I'm not a science expert, just someone whose interested. I was taught that you cannot produce more energy than the amount put in. I received a thing on facebook asserting that a Quantum Energy Generator can do this, so I'm naturally very cynical about the claims being made on http://www.collective-evolution.com/.

However, as someone without technical knowledge, I am unable to critically examine the claims being made. I'd be grateful if someone with more knowledge than me could take a look and let me know.


closed as off-topic by Qmechanic Feb 23 '17 at 21:55

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Qmechanic
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Ah ... Facebook. That never ending fount of high quality scientific and technical reporting. $\endgroup$ – dmckee May 5 '14 at 16:39
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Naima Feagin, aka "HopeGirl", is the main person behind the 'quantum energy generator', and is almost certainly a con artist. She is CEO of FixTheWorldProject, which appears to vacuum up peoples money/donations while promising things which will probably never happen. Fun stuff. $\endgroup$ – DumpsterDoofus May 5 '14 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ Unfortunately, many people don't even question it because they really don't know any better - sometimes it's hard to accept that it can't be done because the laws of thermodynamics say so! I try and try to understand this kind of stuff, and I just have to accept it in the end because I can't get my head round it. However, this doesn't help me challenge people who share things like this on my facebook page. $\endgroup$ – Tracy May 7 '14 at 18:07
  • $\begingroup$ youtube.com/watch?v=6vxHkAQRQUQ $\endgroup$ – Renan Jul 17 '14 at 0:26
  • $\begingroup$ Ha ha,that's just about the size of it. $\endgroup$ – Tracy Jul 20 '14 at 12:19

From the official website:

enter image description here

Honestly, I think this basically says all you need to know.

  • $\begingroup$ Now, now, no need for sarcasm! $\endgroup$ – Tracy May 7 '14 at 18:04
  • $\begingroup$ 404 Link is now dead. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Feb 23 '17 at 21:53

No, this is not possible since it is forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics. A machine that produces more energy than you put in in any form is a perpetuum mobile of the first kind and is impossible.

Often these generators claim to extract vacuum energy. However, the vacuum is per definition the lowest possible energy state. The second law of thermodynamics teaches us, that you can never transport energy from a state of lower energy to a state of higher energy without additional work. E.g. you can not heat 200 K warm water to 220 K by cooling down another body which has a temperature of e.g. 100 K to 80 K or something like that.

The second law of thermodynamics is very well proven and not doubted by any serious scientist.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks very much, that's what I have been taught and like to believe! $\endgroup$ – Tracy May 5 '14 at 15:54

I am not going to disagree with the law of thermodynamics, just how it's implemented and used as a paradigm. A QEG will not generate more electricity than it consumes, however, it if draws on an open system then it does not matter as much. If you have an easy free input of energy -- efficiency becomes a less relevant paradigm. A free input source with a 2 percent conversion rate is still better than a 90 percent efficient system where I have to pay for fuel -- if I only need a fixed amount of energy.

My opinions: We need to rethink the design of energy generation systems and transport principles.

  1. Less focus on efficiency and more focus on open systems with mostly free fuel.
  2. For open systems instead of focusing on energy conversion efficiency we should focus on energy generation per volume. I would rather have a device that scatters light between a 3d photovoltaic structure than have a flat single panel. In practical terms it makes more sense for a user to have a smaller energy source than large surface area single unit devices. Maximizing surface area efficiency per volume is a hallmark of biological design which runs at near max efficiency. If one considers maximization of power gather than efficiency conversion cheaper less efficient materials become advantageous also future innovations in nano sculpting geometric design, and other factors may result in energy generators increasing output per volume at rates similar to the increasing efficiency of microprocessors.
  3. Redundant sources, if you have a system that can draw from several sources in one device natural sources may become more practical economically, ecologically, and reliability.
  4. Go small, go individual. The focus on building bigger and bigger conventional generating systems is inherently prone to greater inefficiency. Biology which is very efficient knew to go small. Why? It makes it possible to place energy generators close to energy consumption, decreasing conductance loss across lines. May allow for arrays of micro generators that exploit different sources in a compact placing.
  5. Can create efficiencies of scale and advantageous structural designs. I do not know the exact calculations, however if you have a trough that allows air flow across thousands of tiny turbines it may be easier to yield energy from slower winds and in more times. One could also use some type of sail or funnel to channel the air through a trough accelerating turbine speed with no real energy usage cost. I do not know what thermodynamics says about this however,it becomes possible to use facts of nature to increase the yield of open energy sources.
    In closing focusing on efficiency, building bigger, and processing more efficient fuels will result in slow progress of viable power generation equipment. I blame the mindset of the laws of conservation and thermodynamics. Just like an unfair school you will never get 100 percent, the mindset focuses on hard to overcome barriers on generation, distribution, size, cost, and availability. Using smaller, open source, multiple source systems will result on designs that can increase returns to scale. Over time it may be possible to multiply power generation per area without many nagging environmental, and logistical concerns now. Does this make sense?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.