toys.
      Likely you’ll see a big increase in enrollment in these classes.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    John Hutchison does some wild things with Tesla coils.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeUgDJc6AWE

    • Omega Z

      “John Hutchison”

      He’s got some weird sheet going on.
      The U.S. is always going on about getting students more involved with higher Mathematics & Science.

      If you want to motivate young students you first need to get them curious. Expose them to “Hutchison’s” toys.
      Likely you’ll see a big increase in enrollment in these classes.

  • Obvious

    I said the same thing about the way the QEG references the patent a couple of days ago, somewhere down below, buried in cosmology.

    • georgehants

      Obvious, or other dimensions or realities.

  • Omega Z

    I saw another video recently very similar to this.
    Twas in India or Pakistan or someplace like that.

    Seems it operated a heating element, fan, & lights.
    Started by hand. Laid out in part of the guys house with no visible input, However, there was plenty of possibility of a hidden energy input.

    • Obvious

      We had a brief chat about that one day. Not as much chatter as this thread. Might have been on the Always Open Thread.

  • Omega Z

    I saw another video recently very similar to this.
    Twas in India or Pakistan or someplace like that.

    Seems it operated a heating element, fan, & lights.
    Started by hand. Laid out in part of the guys house with no visible input, However, there was plenty of possibility of a hidden energy input.

    • Obvious

      We had a brief chat about that one day. Not as much chatter as this thread. Might have been on the Always Open Thread.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    It’s a good point that pathological scepticism and gullibility are just as bad and that there is a happy middle ground somewhere. I would say that in mainstream science, while there is pathological scepticism in some cases as we well know, there is also a lot of gullibility in many other cases. Perhaps mainstream science lies on average in the right acre or, if anything, maybe slightly on the gullible side. But of course getting the average right is not good enough because in each case where one errs in either direction, doors are closed and progress is blocked.

    • georgehants

      Pekka, do you think that the example of Cold Fusion and many other incompetent denials by science in many important areas needs to be highlighted and rectified as quickly as possible.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I hope they will become highlighted after the 3rd party report. Rectification is needed, in my opinion, at least in the sense that categorical editorial policies which block out papers without analysing/refereeing them (based on some buzzwords) should be used very sparingly or perhaps not at all.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I want to add:… and if they are used in some cases, they must be made public so that the reader knows about them. Secret editorial banning policies must not be tolerated.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, respect.

  • georgehants

    siteguy18, once a persons reply’s start getting longer and longer, we know we are into rhetoric, hand waving and the usual attempts at justification of erroneous thinking.
    I will refer you to my last reply that is logically, scientifically and sensibly indisputable.
    If you wish to put up another 10 pages trying to make out that attacking others is a good thing, then fine.
    Best

    • siteguy18

      We’re going nowhere like this, I’m afraid. You honestly seem to believe that reasoned debate can take place in two or three-sentence sound bites, and I don’t. So I see no need for additional wheel-spinning. Instead, given that I have a solid professional technical background and have researched QEG thoroughly, my intention is to post a carefully-reasoned *article* in the near future on this site with links and ample proof as to why this is not “the real deal”. My guess is that my having stated that QEG is a hoax/scam without showing clear documentation and/or proof is what bothers you, and I concede that I should have been forthcoming with the proof. So stay tuned.

      By the way, I’m curious, how does 5 paragraphs become “ten pages”? And who, exactly, have I “attacked”? You? No. QEG? Hardly–stating an opinion is not an attack. But as I said, you’re right about providing proof, and that I fully intend to do. As far as your challenge on hot fusion–it’s not really a scam, given that it’s based on solidly-grounded conventional science and technology. But it also happens to be horribly misappropriated funding on a massive scale for a technology that has a consistent record of poor-to-miserable results, and shows every chance of continuing that way. No “overunity” there! In other words, a money pit. But that’s really a different discussion entirely.

      • georgehants

        siteguy18, I have no respect for your “professional technical background” I have respect for good sense. logic etc.
        You are again trying to justify your nonferrous view,

  • georgehants

    bachcole, calm and think.

  • georgehants

    Mike, if you learn to read you will find that at no time have I said “excerpt these claims” I say do not childishly attack them without clear Evidence of wrong doing.
    Do you agree with that moral?

  • Gerard McEk
  • Gerard McEk
  • Anothercoilgun

    This is one thing I am sure of. The topic of QEG has made many of databases over flow.

  • Anothercoilgun

    This is one thing I am sure of. The topic of QEG has made many of databases over flow.

  • Anothercoilgun

    My reply is buried so deep no one would find it hence the double post.

    Remember the claim is it already did. So what is everyone waiting for? Claim was not to research or attempt. Claim was a working running model for 150 discrete hours. Why not put the gauntlet of tests to an existing working running prototype instead of traveling to far places to assemble other units and then not even share the results of the unit (i.e. Taiwan).

    Parametric excitation is the model the generator is based from. Not a hypothesis, but good old decades of many patents, engineering, and products mass produced and sold.

    Variable reluctance gave birth to WITTS’ version. WITTS’ version gave birth to QEG without WITTs approval mind you.

    Wiki is not only yours but all of ours friend.
    Principles of Electric Generators: http://bib.convdocs.org/v11950/?download=2

  • Anothercoilgun

    My reply is buried so deep no one would find it hence the double post.

    Remember the claim is it already did. So what is everyone waiting for? Claim was not to research or attempt. Claim was a working running model for 150 discrete hours. Why not put the gauntlet of tests to an existing working running prototype instead of traveling to far places to assemble other units and then not even share the results of the unit (i.e. Taiwan).

    Parametric excitation is the model the generator is based from. Not a hypothesis, but good old decades of many patents, engineering, and products mass produced and sold.

    Variable reluctance gave birth to WITTS’ version. WITTS’ version gave birth to QEG without WITTs approval mind you.

    Wiki is not only yours but all of ours friend.
    Principles of Electric Generators: http://bib.convdocs.org/v11950/?download=2

  • Chris

    @ siteguy18
    You say that you have “technical background”, but it seems to be quite POOR.
    If you only had some kind of understanding in engineering, then you would know that achieving COP>1 is not impossible, probably not even hard to do.
    You seem to believe hard, that it is not possible to generate more energy than “put into it”.
    But this is ONLY TRUE as long as you use conventional generators which have a LENZ DRAG EFFECT.
    However, if one is able to build a generator without the LENZ DRAG EFFECT, or at least with a reduced lenz, then basically what you have is free energy. That is all that is required.
    The QEG seems to be such a lenzless generator, even when it is high voltage.

    The truth is, the amount of current that a generator is able to generate is dependent upon MANY factors like:

    -excitation (magnets or exciter coils used)
    -wire gauge of coils
    -turns of windings
    -spacing / distances
    -the RPM when in usage
    -the LENZ DRAG torque that must be overcome, IF THE GENERATOR DESIGN IS CAUSING SUCH A LENZ

    However, if you cleverly design a lenzless or lowlenz generator, IN NO WAY, is the amount of energy that it can generate LIMITED or BELOW what is “input” or what the motor consumes.

    IF one has a generator of a LENZLESS design, you CAN power it by a small 1kW motor.
    The ONLY limiting factor of its ABILITY TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY through rotational movement will be the GENERATOR SPECS (points as above) and the WEIGHT of the rotor itself.
    If the weight of the rotor is too heavy, a small 1kW motor turning it nonstop could overheat.
    But the weight constraint is MINIMAL.
    Speaking simplyfied… when using a LENZLESS generator, the amount of electricity that can be generated by a turning rotor is not limitless, BUT VERY HIGH… depending on the DESIGN.

    • siteguy18

      Hi, Chris. My background is in fact a formal education in electronics technology from DeVry Institute of Technology. While I’m familiar with Lenz’s Law, I know that it simply describes in mathematical terms the conservation of energy in electromagnetic circuits. No more and no less. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever demonstrated the successful operation of an over-unity generator. Energy is always conserved (at least in our corner of the universe), and if you can prove otherwise, the world will beat a path to your door.

      COP refers to Coefficient of Performance, and is generally used to express the gains or losses involved in the conversion of electrical energy to heating and/or cooling. In that sense you are correct, because I should have stated “energy in versus energy out”, expressed as a percentage. So I take back my comments regarding COP in my posts referring to the QEG device. Instead I will state categorically that no conversion of energy involving mechanical or electrical devices is ever 100% efficient, and therefore the efficiency for any device must always be less than 1, i.e. less than 100%. The QEG device is no different. Power out = power in multiplied by its conversion efficiency.

      Everything you stated is based on the assumption that it’s possible and practical to build devices that generate more energy than they consume. You are entitled to your opinions. Nevertheless, that does not make them factual. I live in the real world, and prefer to comment and report on things for which there is a solid and provable basis. So far, the QEG has neither, and the onus is on the promoters to prove otherwise. Nothing you stated changes that.

    • DrillBabyDrill

      @chris:disqus But you have NEVER built a LENZLESS Generator therefore your whole argument is pure nonsense. You talk about “What if’s and maybe’s” but you never discuss a real world generator and all of it’s real world LOSSES. We live in the Real World not your make believe pseudo science world.

  • Alan Smith

    Hi JDM. I just noticed your comment and very kind offer. . Snowed under with work, family affairs, and concentrating on getting some HHO data together, or else I would consider a build – but sadly not possible before August – by which time it will either have been proven or will evaporate as so many others have.

  • Alan Smith

    Hi JDM. I just noticed your comment and very kind offer. . Snowed under with work, family affairs, and concentrating on getting some HHO data together, or else I would consider a build – but sadly not possible before August – by which time it will either have been proven or will evaporate as so many others have.

  • siteguy18

    Hi, Chris. My background is in fact a formal education in electronics technology from DeVry Institute of Technology. While I’m familiar with Lenz’s Law, I know that it simply describes in mathematical terms the conservation of energy in electromagnetic circuits. No more and no less. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever demonstrated the successful operation of an over-unity generator. Energy is always conserved (at least in our corner of the universe), and if you can prove otherwise, the world will beat a path to your door.

    COP refers to Coefficient of Performance, and is generally used to express the gains or losses involved in the conversion of electrical energy to heating and/or cooling. In that sense you are correct, because I should have stated “energy in versus energy out”, expressed as a percentage. So I take back my comments regarding COP in my posts referring to the QEG device. Instead I will state categorically that no conversion of energy involving mechanical or electrical devices is ever 100% efficient, and therefore the efficiency for any device must always be less than 1, i.e. less than 100%. The QEG device is no different. Power out = power in multiplied by its conversion efficiency.

    Everything you stated is based on the assumption that it’s possible and practical to build devices that generate more energy than they consume. You are entitled to your opinions. Nevertheless, that does not make them factual. I live in the real world, and prefer to comment and report on things for which there is a solid and provable basis. So far, the QEG has neither, and the onus is on the promoters to prove otherwise. Nothing you stated changes that.