vooke
Active Member
How about they invite independent South African persons or entities and do the demo for them?
If they can afford to develop the machine they certainly can afford to shoot a clip or send invites to fellow south africans
Debunked: Quantum Energy Generator (QEG), 10kw out for 1kw in.
- Thread starter Pete Tar
- Start date
How about they invite independent South African persons or entities and do the demo for them?
If they can afford to develop the machine they certainly can afford to shoot a clip or send invites to fellow south africans
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member.
Exactly. So why is this not happening? That it's not seems all the confirmation needed.
David Coulter
Senior Member.
I will be in Capetown in September 2016 at a scientific conference. Would be happy to pull together a team of geophysicists and mathematicians to have a look. But, will bring simple equipment to test all connections to prove there are no active or passive power sources. That will of course mean testing the device "to destruction" by complete disassemble. No biggy, my first R&D boss required that for any new technology instrument we purchased.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Go for it. Hunt Bigfoot.
Admiral Biscuit
Member
I can post some close numbers, from one specific model line, no less:
1964 Ford Mustang, 4.3L V-8, 164hp, 258lb/ft torque; 2016 Ford Mustang, 2.3L I-4, 310hp, 320lb/ft torque.
Of course, Ford did it incrementally, improving materials and engine controls over 50-some years.
EDIT: Still need to figure out how to use the reply button right.
Just joined, first post.
I was going to post that I'm happy to visit S. Africa to see Ron's working FE machine, test it and post the results here. Then I read his 'PayPal offering' and didn't fancy the trip so much after that
On second thoughts, I've no doubt I can find a local of RSA to mosey on over to his factory as a favor.
I've also recently received a claim by a very close friend, that someone he is in contact with has a working machine (2kW from a small, portable device), and there's a chance I may be invited to check it out.
I'm not clueless when it comes to maths, chemistry or physics, but I'm far from expert either, and I've never been in this position before.
I very much doubt I'd have the opportunity to disassemble their apparatus, so what would be the preferred bullet-proof method to test such a device, by an intelligent layman armed with simple instruments, to confirm FE tech?
I'm guessing that isolating their device from external power, hooking up to a bank of light bulbs and seeing if they are still glowing after a certain period of time isn't 100% definitive, or is it?
I was going to post that I'm happy to visit S. Africa to see Ron's working FE machine, test it and post the results here. Then I read his 'PayPal offering' and didn't fancy the trip so much after that
On second thoughts, I've no doubt I can find a local of RSA to mosey on over to his factory as a favor.
I've also recently received a claim by a very close friend, that someone he is in contact with has a working machine (2kW from a small, portable device), and there's a chance I may be invited to check it out.
I'm not clueless when it comes to maths, chemistry or physics, but I'm far from expert either, and I've never been in this position before.
I very much doubt I'd have the opportunity to disassemble their apparatus, so what would be the preferred bullet-proof method to test such a device, by an intelligent layman armed with simple instruments, to confirm FE tech?
I'm guessing that isolating their device from external power, hooking up to a bank of light bulbs and seeing if they are still glowing after a certain period of time isn't 100% definitive, or is it?
David Coulter
Senior Member.
Just joined, first post.
I was going to post that I'm happy to visit S. Africa to see Ron's working FE machine, test it and post the results here. Then I read his 'PayPal offering' and didn't fancy the trip so much after that
On second thoughts, I've no doubt I can find a local of RSA to mosey on over to his factory as a favor.
I've also recently received a claim by a very close friend, that someone he is in contact with has a working machine (2kW from a small, portable device), and there's a chance I may be invited to check it out.
I'm not clueless when it comes to maths, chemistry or physics, but I'm far from expert either, and I've never been in this position before.
I very much doubt I'd have the opportunity to disassemble their apparatus, so what would be the preferred bullet-proof method to test such a device, by an intelligent layman armed with simple instruments, to confirm FE tech?
I'm guessing that isolating their device from external power, hooking up to a bank of light bulbs and seeing if they are still glowing after a certain period of time isn't 100% definitive, or is it?
From all of the videos I have seen the device will not be unplugged. You or your friend will see two curves on oscilloscope and be told that the two curves produce additive power, but the device is not yet fully "tuned" to run on its own. The curves actually represent real/active (in phase) and imaginary/reactive (out of phase) power, the imaginary power can do no work and, in fact, if perfectly "tuned" to 90 deg out of phase the entire AC system will result in a null system. The Wiki on this is a bit dense but does explain the concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power
Hi David and thanks for the reply so quickly.
I wasn't clear in my post, but I don't think the device my friend has referred to is a QEG build. It may be, but that wasn't the impression I got.
Obviously, if I see something plugged in that's going to be the first step of verification - unplug it.
Let's say I'm presented with a stand-alone device, with no external connection at all, that powers 2kW of electrical appliances (say 20x 100W bulbs). Is it feasible for such a device to do so (some form of capacitor or other electrical storage) and if so, for how long.
In other words, what's the most simple, basic and obvious way to confirm somebody managed to do what no-one else has so far managed to demonstrate?
I'm not trying to be facetious in any way. My friend is not the slightest bit deceptive, but he can be a tad gullible. If I get further with my conversations, and do get an official invitation, I'll post more details and ask for more specifics, but it would be good for me to assert a basic premise of a test to the 'owners' before I go buying air tickets etc.
I wasn't clear in my post, but I don't think the device my friend has referred to is a QEG build. It may be, but that wasn't the impression I got.
Obviously, if I see something plugged in that's going to be the first step of verification - unplug it.
Let's say I'm presented with a stand-alone device, with no external connection at all, that powers 2kW of electrical appliances (say 20x 100W bulbs). Is it feasible for such a device to do so (some form of capacitor or other electrical storage) and if so, for how long.
In other words, what's the most simple, basic and obvious way to confirm somebody managed to do what no-one else has so far managed to demonstrate?
I'm not trying to be facetious in any way. My friend is not the slightest bit deceptive, but he can be a tad gullible. If I get further with my conversations, and do get an official invitation, I'll post more details and ask for more specifics, but it would be good for me to assert a basic premise of a test to the 'owners' before I go buying air tickets etc.
David Coulter
Senior Member.
I would make sure the capacitors are capacitors and not batteries in disguise. Since capacitors are a critical component of these free energy things, it is the most likely place to hide chargeable batteries. Disconnect anything that could be a hidden battery, measure the voltage across it, then briefly short it across a load, then measure the voltage across the device again. If it has similar voltage in the two measurements it is a battery, not a capacitor.
Thomas Reid
New Member
I am also in South Africa. Can we make arrangements for me to view?
LouV
Member
As I understand it, Rongram has been banned from posting until he presents minimal evidence as proof of his seriousness. However, you can still PM him and tell us here how your discussion evolves.
It would be nice if something constructive, other than simply yet another testimonial, came out of this.
Graham2001
Active Member
Something that keeps popping up whenever I look at YouTube, I'm beginning to wonder if the uploader is paying to have this recommended. This kind of thing has been taken down many, many times before.
External Quote:
NoParty
Senior Member.
Welcome, Sean.
Not to sound jaded, or anything, but I feel like I've heard a million times that one--like your friend's--is "almost" ready...
if it's true that "lots of people get it," as you say, would you please post evidence
of one of the many that you know to be already functioning successfully?
txt29
Senior Member.
Probably not. YT simply keeps the history of your past views, and offers you new videos based on it. So each time you open a video just to verify it is the kind of bunk you expected, you can stay assured you'll be fed with it by YT for months to come. You can click the triple dot icon under the video in the selection list, and select the option "not interested" - if you continue doing it each time something similar pops up in your list, YT will finally drop suggesting it.
Note that the original post was about a video from over two years ago about people who "get it" and who are "building one at the moment". Why do they not have a working model? Why do they not have a shred of evidence that their revolutionary machine works?
Perhaps they genuinely think that what they are selling is real. But if it's clearly not, then is that any different from a scam?
sean west
New Member
why would you even believe a video or other evidence?, you personally must see one or you will never believeWelcome, Sean.
Not to sound jaded, or anything, but I feel like I've heard a million times that one--like your friend's--is "almost" ready...
if it's true that "lots of people get it," as you say, would you please post evidence
of one of the many that you know to be already functioning successfully?
it, its like seeing a ghost
If it were real it would work. So far there is no evidence that it does.
txt29
Senior Member.
Mark Dansie of Revolution-Green.com proposed them countless times to travel on his own cost to their place (incl. the alleged QEG replication in Taiwan) to validate their "invention", but the proposals were always turned down. At the beginning they used argumentation in this sense: "We are not in the prove it business, we are in the do it business". Later they simply rejected any such proposals as "trolling".
So no, nobody will be permitted to see the miracle at works.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Wait...are you saying that you haven't shared your evidence yet because some evidence is not believable?
How about you just present the quality evidence that made you believe,
and then I can evaluate for myself whether it seems credible to me?
AumuA
New Member
Although I have no doubt that the claims here are in fact bunk, I'll play devil's advocate and say that our friend does have a point, in that I can hardly imagine any videotaped evidence that would stand the scrutiny of a bunch of skeptics like us. A video just wouldn't be able to offer the thoroughness of inspection required to convince.
But it's the first step. A video is evidence, even if not conclusive or verified. Showing nothing simply indicates there is zero evidence.
If it works, then it's a trivial thing to demonstrate. Not demonstrating it very strongly suggests that it does not work. It does not suggest they are avoiding demonstrating it because they think not everyone will be convinced.
NoParty
Senior Member.
First, I never requested video...though, if he thought that his best evidence happened to be video,
I'd welcome it.
Yes, because the chasm between accepted science and some of these wild claims is so huge,
it is a long shot that any single, little YouTube video would instantly, totally change the minds of many people
who have viewed a lot of specious claims over the course of many years. Video is often pretty easy to fake.
But it would still be so much more than what's been offered so far.
And a good starting point for discussion of how we need to re-think the science involved, if there's
any reason to think that the new claims are valid. So, no, I'm not asking for video, per se.
But if Sean linked to one I'd look at it...it's not hard to best anecdotal evidence...
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
As Mick says, its a start. Next would be to take their machine to a local university and allow the physics or engineering department to test input/output and write up a report.
Assuming they find that op/ip is in fact 10, or any number greater than 1, it goes to publication.
THEN other universities duplicate the feat.
That's how science works.
So, when Sean's friend has his model up and working and powering his lights, or refridgerator, or entire house he can build another one and subject it to testing and get famous and rich.
I mean really, if this thing works I would happily buy one and tell the utility company to perform an impossible sex act.
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
Heck if video is evidence then as per beer commercials , beer attracts young ladies to your party or backyard BBQ, and let's not forget the physical prowess and sheer determination to fight bad guys displayed by the likes of Bruce Willis.
Chip Cooper
New Member
I notice that the title of this starts with "Debunked". Is this with regard to the latest claim that the device only outputs 3kW OU instead of the original intended 10kW. Then I'd say indeed debunked. But, if this is intended to refer to the concepts of FTW's QEG itself, then it's questionable. Could I get a bit of clarity on this?
I'd say that debunking the QEG in general is still up for grabs. I would think that the lack of easily obtainable evidence especially when it comes to a device that claims to be functioning under principles at the limits of current theories, does not constitute a debunk. The QEG itself has yet to be debunked.
Is there a forum on this site that discusses the science/pseudoscience of this device? Based on the original date of the thread, the title seems premature. Those "in the know", myself included, on the project knew of the obstacle on the conversion from Reactive Power to Real Power, the application of thus was only released this July after the last post.
I find no shame in getting only 3kW when 10kW was hoped for. The original claim was an expectation value, that indeed not not come into fruition.
I'd say that debunking the QEG in general is still up for grabs. I would think that the lack of easily obtainable evidence especially when it comes to a device that claims to be functioning under principles at the limits of current theories, does not constitute a debunk. The QEG itself has yet to be debunked.
Is there a forum on this site that discusses the science/pseudoscience of this device? Based on the original date of the thread, the title seems premature. Those "in the know", myself included, on the project knew of the obstacle on the conversion from Reactive Power to Real Power, the application of thus was only released this July after the last post.
I find no shame in getting only 3kW when 10kW was hoped for. The original claim was an expectation value, that indeed not not come into fruition.
Any output that's higher than the input would break our current understanding of physics. However there's no evidence of overunity, so it's debunked as lacking evidence.
Chip Cooper
New Member
Perhaps this has become a meta discussion on what constitutes a debunk. If one example exists, which contraindicates that "lack of evidence" is proof of debunk, does this not disprove the "lack of evidence" claim as proof?
I saw one poster on this saying he was going the Capetown South Africa this September. I hope he will get to see one there. I know Capetown has been involved since early on. I know many people lost heart when they realized the problem of conversion of Reactive to Real power, though anyone who understands what was being developed knew this would be the 'final' stage.
I still think that when evidence exists; but, no one within this community's credibility list has seen it, it doesn't prove nonexistence of evidence. There should be a higher standard than simply 'current understanding of physics' as I believe we know that many instances have occurred in the past which has changed our paradigm. QM is a good example of this. Entanglement is an especially good example of this as debunking the speed of light limits, and this is highly documented now. So, given this one example which establishes breaking the speed of light, entanglement has been questioned since theoretical inception with the EPR paradox in 1935. Prior to recent entanglement experiments, that would be a true lack of evidence; but clearly not a debunk as we now know it to be true.
Entanglement. Whether because one does not have the means to duplicate, or science has yet to produce the evidence, if the possibility exists that the claim is true then perhaps for certain conditions there exists an intermediate class which is not a debunk and not a proof, but merely "awaiting proof".
I saw one poster on this saying he was going the Capetown South Africa this September. I hope he will get to see one there. I know Capetown has been involved since early on. I know many people lost heart when they realized the problem of conversion of Reactive to Real power, though anyone who understands what was being developed knew this would be the 'final' stage.
I still think that when evidence exists; but, no one within this community's credibility list has seen it, it doesn't prove nonexistence of evidence. There should be a higher standard than simply 'current understanding of physics' as I believe we know that many instances have occurred in the past which has changed our paradigm. QM is a good example of this. Entanglement is an especially good example of this as debunking the speed of light limits, and this is highly documented now. So, given this one example which establishes breaking the speed of light, entanglement has been questioned since theoretical inception with the EPR paradox in 1935. Prior to recent entanglement experiments, that would be a true lack of evidence; but clearly not a debunk as we now know it to be true.
Entanglement. Whether because one does not have the means to duplicate, or science has yet to produce the evidence, if the possibility exists that the claim is true then perhaps for certain conditions there exists an intermediate class which is not a debunk and not a proof, but merely "awaiting proof".
deirdre
Senior Member.
metabunk examines specific claims of evidence. Either the device of the Opening Post topic works as claimed or it doesnt.
https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/
If there is a new claim of evidence, a new thread may be started.
Last edited:
David Coulter
Senior Member.
Formal proof of impossibility is only successful on subtle esoteric mathematical theories and often takes decades or centuries of work. The claim here is neither subtle nor esoteric - it is a claim that one can generate many fold more output energy than input energy in a closed system using simple mechanical and electrical components.
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
No, "debunk" refers to claims made. If no evidence exists then the claim is not shown to be valid, thus debunked. If at a later date evidence is brought forth the claim may be revisited. Believing in something for which there is no evidence is the realm of religion, not science.
That can easily be remedied if you have such evidence. Present it.
There is documented evidence of entanglement. There is no equivalent reproducible evidence for the QEG.
Again, should actual rigorous experiment and documentation follow then it may be revisited.
Ok, but how close are you to false equivalency fallacy?
NoParty
Senior Member.
First, I do have some sympathy to the argument that the word "debunked" may seem too strong to you...
I don't think posters are saying that some sort of magical "QEG" is necessarily impossible in theory,
just that this particular instance fails completely.
You seem to be arguing that in the future, some sort sequel magical "QEG" could be forthcoming
(something to do with some new info from "July" [??], re. the abstruse "conversion of Reactive to Real power"??)
and if a new machine--with a new claim--emerges, I know many here would love to check it out. Me too.
My issue with your posts, is that you seem (correct me if I misunderstand) to be saying that the device in
the OP actually was magical, but just not as magical as claimed...whereas folks here saw a crude device that did
nothing challenging "the limits of current theories."
*by "magical," I simply mean outside of our understanding of physics
Graham2001
Active Member
A recent video from the peddlers of the QEG, I wonder just how long it will be before they succeed in breaking the laws of physics through crowdfunding/crowdsourcing...
This is their 'Documentary' (eg a call for more to join their quasi-religious order...)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP9uqquXuHQ
Comments are disabled, after all dissenting opinions might cause people to think for themselves.
This is their 'Documentary' (eg a call for more to join their quasi-religious order...)
External Quote:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP9uqquXuHQ
Comments are disabled, after all dissenting opinions might cause people to think for themselves.
Chip Cooper
New Member
You seem to be arguing that in the future, some sort sequel magical "QEG" could be forthcoming
(something to do with some new info from "July" [??], re. the abstruse "conversion of Reactive to Real power"??)
and if a new machine--with a new claim--emerges, I know many here would love to check it out. Me too.
My issue with your posts, is that you seem (correct me if I misunderstand) to be saying that the device in
the OP actually was magical, but just not as magical as claimed...whereas folks here saw a crude device that did
nothing challenging "the limits of current theories."
*by "magical," I simply mean outside of our understanding of physics[/QUOTE]
No, I claim that the device now exists as of this July meaning this last, or July 2016. The problem that needed to be overcome was regarding conversion of Reactive to Real Power which was accomplished as of July 2016. The device in many ways is similar to a typical inductance generator in that the output is Reactive Power; however due to historical considerations by the community we today use Real Power. Reactive Power today is only simply used by the power industry to balance loads used by a company (ex: Factory) and counter the effect on the AC Power (line voltage) for the return path, to increase efficiency. If by abstruse you're referring to the abstruse method by which this is done, I wouldn't dare challenge your knowledge or lack of it, I'm here to discuss that based on the date when the project was completed July 2016, and the date of the debunked determination critical information has been overlooked. If you mean abstruse as to my explanation by making a simple statement. I presumed that those debunking something would already be knowledgeable on the parametrics of the device being debunked and the parts of it that already correspond to current accepted understanding of power creation.
Keeping with what is known, a key point in conversion of Reactive Power to Real Power is that everyone who says it's not possible at all, with a little research, knows that on a very simple but not as beneficial of a level Reactive Power works well when used in conjunction with a purely resistive load which is an effective conversion of reactive to real power. The principle problem with using resistive loads is that the only output of a resistive load is 'heat' (commonly called waste) and the use of a QEG for producing heat wasn't the goal of the project, just an intermediate stage.
At the time of the debunk, the use of lamps, or bulbs in the initial stages was simply used to show that the power exists in a reactive state and would light resistive loads. So, the analysis by the forum in that respect, although premature, was correct and within the limits of current theories. That wasn't and isn't my argument. We would be done then if that was the final product and development of the QEG; but it wasn't!
At the time of the debunk, the group knew that several different modifications were still needed in order to produce real power that could be utilized for something other than heat production, like running motors as current designs of 'most' motors require real power, and the same with televisions, radios, etc. The list goes on, and previously, no one had ever made a device to specifically convert reactive power to real because power companies use reactive power solely to balance loads and yet still argue effectively and incorrectly that reactive power is useless. And, because conversion of a 'simple' reactive power generator is contraindicated because it's not efficient to produce power that way. The QEG goes beyond simple inductance for power generation.
The principle difference between reactive power, and real power is that in reactive power the current is 90° degrees out of phase with the voltage. One can get current shift from a simple transformer; however a LC tank circuit best produces this 90° phase shift.
As for what this means in laymen terms is that: With real power the voltage and current being in phase means that when one has peak voltage, one has peak current. However in reactive power peak voltage and peak current occur at different times. I can't help it if this is an abstruse topic. The reason why some people say this is not usable depends upon what one is using it for. The fact that it makes resistive loads hot is a big problem in electronics today, it is no wonder that people think of this as waste. But, even as waste, it is evidence of energy. Without understanding these basic concepts, discussion in any detail is fruitless. I only wrote all of this because you suggested that something in what I said was 'abstruse'.
Frankly the work just hadn't been done previously because of a concept taken for granted early in classical thinking about reality, science and complex abstract vector spaces impinged upon the way we think about the concept of reality. Historically accepted definitions of reality of the past vs today is one of the most hotly contested areas of physics. Scientists today can't agree on what constitutes the reality of a quantum state and the ideas fall into three basic camps. Total rejection of the concept, intense discussion of what new discoveries are really showing, and a complete embracing that all things are mathematical constructs. It's actually quite a bit more detailed than this, but this comes close as a simple description. Or, in other words, are dimensions outside of three known by all an extension of reality, purely mathematical, or a combination of both. A working QEG would address a first working example of the first, or third choice in how it produces energy.
Since scientist can't agree with what constitutes the reality of a quantum state, it's no wonder that laymen are confused. see: "On the reality of the Quantum State" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328.pdf, "The Quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v1.pdf and Extended view of PSI-ontology theorems.
The QEG's resonances are tuned to the steel core, the question is "What are the very high frequency voltage & current spikes created by QEG's ability to harmonically resonate the highly correlated geometric atomic and subatomic structure of its steel core?" Nikola Tesla, invented the AC generator (real power), however he also invented the inductance generator (reactive power) which is the base design of the QEG. Tesla called these spikes 'Q' or Radiant energy and also claimed that not only is this found abundantly in nature, but is the source of almost unlimited amount of energy.
As far as data is concerned, this has been publicized openly since the project began all one need do is look. My latest .pdf copy of the Build Manual is June 2015. I cannot find the 2016 Build manual, but it is for sale and would include the converter. Frankly building the QEG is going to be the only way to truly debunk this. We can debate all we want but without an actual device one has neither proof of concept, or a debunk.
So, no magic as far as I'm concerned... I'm a quantum theorist, not a mechanic... well at least not a great mechanic. Some people think QM is magic. I'd certainly be willing to drill as deep as needed to explain how the QEG is at the limit of current theories.
To address the concept of "magic" as in "outside of our understanding of physics" would need me to understand the scope of 'our', as in outside 'our' understanding.. ex: this forum, the world, scientists or quantum theorists? I certainly don't have any problems understanding what's going on with regard to the generation of overunity on the reactive side of generating energy: harmonic pumping, atomic structure, resonance, modulating force particles. Understanding "our" would certainly allow me to address whose "understanding of physics" I'd be measuring against to make it magical. Surely one can at least understand this. I mean were I to base the concept of 'our' to mean my family, excluding me, my wife and adult children would consider television to be magic. They certainly wouldn't turn to me to explain it because they know I could. So, unless I interpret it to be some kind of mild rude logical form of humor, this reveals my Aspergers in my total lack of ability to understand what was really meant by that magic statement... a mild dig? I'll maintain my humor... lol depending upon how I look at it, it could be extremely funny. However, I do like the first observation... the workings of the QEG is naturally an abstruse subject but that's only because: Quantum Mechanical theory. I mean, did this forum think the 'Q' in QEG was decorative? It certainly wasn't called and EEG as in Engineering Energy Generator.
So, how are we going to get our hands on either a QEG itself, the money, or the parts to build one. Because as I see and understand this device... the debunk is false even if solely based on the date of the debunk claim alone. If we can move no further in discourse, I'm in the wrong venue. I'm nothing if not prolific in my writing. I'm initially presumptive of good faith, but it can become tedious... quickly. I make a point to stay within the limits of a layman. How deep do we want to go down the rabbit hole, or should one be built, instead before deciding. Wait long enough, say another five years plus or minus, and we could just go to Lowe's or Home Depot to get one.
I'll concede it's not 1kw IN for 10kW out, as I said before... more like 1kW IN for ~4kW out. Perhaps a new thread is in order? It's early days.
(something to do with some new info from "July" [??], re. the abstruse "conversion of Reactive to Real power"??)
and if a new machine--with a new claim--emerges, I know many here would love to check it out. Me too.
My issue with your posts, is that you seem (correct me if I misunderstand) to be saying that the device in
the OP actually was magical, but just not as magical as claimed...whereas folks here saw a crude device that did
nothing challenging "the limits of current theories."
*by "magical," I simply mean outside of our understanding of physics[/QUOTE]
No, I claim that the device now exists as of this July meaning this last, or July 2016. The problem that needed to be overcome was regarding conversion of Reactive to Real Power which was accomplished as of July 2016. The device in many ways is similar to a typical inductance generator in that the output is Reactive Power; however due to historical considerations by the community we today use Real Power. Reactive Power today is only simply used by the power industry to balance loads used by a company (ex: Factory) and counter the effect on the AC Power (line voltage) for the return path, to increase efficiency. If by abstruse you're referring to the abstruse method by which this is done, I wouldn't dare challenge your knowledge or lack of it, I'm here to discuss that based on the date when the project was completed July 2016, and the date of the debunked determination critical information has been overlooked. If you mean abstruse as to my explanation by making a simple statement. I presumed that those debunking something would already be knowledgeable on the parametrics of the device being debunked and the parts of it that already correspond to current accepted understanding of power creation.
Keeping with what is known, a key point in conversion of Reactive Power to Real Power is that everyone who says it's not possible at all, with a little research, knows that on a very simple but not as beneficial of a level Reactive Power works well when used in conjunction with a purely resistive load which is an effective conversion of reactive to real power. The principle problem with using resistive loads is that the only output of a resistive load is 'heat' (commonly called waste) and the use of a QEG for producing heat wasn't the goal of the project, just an intermediate stage.
At the time of the debunk, the use of lamps, or bulbs in the initial stages was simply used to show that the power exists in a reactive state and would light resistive loads. So, the analysis by the forum in that respect, although premature, was correct and within the limits of current theories. That wasn't and isn't my argument. We would be done then if that was the final product and development of the QEG; but it wasn't!
At the time of the debunk, the group knew that several different modifications were still needed in order to produce real power that could be utilized for something other than heat production, like running motors as current designs of 'most' motors require real power, and the same with televisions, radios, etc. The list goes on, and previously, no one had ever made a device to specifically convert reactive power to real because power companies use reactive power solely to balance loads and yet still argue effectively and incorrectly that reactive power is useless. And, because conversion of a 'simple' reactive power generator is contraindicated because it's not efficient to produce power that way. The QEG goes beyond simple inductance for power generation.
The principle difference between reactive power, and real power is that in reactive power the current is 90° degrees out of phase with the voltage. One can get current shift from a simple transformer; however a LC tank circuit best produces this 90° phase shift.
As for what this means in laymen terms is that: With real power the voltage and current being in phase means that when one has peak voltage, one has peak current. However in reactive power peak voltage and peak current occur at different times. I can't help it if this is an abstruse topic. The reason why some people say this is not usable depends upon what one is using it for. The fact that it makes resistive loads hot is a big problem in electronics today, it is no wonder that people think of this as waste. But, even as waste, it is evidence of energy. Without understanding these basic concepts, discussion in any detail is fruitless. I only wrote all of this because you suggested that something in what I said was 'abstruse'.
Frankly the work just hadn't been done previously because of a concept taken for granted early in classical thinking about reality, science and complex abstract vector spaces impinged upon the way we think about the concept of reality. Historically accepted definitions of reality of the past vs today is one of the most hotly contested areas of physics. Scientists today can't agree on what constitutes the reality of a quantum state and the ideas fall into three basic camps. Total rejection of the concept, intense discussion of what new discoveries are really showing, and a complete embracing that all things are mathematical constructs. It's actually quite a bit more detailed than this, but this comes close as a simple description. Or, in other words, are dimensions outside of three known by all an extension of reality, purely mathematical, or a combination of both. A working QEG would address a first working example of the first, or third choice in how it produces energy.
Since scientist can't agree with what constitutes the reality of a quantum state, it's no wonder that laymen are confused. see: "On the reality of the Quantum State" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328.pdf, "The Quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v1.pdf and Extended view of PSI-ontology theorems.
The QEG's resonances are tuned to the steel core, the question is "What are the very high frequency voltage & current spikes created by QEG's ability to harmonically resonate the highly correlated geometric atomic and subatomic structure of its steel core?" Nikola Tesla, invented the AC generator (real power), however he also invented the inductance generator (reactive power) which is the base design of the QEG. Tesla called these spikes 'Q' or Radiant energy and also claimed that not only is this found abundantly in nature, but is the source of almost unlimited amount of energy.
As far as data is concerned, this has been publicized openly since the project began all one need do is look. My latest .pdf copy of the Build Manual is June 2015. I cannot find the 2016 Build manual, but it is for sale and would include the converter. Frankly building the QEG is going to be the only way to truly debunk this. We can debate all we want but without an actual device one has neither proof of concept, or a debunk.
So, no magic as far as I'm concerned... I'm a quantum theorist, not a mechanic... well at least not a great mechanic. Some people think QM is magic. I'd certainly be willing to drill as deep as needed to explain how the QEG is at the limit of current theories.
To address the concept of "magic" as in "outside of our understanding of physics" would need me to understand the scope of 'our', as in outside 'our' understanding.. ex: this forum, the world, scientists or quantum theorists? I certainly don't have any problems understanding what's going on with regard to the generation of overunity on the reactive side of generating energy: harmonic pumping, atomic structure, resonance, modulating force particles. Understanding "our" would certainly allow me to address whose "understanding of physics" I'd be measuring against to make it magical. Surely one can at least understand this. I mean were I to base the concept of 'our' to mean my family, excluding me, my wife and adult children would consider television to be magic. They certainly wouldn't turn to me to explain it because they know I could. So, unless I interpret it to be some kind of mild rude logical form of humor, this reveals my Aspergers in my total lack of ability to understand what was really meant by that magic statement... a mild dig? I'll maintain my humor... lol depending upon how I look at it, it could be extremely funny. However, I do like the first observation... the workings of the QEG is naturally an abstruse subject but that's only because: Quantum Mechanical theory. I mean, did this forum think the 'Q' in QEG was decorative? It certainly wasn't called and EEG as in Engineering Energy Generator.
So, how are we going to get our hands on either a QEG itself, the money, or the parts to build one. Because as I see and understand this device... the debunk is false even if solely based on the date of the debunk claim alone. If we can move no further in discourse, I'm in the wrong venue. I'm nothing if not prolific in my writing. I'm initially presumptive of good faith, but it can become tedious... quickly. I make a point to stay within the limits of a layman. How deep do we want to go down the rabbit hole, or should one be built, instead before deciding. Wait long enough, say another five years plus or minus, and we could just go to Lowe's or Home Depot to get one.
I'll concede it's not 1kw IN for 10kW out, as I said before... more like 1kW IN for ~4kW out. Perhaps a new thread is in order? It's early days.
Last edited:
Chip Cooper
New Member
Is this comment considered worthy of a reply? Is this the type of comments we're looking for in this forum?
Are mild ad hominem phrases a diatribe of the day? They've said they're a Christian organization, although the point is not relevant either way. Frankly these people are so open, they even share their stories. This is a story about a guy who saw a device "WITTS" 'generator' that did something marvelous, and then decided to try to build it, in the open, and give it to the world. Well hush my mouth, isn't that sweet. See he thought that maybe if he was open, people would understand. Poor soul. He thought, if he could do it, and give it all away (it's called open source) it would be something good. Boy did his fellow man let him down! God forbid, he wanted to help his daughter Hope start a non-profit organization to Fix the World. Awww, so cute. You know, help people for nothing, if they promised to find a worthy non-profit, raise money, and build one for them. How altruistic! What I don't like is I used to be able to, a little over a year ago, actually get replies from him in their forum. Boy did that place get trashed by trolls... Three years with a group of idealistic do gooders was enough for me to get to know their motives.. that and cutting edge experimentation. Did he make a mistake publishing the mistakes and dead ends along the way; or was that some contrived cunning method to fool the fools? Never mind, you'll never figure it out.
Last edited:
Chip Cooper
New Member
The problem is that it isn't "his" choice, it's FTW's decision. I was involved online with them when the Trolls started trashing the place, too numerous to stamp out, too quick to make a new member and do it again. That and stuff in real life. Hell, I've gotten it in forums and places myself... they've had two of their houses get burned down. Two!
No, I don't blame them for going underground... one doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that the only way to do this was with open source, and when your equipment gets stolen, family threatened, house burned, it's time to ge out of dodge. WITTS technically made the first device... he gets a lot of negativity too; but, then again, he really is out for the buck. Of course, he uses it for his church and extended church family. So, I guess there's a difference from keeping it to yourself, and making a few bucks, and open sourcing something and giving it out to the world. Empirical evidence proved to James and his family that making a video wouldn't amount to anything except more attacks. Oh, they still get them. But now they're behind password protected forums, and Trolls hate paying for an account over and over and over to get access just to take a shot. I don't blame them. It wasn't like that at the start; but, then the word got out. No, none of us have anything like that kind of proof. You had to be there.
Chip Cooper
New Member
I was pretty darn close, thanks for calling me on that.
It's only been literally 6 months since the information from the complete build has been available. Frankly, they've got no motive to prove anything to anyone. Does one consider third party factories getting in on making the parts. I suppose that once they've machined one others are nothing but a thing. Still, it's something. Does hearing from hundreds of engineers from around the world constitute any kind of evidence. Too bad because the forum that had all that was trashed by trolls and taken down... saw it first hand myself. Sad day for many of us, as that's where they were publishing the data. Most people didn't understand it; and those who did knew this was going to require more than a few tweaks and tunes, it's a simple device in build and appearance; but, getting the first resonance is only a start, the whole dang circuit has to be tuned. But, I digress.
I've said in here before, for the proof as some of us have seen the character, the long hours of labor, the personalities, the ideals, the goals... you had to be there. These people hid nothing from the group that had been there, and the newcomers that came with them later. Mistakes, successes, hardships, money problems (the first unit was close to $50k to build because it required precise tooling) Materials used by Tesla were not available in the specification he used, trail and error... a lot of it. These people had their heart and soul in it. But you'd be right, it doesn't necessarily make for good science. Still, we had some damn good engineers helping. I too am non-degreed; but, like James I've been working as a hobbyist on understanding Quantum Mechanics. I use that term because most people understand it. But, I've also studied every other theory out there, even some obscure that should and still do remain that way.
I too had trouble accepting at first that this was going anywhere until I read Tesla's actual patent. Then I started to gain a grasp as I've read a lot of Tesla's stuff. He had a grasp on the nature of things for which there were no words to describe. After the first year, I was really getting a handle on what was really going on. For the most part it was clear that they were only going off of WITTS working model. They stopped going to him because he just wanted more and more money and getting parts were hard enough; but, even by then it was clear to me James had some concept.. and I disagree with a lot of it still to this day; but, I don't disagree with what was built.
Without getting into the hard work of subatomic physics and the forces and bizarre to most the weirdness apparent in quantum states this device may be simple in design; but it's elegant in concept. It's hard to convey the harmonics, the resonance of the atomic level geometry, the completely constrained magnetic field lines, but most importantly the part of the generator that creates a physical feedback loop that would strain even the forces at every particle level except the nucleus. It's not about the LRC Tank circuit, though without one it wouldn't work, the right frequency for the geometry and the right material to resonate at schumann harmonics. It's about what happens at the quantum level when all of this comes together to make a harmonic resonance, magnetic and physical pumping the amplitude. It's majestic, it's science, and it promises to destroy paradigm's of power. The reason the device doesn't create the energy intended is due to the material specifications, the substitutions from Tesla's original materials are not being specifically tuned. I'm pretty sure they know this as the Mini QEG being prototyped is designed to experiment on this as one of the parametrics. They're still working on the right stuff to improve performance.
I have little hope, and it's not necessary, for me to convince anyone. I just hope to be where one gets built sometime I hope soon. I just like talking about it. This device incorporates the concepts contained in the Phase theory I've been working on since the 80's. I guess I wrote to you because I saw you can be serious, and you're irreverent.
As an old nerd, I admire it. And you're smart enough to know about false equivalency fallacies. Although, I'm pretty sure I was further from making one than you thought.But, alas, not much evidence to speak of... I didn't keep personal copies, and most of it went by way of the troll tromped forum, dead links all now.
Hind site is 20/20.
Last edited:
So come back when you have proof.
Sorry, but it seems like you really don't have any evidence it works. We look at specific claims of evidence here, not "I saw it do something". Unless you've got evidence, then there's really no point discussing it.
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
Chris, the false equivalency you seemed to be taking direct aim at was, that entanglement , though now well documented, was at one time thought to be ridiculous, AND THEREFORE that this raised the status of the as yet unproven QEG.
It doesn't . If it did then there are many other claims that would rise to the same level as QEG. For instance, many people 'saw' Uri Geller abuse silverware without being in contact with it. It was a trick and Geller was a charlatan.
Ghosts, Bigfoot, and Nessie all have witnesses, people who were there. None of these rises to the level of proven because that requires real evidence in the form of proper documentation and controls.
It should be easy to demonstrate the QEG in a scientific setting. I look forward to that occurring.
It doesn't . If it did then there are many other claims that would rise to the same level as QEG. For instance, many people 'saw' Uri Geller abuse silverware without being in contact with it. It was a trick and Geller was a charlatan.
Ghosts, Bigfoot, and Nessie all have witnesses, people who were there. None of these rises to the level of proven because that requires real evidence in the form of proper documentation and controls.
It should be easy to demonstrate the QEG in a scientific setting. I look forward to that occurring.
Similar threads
