1. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    erm. Dunno, it's not clear from these. Where the quantum field is mentioned it doesn't detail how, just that they use it.
    (overview taken from peswiki page http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Quantum_Energy_Generator_(QEG)#How_It_Works)
    Edit, found some discussion on their forum.

  2. wotgorilla

    wotgorilla Member


    About the only thing that I'm in agreement with the proponents of this device is the implication that all that can be known about electronics already is, when employed by some of it's detractors. I've run head on into the irrationally of skeptics. They are not immune.
    There's apparently variations of the QEG, but nothing that alters the circuit function. This one is representative, and labeled metabunk, perhaps it appears elsewhere. But, I haven't seen an analysis of this circuit here. So although my electronics forte is not in motors, I think I can give a reasonably accurate basic review.
    To the left you will see an isolated vari-ac feeding a rectifier which supplies a voltage controlled DC motor. This allows the generator to be driven at the rpm required to achieve the frequency of resonance of the self excited tank circuit shown in green.


    To be as concise as possible, I'm going to forgo it's explanation. But, it can be read here.


    Below we have the schematic of a Ac induction motor.


    Upon comparing the three images above, it becomes clear that the QEG is simply a two pole induction motor used as an asynchronous generator. Nothing terribly unique about this, the facility isn't a secret. An alternator is just a more efficient device.

    So, the self exciter tank circuit. A real world device. The principle is that once oscillation is induced by the rotating stator, it will continue, due to being enclosed in a 100% feedback loop. From the description given by the QEG supporters, it seems clear that the hope is that once the proper rpm is achieved, the tank circuit will take over driving the rotor, which in turn will induce voltages into the stator windings. Bada-bing, free energy.

    Theoretically, the tank circuit would continue to oscillate indefinitely if there was such a thing as a pure capacitor or inductor. No such devices exist. Caps have inductance and resistance, inductors have capacitance and resistance. Same with the wiring that has all three. The energy would be dissipated very quickly. But, even if such devices could be realized, the circuit would only function until it's energy is depleted by driving the stator.

    Now, let's get into resonance, one of the supposed band aides used to overcome the above problems. Broadly brushed, it's the property of a system in which the transmission of energy is at it's greatest efficiency, i.e. lowest loss. Very handy in electronics for a variety of applications. In fact, we can output a voltage of higher amplitude then that input, by tuning for a high Q. What free energy proponents often don't grasp, is all we've done is peak the release of energy, by trading amplitude for time. The area under the curve is the same.

    Despite whatever they chose to call the little red box in the center of the drawing, it's a tank circuit filter operating as a bandpass. In other words, it passes the tuned frequency with the least amount of loss, and attenuates all others. Not clear as to the function of the spark gap. It might be used as a protection device.

    So, what could be happening here is that the circuit could be outputting spikes of higher amplitude then 120 volts that are of the same rms value. That would account for the claims. The problem with the quantum
    mechanics explanation is that there's nothing here that's new, or hasn't been done before in circuit implementation. Application, maybe. But, electrons don't know the difference. The components are the same as used elsewhere, no special materials. Nothing to compensate for all the heat losses.

    I don't see how it could work. Remove the power, and it will coast to a stop. If under load, quickly.
    I'd like the chance to measure one, for grins. But, I doubt that will ever happen. I almost did once. But they found out about my background, and wouldn't let me near it.
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    so it definitely sounds like a total load of woo then.

    Especially the "it won't work if you don;t believe in it" nonsense. The sort of healers who were just randomly bandying the word vibrations about and have only in the last few years started to jump on the Quantum bandwagon have a knowledge of how the quantum realm operates. Sounds to me on a par with "yes I can feel someone hanging around the astral plane, I have a John? or James who wishes to communicate. "
  4. Free Energy Now

    Free Energy Now Closed Account

    PLEASE, Allow me a moment to blow your mind.

    Over Unity! Wait this is not possible, the law of conservation and the second law of thermodynamics are clear. The stated definition "In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves." & "The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy." Here is the definition as I see it. In any closed system of energy, all useable energy will be transformed into unusable energy in any conventional sense as we know it now.


    In our universe there is no such thing as a closed system, unless of course you speak of the universe as a whole, which may or may not be closed by nature either (Debatable). We cannot ever know that for sure.

    If anyone that doubts the idea that a machine created can produce more energy, useable by us, than it consumes is both myopic in their thinking and need to take a bit more time study and take their minds our of their butts.

    Any machine that produces more energy than it consumes is simply "borrowing" energy from a larger system. (NO CLOSED SYSTEMS). The conversion of one form of energy into a useable form is what most machines are based on. BUT WAIT KIDS. Allow me to take a moment and blow your minds! Is that converted energy after use unusable? Can is converted back into another form of energy and is useable again? GEE, let me take a moment to think, MOST LIKELY!

    The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created or destroyed. HMMM, from what this is saying energy simply converts itself into other forms of its self. Just because we burned a fossil fuel to make one form of energy does not mean that after we use it it cannot be converted back into useable energy again and again. I would venture to say we need people who are closed minded, such as yourself, to start thinking about that rather than dismissing all possibilities of the "over-unity" and then moving on with the rest of your life thinking that because you dismissed it and told everyone around me to dismiss it that you have accomplish anything. YOU ARE A FOOL! Starting thinking about the problem for a change instead of holding those who are thinking about the problem back.

    FOR example, The earth's rotation takes its energy form the suns angular momentum and rotation. The suns rotation takes its energy from the systems outside of it, and so on and so forth. This same principle follows through with every form of energy (matter).

    IF, any machine were to produce more usable "energy" then is consumed it is simply "borrowing" that from the larger system that is unseen and possibly undetectable by modern devices, around it. This will not always be the case humanity may have already or will soon produce such devices to detect even the forms of energy we currently cannot measure.

    FOR EXAMPLE, It is conceivable that a machine would borrow from the heat energy around it or the electromagnetism of the planet, or another system of "energy" around it.

    That is what Nicolai Tesla was doing in his inventions. He did not produce energy from nothing, which is impossible, he simply built open systems that borrowed unseen energy from energy around the machine and made it usable to us in a form we could "plug" into.

    QUIT saying Over Unity is not possible. THAT IS! You are simply myopic in your thinking and you need to change that thinking NOW. Over unity is more than possible and there have been many throughout the ages of humanity that have discovered it and were SQUASHED by people such as yourselves who have no mind to think and will not take the time to study in order to change that thinking, but rather rely on the "experts" around you to do that "thinking" for you. Unless of course you are calling yourself the "expert". Then shame on you!

    Science on countless occasions throughout human history has deemed to define the reality around us only to find out, "We were wrong". But the funny thing is that at the time the "beliefs" were held, they were dogmatic about them. Most of science is religion and much of it has yet to define the reality around us properly. Look it is also prideful for any "Scientist" to say we know this as a fact! The only facts are ones that can adhere to the scientific method. For example science says it is fact that gravity exists because it can be observed in a scientific method. BUT WAIT KIDS! This is not necessarily fact. Could their be a place in the universe that gravity does not act the same it is does here? Could I produce an environment where gravity does not operate at all? So in the case of gravity, the fact of it can only be stated in for far as we have observed it so far.

    So in order to adhere to your posting guidelines lets talk about this specific example of a machine which claims overunity (produces more usable energy that it consumes). The idea of a smaller power generator would power a larger one. But unless this machine barrows energy from an outside system or converts other forms of unseen energy from around it and make us it able in a "plug able" sense. then the machine is bogus. From what has been observed in at least four occasions, so far, this the phenomenon of unity. In one instance over unity. I would not take the time to spout your opinions about it until you personally have tried it or have spoken to the people that have and heard a first hand account of what happened. I have not done this so I reserve judgement. Instead of saying quip remarks like, OVER UNITY IS IMPOSSIBLE, therefore this is a shame! Is myopic! It would be wiser to state, We will see what happens. The funny thing about lies are that they always some out, more matter how hard someone tries to hide them. So if this is a lie then you can say in this case only over unity was not possible.

    If you would like to contact me please contact me through my email metabunkorg {[at]} mikelong {[dot]} org.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  5. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    All anyone has to do is demonstrate it. No-one ever has.
    Really? Being skeptical of the claim somehow so crushed their spirit they were unable to show the principle in operation?
    How long should we wait, and how long do they get to make excuses before it's fair to say they were lying or mistaken?
    They are now on their THIRD machine, yet still have not produced overunity, apparently because people wanting them to prove it properly makes too many bad vibes for the machine to work. They clearly stated in their funding requests, back in Septemeber of last year, that they had and could deliver overunity machines to the world. They haven't. It's fraud.
    If overunity is possible, this particular project isn't a demonstration of it.
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    That was a very long and unhelpful rant. In what way is anyone here holding you back? you don;t have to come and read our poo poohing of your brilliant machines. You can carry on and show that it works and make us all look stupid. nothing I or anyone else says here has any relevance to your machine EXCEPT when we stop gullible people sending you money for plans for a machine that has not been proven to work, and that you will charge money for supposedly trying to help them with what they "did wrong" building it.

    On this site are many seasoned debunkers. That does not mean we are closed minded and automatically naysay anything new and novel or always insist the "official story" is correct, we just show where stuff is clearly not true or has been misrepresented.

    IF your Over Unity (perpetual motion) machine worked as described, you could start it off with a little power and it would then generate power to run itself and excess power to do work. This means it could run definitely, until parts wore out and needed replacing.
    So why haven't you done that?

    Here's an idea. You can get a 2TB hard drive in the UK for about £80. a cheap webcam for about £5-8, and you can download free recording software such as Contacam or Eyespy.

    You can start the machine up and then show you are removing all external power from the system. You can leave the machine running and just keep filming it constantly. a 2TB hard drive will record a single camera for at least 3 months. The software will chop it up into hour long chunks.
    That's a good way to help show that your machine works as described.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Nobody said that. But perhaps you might consider a different name, like "Energy Tap" - to clarify things.

    People here are just calling it like they see it. It looks like it won't work, there's no evidence that it does work, and the expensive consulting fees make it look like a con.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I've allowed FEN's original long post to stand. I know it has a lot of points in it, but please don't take them up in this thread unless they directly related to the QED machine.
  10. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    As I am sitting on the beach in Corsica this week I see a lot of energy from non-closed systems: wind, waves, and sun. But this QEG device does not have any way of capturing all of the energies in these. A generator with some capacitors attached IS a closed system.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. qed

    qed Senior Member

    This thread reminded my of the currently purely theoretical notion of a quantum battery (2012).

    With quantum batteries, the ultimate goal is to get out what you put in!

    Clearly these scientists (and their reviewers) did not read the "papers" on "QEG".
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Kermilli

    Kermilli New Member

    Would it work if you tried to power a small neighborhood out of these kind of machines ?
  13. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    No, they'd do better with solar roofing on the houses. The opinion of other experimenters who look critically at the design and results is that this is a poor and less efficient generator than conventional ones.
    (apparently it's a kind of 'variable reluctance' generator and not much more)
  14. vooke

    vooke Active Member

    Slightly OT but I was kicked out of another forum for demanding for evidence. Banned for being argumentative,divisive and so forth. I for once asked a member to share with me his strongest proof of faked moon landing since all existing evidence have been comprehensively debunked. They insisted some had not. So I asked for this.

    What I mean to say is you have no idea how it infuriates bunk believers. I think demanding for evidence before accepting claims is the least you can do short of blind faith. Why are they churning out videos of 'evidence' yet they don't brook questions....polite inquiry that is?

    It is all bunk
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think "do better" is rather an understatement. Solar roofing would be a vast improvement. They would do better with nothing at all. They would do better just throwing energy away.

    It's a generator of electricity that is powered by electricity. It looks like less than half the electric that goes in one end comes out the other. The rest is dissipated as heat energy.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    does it even make a good room heater?
  17. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Quantum Energy is a great concept...I really look forward to the day when we (as a species) can actually learn to "tap into" what exists in Nature.

    Give us some time....we will figure it out....but meanwhile, there will be "pretenders" along the way.
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well, if there were actually putting in 1Kw, as they suggest, then they are just getting out 1Kw of heat. The motor and the generator will both move air around. Most of the heat (I suspect) will be given off by the motor and the light bulbs - but it will be getting warm all along the way.
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It has now been two months since the events in the OP ("achieving resonance"). While they claim to have achieve "overunity", they seem to simply be measuring the wrong thing. They have had two months to get the machine to power itself (something which should be trivial - just a voltage regulator) but of course they have done nothing.

    Instead HopeGirl is simply planning another build, and soliciting donations again:


    And again we have "resonance", but no self powering:

  20. vooke

    vooke Active Member

    You'll get yourself shot
    This is serious business
    Serious $$$:mad:

    Am starting to get pissed by their uncreativity; it's always "we're just about to" year in, year out
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Teresa T

    Teresa T New Member

    Go back to posts 18-20. It's easy to make fun of garage inventors, a bit tougher to take on a professional business and qualified engineer. Anybody going to take him up on his challenge to debunk his device? No takers?
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The lack of an independently verified demonstration is all the debunking that is needed. If it worked, then he could demonstrate it powering itself. He has not done so, hence there is no reason to go further.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    There's lots of people with builds - no one's claimed anything miraculous about it yet. If it was something, it would be causing some sensation in the forums.

    If you 're really interested in it, then perhaps you can start a new thread on it, with the best evidence it has.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Just out of curiosity, if someone did invent this and was able to get it to work, what would be the proper procedure for showing it to the world. Would they create a YT video and put in on the net, knowing people could steal their invention or would they have to file patents first, or do something to protect themselves. Is seems to me, they would probably want to protect their invention and thats why its hard to take these videos seriously...
  25. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    There are a few "proper" ways. The traditional one is a peer reviewed journal, but for marketable inventions direct marketing to investors or manufacturers is common. Selling it yourself is fine itself, but there's the distinction of selling a working product and selling perpetual help to get it working.
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think it's amusing just how ordinary the discussion regarding this supposed technology are. Like the Morocco build was just to power a well, and here we are talking about patenting thing.

    If such technology worked, it would be a pivotal point in humankind's existence. Just take the Nobel prize ($1 million), and the eternal fame, and the undying gratitude of future generations.

    Instead people are just nickle and diming excuses, and bickering on web pages.

    Either it works or it doesn't. If it works then demonstrate it. That's all there is to it.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Maybe I proposed the question the wrong way. If it worked, how would you demonstrate it. You wouldn't demonstrate it on YT, because it could be stolen, or are you saying it wouldn't matter since you would still be recognized for its invention and win 1 million dollars. Honestly, an invention like that would be worth a hell of a lot more money than what 1 million.
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Sure, it would be worth billions, but none of the people making it claim to want billions, they say they want it for the betterment of mankind, to break the grip of big oil. So just patent it (or not, if you are really altruistic), and then demonstrate it.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  29. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    Probably the best way to demonstrate that it really works is peer review. Patent it or don't (patents can also be put under an open public license), depending on how much control you want, then provide working units to researchers and professors in the field. Those people will not just demonstrate it, but do things like duplicate, disassemble, and intensionally break it to find any possible scam.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    A very good first start would be to simply show it running self powered. There is no reason at all why this should be difficult, assuming it actually works.
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    FTW just keeps on going, now has a "self running" target for the UK of the end of July

  32. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    So do you think this QEG and Hope Girl or Hope More are just a bunch of scammers trying to raise money and take advantage of people, or do you think they honestly believe they will be able to achieve their goal.
  33. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Well they're not open to criticism and censor questions. There's nothing new or innovative about the principle they're using, so them achieving the goal is really unlikely if not outright impossible.

    There's probably enough wiggle room for them to claim they never technically promised it would work and it was an experiment all along.

    At best they were naive about the realities of the generator, got excited about measurements that were premature and poorly done, and are now learning it's not as easy as they thought. Now they're going to disappear into an anticlimactic 'research' phase.

    If their expert did actually have the expertise claimed, then it would have definitely been a knowing fraud. Or they've misrepresented his knowledge and credentials and he's only guilty of some earnest incompetence.

    At worst they knew exactly how they could stay just ahead of failure-to-deliver and figured the pay-off was worth it.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  34. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

    • Like Like x 3
  35. michelle

    michelle New Member

    I have a lot of engineer friends working on the QEG project. they raise money to build these QEG generators that they believe work. I would suggest that the only real way to prove or disprove the possibility of these machines is to build a generator and see if it works.
  36. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    But they have been built, in 4 different countries, and they don't work, except as very inefficient generators.
    They've now gone into an indefinite research phase last I'd heard, a year after they launched the claim of being able to provide working over-unity generators, and the funding campaign.
    You can't just keep saying to give them time, they've failed to deliver.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Just out of curiosity, have any of your engineer friends built one? Or, are they still raising money for their project....to build one.

    I ask in all sincerity....because, as a layperson, I still think that there 'might' be available sources of energy, yet to be tapped.

    Think about a few centuries ago....electricity was not known then....as a power source.
  38. michelle

    michelle New Member

    I know the people working on this project and they are doing so with pure intentions. as with any attempt to do something with minimal funding and at this magnitude they are running into some problems. if you have feedback or suggestions I would contact those involved. folks here have great expertise and potential feedback. Instead of debunking the project, why not contribute your knowledge to making it happen?
  39. michelle

    michelle New Member

    they have built them, but they're running into some difficulties getting them to sustain. I don't know a lot about what's going on with it, but I can put you in contact with some of the main people working on the projects if you have questions.
  40. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    These guys are experts in hobby and over-unity electronic experiments.
    One of them made a mini-qeg that exactly replicates the results of the qeg, for a fraction of the cost. It's nothing miraculous.
    If your friends want help with the project ask them.

    The people behind FTW may possibly have pure intentions (though that is really stretching credibility at this point), but they doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about.
    • Agree Agree x 1