Peter Lindemann is very open minded and respected by many in free energy circles. I do not always agree with him, but I felt this email he has been circulating is an excellent report. (Thanks Joe Enroll)
Here is an email I have sent to a number of people asking me about the QEG.
Thank you for your email. The QEG plans show a simple, switched reluctance generator powered by an external electric motor. (page 7) This has nothing to do with Tesla!!! This exact design was first proposed by John Ecklin in 1979. I was a member of a group of researchers in Santa Barbara who built and tested many variations of this class of generator through the 1980s. These machines are generally called “switched reluctance generators” or more correctly “variable inductance generators.”
Peter Lindemann
If you put a capacitor in series with the input, as shown, the unit will “self-excite” if there is a slight amount of magnetism in the rotor or stator material. There are specific speeds where the electrical output power goes up due to the resonance event, but during these episodes, the requirement of mechanical energy input goes up as well. If you just meter the voltage and the amperage, it looks really good, but it’s mostly reactive power as the volts and amps are out of phase.
If the output removes magnetic energy from the core, then there is less to circulate in the resonant tank (LC circuit) created by the input coils and the capacitor bank. The system has a specific number of joules of energy (real power) circulating in the magnetic core and any real energy removed is produced by the reversal of the field in the output coils by the rotor shifting position. Rotation of the rotor produces the mechanical shifting of the magnetic fields and reinforces the currents oscillating in the input coils. One of the patent filings I produced back then was titled “Mechanical Rotary Transformer” and covered a design similar to this in many ways. The best tests we produced with our prototypes had a COP = 1.2 (120% efficient). The people involved in the Santa Barbara group included myself, Mike Knox, Bruce DePalma, Chris Carson, and later Eric Dollard. In a parallel development, John Bedini duplicated much of the same series of experiments and concluded the same thing! The best the machines could do was about 120%. All of this happened before the internet, and since the experimental results were disappointing, no final report was ever produced.
Knowing what I know about this class of machine, I do not believe anyone is going to build one of these in their backyard and power their home with it. We spent over $30k building and $50k testing prototypes of these machines between 1981 and 1987. This is not going to go where you think it is going.
I stand by what I said in the newsletter. An “open source” project based on these ideas will not go anywhere. In fact, this was all “open sourced” in the 1980s by John Ecklin. Look here at these links, taken from the archive at Rex Research: John W Ecklin — Stationary armature generator — US Patent 3879633, US Patent 4567407, 12 articles
and here:
http://www.rexresearch.com/eck…
http://www.rexresearch.com/eck…
In the image of the article “ecklin1”, John Ecklin is suggesting 400% efficiency was possible, but it never was experimentally demonstrated. In the image of the article “ecklin8”, the design of the machine on the left shows the same structure as the one in the QEG plans. The drawing on the right is from my patent filing, first reported on by Paul Brown in 1981. Both Paul and I knew John Ecklin.
Sorry, but I am trying to help people understand that this has been looked at, in depth, over 30 years ago, and it doesn’t work well enough to produce a self-running machine.
I have no knowledge of the “Fix the World” group or their motives for putting these plans together, but it is my belief that this sort of machine is not perfected yet, and should not be “open sourced” to a community of enthusiastic people who do not have the machine shop skills or the sophisticated electrical engineering and mathematical background to understand the significant subtleties of a variable inductance machine.
That about covers it!
Best regards,
Peter Lindemann
http://www.free-energy.ws/pete…
I stole this assessment of Peters letter from Overunity.com. It was from TK a regular contributor here at Revolutiom-Green.com
http://www.overunity.com/14443/quantum-energy-generator-qeg-open-sourced-by-hopegirl/msg399001/#new
Kudos to Lindemann for that report. It is very important for all “QEG” builders to read and understand what Peter is saying in that report. The “QEG” will NOT work as WhateverGirl and Robitaille claim it will. Never, no way Jose, and Peter and his friends explored the entire problem space long ago. I am not too concerned about the paltry claim of COP = 1.2….. that is sufficiently close to the noise floor as to not be exciting or even worth “replicating” his series of experiments to track down the ultimate error. His error analysis and correct recognition of the great reactive power in the system is much more important.
Here is the very most problematic statement in Lindemann’s report:
since the experimental results were disappointing, no final report was ever produced.
Translation: We did not get the results we wanted, so why report anything?
It should be clear that this is egregious pseudoscientific misconduct. When you do an experiment and you get NULL RESULTS…. it is just as important to report those, perhaps even more important than your … perhaps bogus … “positive” results that appear to support your hypothesis.
Please refer to the Scientific Method: experiments are done with the purpose of _falsifying_ hypotheses. When you FAIL to falsify your hypothesis, MAYBE it is supported by your results. But when you DO falsify your hypothesis…. by producing “experimental results that are disappointing”…. then you KNOW that your experiment does not support the hypothesis. For sure. This is VERY IMPORTANT information, and people who do not publish null results are doing a profound disservice to the community of researchers, as well as violating a fundamental principle, a core component, of the Scientific Method.
