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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

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

  • Gerard McEk
  • 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.

  • 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?

  • georgehants

    bachcole, calm and think.

  • 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,

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Reboot
  • 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?

    • Barry8

      They’re learning from Blacklight.

  • georgehants

    More sensibly their claim remains “valid” until it is proved 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.

    • Daniel Maris

      george, that’s just cant. Claims are not “valid” without evidence, they are just claims.

      However, one can apply a statistical correlative method to such claims. The chances of a religio-utopian group in Morocco coming across a world-changing new energy source are infinitesimally small, because no such community has ever previously come up with such a device since the industrial revolution.

      Of course they may be the one in a million exception, but it’s not looking good and their claim (what are they claiming exactly?) is certainly not valid.

      • georgehants

        Daniel Maris, you may well be correct, but as has been proven many times in science you can be Wrong.
        If you are not investing in any venture, (if you are it would be entirely your responsibility to decide) then why worry, ridiculous “opinions” of guilt are in error.
        One must just wait for a final outcome as with Cold Fusion and then one can comment.
        I cannot understand the poor thinking of many people, there is an old saying that is very sensible —-
        Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
        95% of dumb scientists are still debunking and abusing Rossi or had you not noticed that?

        • Ivone

          Georgehants, haven’t you noticed that Daniel Maris is not a Cold Fusion skeptic? A rift seems to be opening up between those who have accepted the Evidence for CF, but still have not accepted that the universe is energetically open, as through quantum mechanics, resonance and gravitation. You can have the conventional big bang/inflation theories and also the energetically open universe. One leads to the other, but it will take some time for many scientists to take the leap. The energetically open universe was discovered by Russian scientists researching resonance in 1935 as this pdf. shows. The free energy machine is described in page 123. Skip to that page. http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Mandelstam_Papalexi/Mandelstam-Papalexi%20-%20Report%20on%20Recent%20Research%20on%20Nonlinear%20Oscillations%20-%201935.pdf

          • georgehants

            Ivone Thank you, there are no excuses for scientist to be the dregs of society it is time for them to start leading the moral attitude of society not to be the incompetent, corrupt examples they are at present.
            Do you agree that science needs to put it’s own house in order?

            • Ivone

              Yes. I have read the exchange between you and Pekka Janhunen on that subject down the page.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 enrgy 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.

      • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Iggy Dalrymple
    • Obvious

      Neat stuff.

    • Daniel Maris

      Yes, it’s a coincidence.

  • 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

    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.

          • 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!

  • 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…

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • bachcole

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

  • 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.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Does anyone know something about the theory behind this machine?

  • georgehants

    How about just for once people stop giving “opinions” expert or otherwise and start looking into the history for only Evidence and Facts.
    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

  • 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”.

  • Charles

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

  • Slayaan

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

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      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.

  • 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.