Zero Point Energy and Antigravity(aka Electrogravitic research

[Zantra]

I would like to get your opinions on this area. I am not a physicist, and so my knowledge of this area is almost nonexistant. Here's the link to some compiled information, below I'll give some excerpts. I'm purely interested in the scientific views on these theories, and weather they sound possible, or not possible.

http://www.seaspower.com/Outsidethebox-Loder.htm

the mid 1920's Townsend Brown [2] discovered that electric charge and gravitational mass are coupled. He found that when he charged a capacitor to a high voltage, it had a tendency to move toward its positive pole. This became known as the Biefeld-Brown effect.

The essence of electrogravitics thrust is the use of a very strong positive charge on one side of the vehicle and a negative on the other. The core of the motor is a condenser and the ability of the condenser to hold its charge (the K-number) is the yardstick of performance. With air as 1, current dielectrical materials can yield 6 and use of barium aluminate can raise this considerably, barium titanium oxide (a baked ceramic) can offer 6,000 and there is a promise of 30,000, which would be sufficient for supersonic speed."

Although general relativity has not been able to explain Brown’s electrogravitic observations, or any other antigravity phenomenon, the recent physics methodology of quantum electrodynamics (QED), appears to offer the theoretical framework to explain electrogravitic coupling.

The second aspect of these physics findings deals with the zero point or vacuum state energy shown by the Casimir effect, which predicts that two metal plates close together attract each other due to imbalance in the quantum fluctuations. The implications of this zero point or vacuum state energy are tremendous and are described in several papers by Puthoff [17] starting during the late 1980s.

The question that is being addressed is: what keeps the universe running? Or more specifically, where do electrons get their energy to keep spinning around atoms? As electrons change state they absorb or release energy, and where does it come from? The simplistic answer is that it is coming from the vacuum state. Puthoff [23] describes the process as follows: "I discovered that you can consider the electron as continually radiating away its energy as predicted by classical theory, but SIMULTANEOUSLY ABSORBING a COMPENSATING AMOUNT of energy from the ever-present sea of zero-point energy in which the atom is immersed. An equilibrium between these two processes leads to the correct values for the parameters that define the lowest energy, or ground-state orbit (see "Why atoms don't collapse," NEW SCIENTIST, July 1987). Thus there is a DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM in which the zero-point energy stabilizes the electron in a set ground-state orbit. It seems that the very stability of matter itself appears to depend on an underlying sea of electromagnetic zero-point energy."

Furthermore, it appears that it is the spinning of electrons that provides inertia and mass to atoms. These theories, linking electron spin, zero point energy, mass, and inertia have been presented in a number of recent papers, such as those by Haisch [24] and colleagues and provide us with a possible explanation of the Biefield-Brown effect. It appears that an intense voltage field creates an electromagnetic barrier that blocks the atomic structure of an atom from interacting with the zero point field. This slows down the electrons, reducing their gyroscopic effect, and thus reducing atomic mass and inertia, making them easier to move around.

We also have the next level of propulsion, it is called virtual field, which are called hydrodynamic waves..."

[Zantra]

so no one at all has a comment on the validity of this? Disregard the source, and consider the scientific principals this paper addresses. As someone said, be skeptical, but do not be prejudiced.

[Marts Liena]

There is a lot in your post!!
Seaspower doesn't explain how they get their "free energy". They have had press releases etc but no-one has really seen the goods. Many have made over-unity claims, but who do you know has been able to buy a commercial unit and avoid energy bills (I don't count solar, wind, tidal, etc as valid over-unity methods)

I think there is a connection between electric and magnetic fields and gravity. However as we have so little understanding of how gravity and inertia arise the physics seems doubtful. Putoff, Haisch and Rueda have made a good attempt at a theory. Even more interesting is Podkletnov's experiments. I think he is the closest todate to unlocking the mystery. Maybe the Townsend Brown work should be thoroughly investigated further as the final rewards will be great. Imagine a world of inertialess space drives! That's the holy grail in my book.

Keep asking questions!!!!

Marts

[Zantra]

That is the whole problem with these holes that need to be filled. And I believe the reason no one's willing to comment (other than yourself thusfar) is the source of this. People aren't willing to look past the conjecture and beyond to the scientific aspects of this, which disturbs me. Is the scientific community unwilling to address these obviously valid theories solely due to bias? Regardless of the skeptics who may say the source of this is a major hoax, This is purely scientific research which has been performed. And if it is true, it is any physicist's wet dream come true. So again, I encourage further reading on this topic and dicussion of it. Again I'm not a physics major, so I cannot debate this, only present the facts as I see them.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Marts Liena
There is a lot in your post!!
Seaspower doesn't explain how they get their "free energy". They have had press releases etc but no-one has really seen the goods. Many have made over-unity claims, but who do you know has been able to buy a commercial unit and avoid energy bills (I don't count solar, wind, tidal, etc as valid over-unity methods)

I think there is a connection between electric and magnetic fields and gravity. However as we have so little understanding of how gravity and inertia arise the physics seems doubtful. Putoff, Haisch and Rueda have made a good attempt at a theory. Even more interesting is Podkletnov's experiments. I think he is the closest todate to unlocking the mystery. Maybe the Townsend Brown work should be thoroughly investigated further as the final rewards will be great. Imagine a world of inertialess space drives! That's the holy grail in my book.

Keep asking questions!!!!
Marts

The whole issue is that this technology does exist, and has been kept top secret for many years and withheld from the public and scientific community. Consider for a moment the ramifications of limitless zero-point energy. Imagine the imapact on the world economy, on the fossil fuel industry. Imagine the trillion dollar shift as oil companies are put out of business, new companies spring up for conversion.fossil fuel becomes practically obsolete. Imagine the ramifications of not needing an oil fuel supply on the middle east, on 3rd wrld countries as they now would have a limitless supply of zero-point energy. Further imagine the revolution on space exploration, the cascading effects would be felt by every single person on earth. This would be bigger than flight, bigger than the light bulb, bigger than the automobile. In fact the greatest discovery to date. It would virtually rewrite physics as it went.

Now you know why someone might want to keep this a secret.

[Zantra]

more on zero point engergy research

http://www.seaspower.com/InsideZeroPoint-Valone.htm

[Mulder]

Yeah I've read this stuff before. The suggestion that the B-2 bomber uses some kind of electrogravitic technology is quite intruiging. Of course it's all way too far deep in the shadows to make it clear just how much is known in that area.

[Jonathan]

I'm so happy that there are other people in this area. some great but cooky sites:
http://www.jlnlabs.org/
http://www.cheniere.org/toc.html
I've been secretive for a few days, but I can't hold it in any more. I have recreated the experiment outlined on the following site, proving that free energy is possible, but I have yet to make it practical.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm
The free increase in gravitational potential energy I've gotten is 3mJ! Note, that is milli- not micro-!
I know it seems like I'm tring to hijack the thread, but the second of the three websites is identical to the subject of the thread, and has lots of good info on a motionless perpetual motion machine.

[russ_watters]

You misspelled "pseudoscience" in the parentheses in the thread title.

Thats pretty much it for the "science" of this stuff. The real debate is how best to prosecute those who use pseudoscience to defraud gullible people into buying nonexistant "free energy" devices.

Disregard the source, and consider the scientific principals this paper addresses. You must ALWAYS consider the source.This is purely scientific research which has been performed. No. It hasn't. ZPE isn't about research, its about FRAUD.And if it is true, it is any physicist's wet dream come true. Which is precisely why if it WERE true, REAL scientists would be drooling over their keyboards while racing to get their papers published.The whole issue is that this technology does exist, and has been kept top secret for many years and withheld from the public and scientific community. You must not ever connect science and conspiracy theory. If there is real science in this, it must stand on its own.Now you know why someone might want to keep this a secret. Science CANNOT be kept secret. It simly doesn't work. If two people know about it, its not a secret.

[Jonathan]

Russ, you are so dogmatic. I do agree this belongs in the psuedoscience page. But free energy is possible, and not always about fraud, seeing as how I haven't given any of them money and I have recreated a proven free energy device, without asking for money. The people on the websites I gave have on them or links to sites with disclaimers saying that the feild is usually about fraud, so don't give free energy people money. I have a working version, I have tested it over and over, and it lifts a 23g magnet 1.7cm up, then drops it. I'm working on a rotary version now, since a magnet spitting device isn't practical. Btw, the ramp is 5.75 degrees and the table it is on is level, minus 1 or 2 degrees, making the ramp accually 6.75 to 7.75 degrees.

[wimms]

As you are on physics forum, better ask why does this thing seem to work and how should one explain it away. Then we'd perhaps can get interesting discussion.

[Brad_Ad23]

Free energy is possible? I wish. Thermodynamics rules it out pretty much. After all, how do you propose to create this energy out of nothing?

Think about it. The motor it proposes moves by saying the negative side will be attracted to the positive side. Well, what is pushing the positive side forward? You say the ship moving. Well what moves the ship? The negative side moving to the positive side. But wait a minute. The positive side also would go down towards the negative side. Hmm we have no net force anymore. Zero force means zero acceleration, and hence no movement. Oops. So much for that free energy device.

[ranyart]

It seems money is no object(at least for now!)http://www.seaspower.com/Invest.htm

It also seems that S.E.A.S was set up by someone not on the technical merit table?
http://www.seaspower.com/aboutus.htm

But is here in name only:Steven M. Greer


It is quite obvious that the real technology frontiers are still on an ever decreasing Horizon away from the present time.

I do not doubt that B.E.C will be incorparated(if not already)into the equipment of onboard military craft, and specific BEC or the lesser doped family of entangled downconverters(To slow and trap incoming energy of enemy radar..and even laser guidence systems) will be tuned to attract and destroy any incoming hv frequencies, making the craft appear as a walking..talking..flying Blackhole Horizon!

There are many advances we humans can wish for, but the ones that get off the ground, and into our households are the ones which dictate where we go into the future.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
ZPE isn't about research, its about FRAUD.

I'm not arguing for the general position here. But FYC.

Regarding ZPE and the Casimir Effect: "Northeastern University experimental particle physicists Stephen Reucroft and John Swain put their heads together to write the following answer."

From Scientific American; Ask the experts.

"It is generally true that the amount of energy in a piece of vacuum can be altered by material around it, and the term "Casimir Effect" is also used in this broader context. If the mirrors move rapidly, some of the vacuum waves can become real waves. Julian Schwinger and many others have suggested that this "dynamical Casimir effect" may be responsible for the mysterious phenomenon known as sonoluminescence.

One of the most interesting aspects of vacuum energy (with or without mirrors) is that, calculated in quantum field theory, it is infinite! To some, this finding implies that the vacuum of space could be an enormous source of energy--called "zero point energy."

[Zantra]

Originally posted by russ_watters
You misspelled "pseudoscience" in the parentheses in the thread title.

Thats pretty much it for the "science" of this stuff. The real debate is how best to prosecute those who use pseudoscience to defraud gullible people into buying nonexistant "free energy" devices.

You must ALWAYS consider the source. No. It hasn't. ZPE isn't about research, its about FRAUD. Which is precisely why if it WERE true, REAL scientists would be drooling over their keyboards while racing to get their papers published. You must not ever connect science and conspiracy theory. If there is real science in this, it must stand on its own. Science CANNOT be kept secret. It simly doesn't work. If two people know about it, its not a secret.

This is just one source on ZPE research. SEAS claims that they have been contacted by SEVERAL individuals who are either in the process of, or already have developed these devices. It's understandable to maintain secrecy prior to completion in order to ensure copyright, intellectual, and other legal interests are met.

Since you're claiming that all these people who've done actual research in this area are crackpots, please do us the favor of presenting your findings from your own personal research, or the research on ZPE proving the casmir affect and other theories false. That or other papers disproving these theories. Otherwise, you're just being bitter, close-minded, and very biased, judgemental and pretty much the antithesis of a scientist.

I eagerly await your reply

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Russ, you are so dogmatic. I do agree this belongs in the psuedoscience page. But free energy is possible, and not always about fraud, seeing as how I haven't given any of them money and I have recreated a proven free energy device, without asking for money. The people on the websites I gave have on them or links to sites with disclaimers saying that the feild is usually about fraud, so don't give free energy people money. I have a working version, I have tested it over and over, and it lifts a 23g magnet 1.7cm up, then drops it. I'm working on a rotary version now, since a magnet spitting device isn't practical. Btw, the ramp is 5.75 degrees and the table it is on is level, minus 1 or 2 degrees, making the ramp accually 6.75 to 7.75 degrees.

If this is accurate, it would seem some people need to take thier foot out of thier mouths.

[Brad_Ad23]

I do not believe anyone here is (well if they know any science they wouldn't) attacking the existance of the Casmir effect. Rather it is the harnessing of it for free energy. The Casmir effect is symmetrical, meaning no useful work will come of it in that form. At present there is NO way to generate an asymmetrical Casmir effect, and if I recall, calculations show it may in fact be impossible.

Rather the thing being disputed here is that free energy is not possible. Sure there can be claims of it and claims that several people bought into it, but look back and see just how many claims for free energy have been made before, and notice how the people who sell it never, ever, ever deliver.

[Ivan Seeking]

way out of bounds [8)]

I posted this just after Brad_Ad23. This was intended for Zantra and Jonathan.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I do not believe anyone here is (well if they know any science they wouldn't) attacking the existance of the Casmir effect. Rather it is the harnessing of it for free energy. The Casmir effect is symmetrical, meaning no useful work will come of it in that form. At present there is NO way to generate an asymmetrical Casmir effect, and if I recall, calculations show it may in fact be impossible.

Rather the thing being disputed here is that free energy is not possible. Sure there can be claims of it and claims that several people bought into it, but look back and see just how many claims for free energy have been made before, and notice how the people who sell it never, ever, ever deliver.

I only know a little about this from some lightweight sources. I have heard conjecture about this.... I don't mean to argue that these are valid considerations; only that I have read of such ideas from apparently reputable sources.

Edit: Also, I never understood ZPE to be free. I thought this was a problem of symmetry not source?

[Brad_Ad23]

My message was more directed towards those claiming a conspiracy, or for there to be free energy.

And as for ZPE and it being free energy, that is correct. As I said, because it is symmetrical there is no way to tap into it. It is merely a curio. What would happen if you tapped into it? Well, energy likes to flow. It will travel from areas of higher concentration (higher energy density) to areas of lower concentration (lower energy density...pretty much basic thermodynamics dealing with heat). If you opened up this well of infinite energy, guess what you just did? You created a white hole, and destroyed the universe all in one. Congrats [;)]

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
If you opened up this well of infinite energy, guess what you just did? You created a white hole, and destroyed the universe all in one. Congrats [;)]

Boy you caught me just in time... Thanks for mentioning this! [:D]

[Ivan Seeking]

Of course if Cal Tech can postulate on keeping the mouths of black holes open, and stable, using two perfectly conducting charged spheres, might one be allowed to conjecture on methods to create a stable asymmetry for ZPE?

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
My message was more directed towards those claiming a conspiracy, or for there to be free energy.

And as for ZPE and it being free energy, that is correct. As I said, because it is symmetrical there is no way to tap into it. It is merely a curio. What would happen if you tapped into it? Well, energy likes to flow. It will travel from areas of higher concentration (higher energy density) to areas of lower concentration (lower energy density...pretty much basic thermodynamics dealing with heat). If you opened up this well of infinite energy, guess what you just did? You created a white hole, and destroyed the universe all in one. Congrats [;)]

Ok then let's for a moment withdraw the conspiracy theories and focus purely on the scientific aspects.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Of course if Cal Tech can postulate on keeping the mouths of black holes open, and stable, using two perfectly conducting charged spheres, might one be allowed to conjecture on methods to create a stable asymmetry for ZPE?

This is not intended as sarcasm or as an assertion. I am just wondering if this situation compares in sophistication and complexity; or whether a ZPE source is absolutely disallowed based on more fundamtal arguments.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Russ, you are so dogmatic. I do agree this belongs in the psuedoscience page. You need to reread the definition of "dogmatic." Better yet "open minded." Those who jump on pseudoscience have open mindedness backwards. Being open minded means you evaluate information you are given OBJECTIVELY and the make a logical conclusion from it. The open minded, logical, objective conclusion about free energy through ZPE is that there is nothing to it.

You think you're being open minded. In fact, you are being GULLIBLE. But free energy is possible, and not always about fraud, A great many people have been duped out of a ton of money over this. ...I have recreated a proven free energy device... Build a generator with it then. (then go collect your Nobel Prize) Good luck.Steven M. Greer Greer has been around a long time. He's as famous, successful, and rich of a crackpot as anyone has ever been. He has never invented anything that creates free energy, nor has he ever put forth a real scientific paper on how such a device might work.It is quite obvious that the real technology frontiers are still on an ever decreasing Horizon away from the present time. Heh. You're exactly right - they are now and will ALWAYS be 'just around the corner.' The horizon only seems to be getting closer.One of the most interesting aspects of vacuum energy (with or without mirrors) is that, calculated in quantum field theory, it is infinite! To some, this finding implies that the vacuum of space could be an enormous source of energy--called "zero point energy. It is infinite. And by definition, it is also ZERO. Thats the other half of the story they conveniently leave out. Because it is zero, there isn't anything to harness. (brad said more about it) That or other papers disproving these theories. What theories? You just said the "research" was being done in secret. There aren't any theories to validate or invalidate. This is ANOTHER pseudoscience red flag. or whether a ZPE source is absolutely disallowed based on more fundamtal arguments. YES. The same theory that predicts the effect exists (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) also says that it can't be harnessed. Essentially, ZPE hoaxsters ignore the "but..." that comes after "it exists."

I know you guys wanted to get back to the science of it, but real quick: I highly recommend the book "Voodoo Science; The Road from Foolishness to Fraud" by Robert Park. Its short, informative, and entertaining. And it would help some of you to be able to dismiss this sort of hoax just by being able to recognize the signs.

[Joy Division]

That is a great book. It's a fun read and informative too.

[Hurkyl]

I've been secretive for a few days, but I can't hold it in any more. I have recreated the experiment outlined on the following site, proving that free energy is possible, but I have yet to make it practical.

If the magnets lifting the ball truly was free energy, it would be trivial to design a perpetual motion machine out of it. Try the following:

Instead of chaining two devices together by using one device to lift the ball then drop into the next one, put the second device at the higher level to lift the marble yet again, and chain a bunch together to lift it, maybe, a foot off the table, then a track to run it back to the start again.

Or alternatively, chain a bunch of the devices (all placed on the table) so that each device lifts the ball dropping it into the next device, and arrange the devices to form a big circle.


Either way, if there was truly free energy, the ball would continue from one device into the next and perpetual motion would be trivial.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
It is infinite. And by definition, it is also ZERO. Thats the other half of the story they conveniently leave out. Because it is zero, there isn't anything to harness. (brad said more about it)

Russ, I could just be out of date, but I don't think the answer is that clear cut. I will see if I can find any legitimate sources that argue this point. Opinions of scientists can vary widely and many do not recognize the opinions of others. I believe the comment made was that a proof "may" exist for this.

I am not arguing for Greer in any way here. At a glance this stuff looked like hogwash to me also. I am talking about fundamental principles only. Again, I may just be behind on the latest.

[Brad_Ad23]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Russ, I could just be out of date, but I don't think the answer is that clear cut. I will see if I can find any legitimate sources that argue this point. Opinions of scientists can vary widely and many do not recognize the opinions of others. I believe the comment made was that a proof "may" exist for this.

I am not arguing for Greer in any way here. At a glance this stuff looked like hogwash to me also. I am talking about fundamental principles only. Again, I may just be behind on the latest.


It is that clear cut. The energy does exist and is infinite. BUT, it exists for a very short time. Remember if we know the energy (in this case infinite) the time fram it is in must be very small. In fact, it would be as small as possible. So yes, technically it is there, but it is also not there. Not to mention the symmetry problems I mentioned. Nothing useful can come of it. If you breakt he symmetry, the effect disappears.

It boils down to trying to harness water to make power when you are in the water, and this water is water that cannot flow (b/c then you could get the equivalent of windmills). The energy potential is equal across the universe, and hence cannot be tapped into.

[wimms]

Q: virtual particles get created in vacuum. They come as particle-antiparticle pairs, ie. matter-antimatter. Confusing for me is that when matter-antimatter annihilates, its supposed to emit 2 gamma photons. Seems like 2 gamma photons appear from nowhere. Where does the energy come from? From 'change' in ZPE 'pressure' or surrounding fields?

[Brad_Ad23]

No. When the virtual particles anhilate, they vanish again. Remember it occurs on the shortest possible time scale. If one whishes however, they can say the anhilation of the virtual matter will create elsewhere virtual photons that will also cancel out very fast.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
It is that clear cut. The energy does exist and is infinite. BUT, it exists for a very short time. Remember if we know the energy (in this case infinite) the time fram it is in must be very small. In fact, it would be as small as possible. So yes, technically it is there, but it is also not there. Not to mention the symmetry problems I mentioned. Nothing useful can come of it. If you breakt he symmetry, the effect disappears.

It boils down to trying to harness water to make power when you are in the water, and this water is water that cannot flow (b/c then you could get the equivalent of windmills). The energy potential is equal across the universe, and hence cannot be tapped into.

I guess that I must do some review. How do we justify infinite energy in a potentially finite universe? This notion has always bothered me. I was not aware that anything truly infinite was known to exist. Do we mean that the total energy of the universe is the upper limit?

Doesn't the Casmir effect use ZPE to do work on the mirrors [in the quote given earlier]?

I understand the objection of having no sink for the source.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Jonathan
The people on the websites I gave have on them or links to sites with disclaimers saying that the feild is usually about fraud, so don't give free energy people money. I have a working version, I have tested it over and over, and it lifts a 23g magnet 1.7cm up, then drops it. I'm working on a rotary version now, since a magnet spitting device isn't practical. Btw, the ramp is 5.75 degrees and the table it is on is level, minus 1 or 2 degrees, making the ramp accually 6.75 to 7.75 degrees.
Indeed. Wasting money is a bad thing.

But because I am bored, I will explain why this particular perpetual motion device is false.

Let's first cut away the extraneous BS. What you have here is a ball, which is set up at a distance from a magnet. When you let go of the ball, naturally it goes forward, attracted to the magnet. It goes forward, and reaches the point where it is closest to it. So far, so good.

But notice there is actually NO free energy at all involved. The system is set up with a potential energy from the distance you positioned the ball at the start. You have in effect, already given the ball a little push. What thermodynamics tells us is that eventually, the inital reservoir of energy you have will run out, and the ball will stop.

Now let's look at the "successful" experiment. The ball climbs. Yep, it is using up it's potential energy into kinetic, and into GPE. It reaches the end, potential in the magnetic field effectively runs out and GPE is at max. It now falls, but as it falls, it's acceleration is reduced by the attraction of the magnet.

Now, suppose we are actually scientific, and put a set of scales at the end to measure the final KE of the falling ball, you will find that it is in fact less that the potential energy you had at the start. You've lost energy all the way from friction on the ramp, from air resistance during the fall. (You might note that the web site entiring messes up here, because they stupidly assume that the only potential energy that exists in GPE, something easily disprovable by the attraction of a bar magnet.)

It gets worse. Ever wondered why it is so hard to make the system "practical"? Because the suggestion of connecting one to the other doesn't actually work. After the ball goes off at the end of the device, the old magnetic field doesn't just disappear. It still has an attraction of the ball! And unlike the attraction of the next device, this is at maximum. An experimental will find that the device has run out of energy - in the combined magnetic fields of the two devices, there is simply not enough potential energy left to go up the ramp again. At this point the ball just gets stuck, and our poor pseudoscientist goes off in quiet dejection to talk about conspiracies.

Sorry mate. The laws of thermodynamics win out EVERY TIME.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
"I'm baaaack!!"

I was wondering about you. [;)]

[mmwave]

Originally posted by Zantra
<snip>
the process as follows: "I discovered that you can consider the electron as continually radiating away its energy as predicted by classical theory, but SIMULTANEOUSLY ABSORBING a COMPENSATING AMOUNT of energy from the ever-present sea of zero-point energy in which the atom is immersed.

Furthermore, it appears that it is the spinning of electrons that provides inertia and mass to atoms.

Someone suggested that we address the 'science' issues here. As a start:

If the electrons are radiating classically then where is the radiation? As a classical problem, the radiation for a hydrogen atom in the ground state is easily calculated. We can't measure this radiation. Why not?

If it is the 'spinning' of electrons that give mass and inertia to atoms then why do ions (especially H+) have the predicted mass and inertia assigned to them? I have measured the tracks of ions in physics classes and from photos and they do indeed have mass.

Finally, if these zero point energy guys were on to something why aren't they building examples to make believers out of all of us instead of selling book after book?

[Ivan Seeking]

OK I'm starting to review this and other information, but the one glaring question thus far for me is this: If we can't do work with ZPE, then what are we doing here? Perhaps I will answer my own question shortly...

Since those early days, however, sophisticated equipment has made it much easier to study the Casimir effect. A new generation of measurements began in 1997. Steve Lamoreaux, who was then at the University of Washington in Seattle, measured the Casimir force between a 4 cm diameter spherical lens and an optical quartz plate about 2.5 cm across, both of which were coated with copper and gold. The lens and plate were connected to a torsion pendulum - a twisting horizontal bar suspended by a tungsten wire - placed in a cylindrical vessel under vacuum. When Lamoreaux brought the lens and plate together to within several microns of each other, the Casimir force pulled the two objects together and caused the pendulum to twist. He found that his experimental measurements agreed with theory to an accuracy of 5%.

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/6/1

Quintessence
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8/1

Casimir Effect:
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00045486-6600-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00045486-6600-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3

[Tyger]

I thought I pretty much debunked the Casimir effect as a potential source of ZPE in a post titled "Is vacuum energy ficticious?, and I even found a quote by Casimir himself saying that it seemed to be related to the surface tension of the material and wasn't part of the vacuum.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
But because I am bored, I will explain why this particular perpetual motion device is false.... Ain't the internet great?Finally, if these zero point energy guys were on to something why aren't they building examples to make believers out of all of us instead of selling book after book? May I answer that? Please?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Tyger
I thought I pretty much debunked the Casimir effect as a potential source of ZPE in a post titled "Is vacuum energy ficticious?, and I even found a quote by Casimir himself saying that it seemed to be related to the surface tension of the material and wasn't part of the vacuum.

What about the experimental results that agree with predictions?
I will read your debunking you troublemaker...

[:D]

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
May I answer that? Please?

Please! Before the mystery kills us. [;)]

[Ivan Seeking]

I am finding that the language used by some experts is not quite as absolute as otherwise indicated. For example:

In summary, there is no doubt that the ZPE, vacuum energy and Casimir effect are physically real. Our ability to manipulate these quantities is limited but in some cases technologically interesting. But the free-lunch crowd has greatly exaggerated the importance of the ZPE. Notions of mining the ZPE should therefore be treated with extreme skepticism

---Dr. Matt Visser; Washington University in St. Louis

Next:
These vacuum fluctuations may have effects, both subtle and gross, on the behavior of microscopic particles and on the world around us. Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov speculated that they may give rise to the force of gravity. At present, nobody knows how to exploit the zero-point energy in a macroscopic device that delivers sizable amounts of energy.

Point being made...he continues:
There is, however, a considerable fringe element (similar to those attracted to UFOs, astrology, numerology and so on) of people who speculate and fantasize about the possibility of exploiting the zero-point energy to achieve various technical marvels and the long-sought 'perpetual motion.' Consider yourself warned."
----Dr. John Obienin; University of Nebraska at Omaha



The crux of this issue being this [from Baez] I would assume:
"One should not take this vacuum energy too literally, however, because the free-field theory is just a mathematical tool to help us understand what we are really interested in: the interacting theory. Only the interacting theory is supposed to correspond directly to reality. Because the vacuum state of the interacting theory is the state of least energy in reality, there is no way to extract the vacuum energy and use it for anything.
The key point being:"Because the vacuum state of the interacting theory is the state of least energy in reality"
---Dr. John Baez; University of California at Riverside.

IMO, this limitation should be stated exactly as such with no further interpretation.

"The zero-point energy cannot be harnessed in the traditional sense..."
---Paul A. Deck, assistant professor of chemistry at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I am finding that the language used by some experts is not quite as absolute as otherwise indicated..... That's because scientists rarely ever speak in absolutes. There was however nothing at all equivocal about those quotes. They all said what we have been saying: its a real, interesting, and useless effect.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
That's because scientists rarely ever speak in absolutes.

And for good reason.

Remind me again, is the rate of expansion of the universe increasing or decreasing?

"The zero-point energy cannot be harnessed in the traditional sense..."
---Paul A. Deck, assistant professor of chemistry at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
its a real, interesting, and useless effect.

Could you direct me to a comprehensive theory of everything to confirm this assertion?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Could you direct me to a comprehensive theory of everything to confirm this assertion? Just reread the quotes you posted.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Just reread the quotes you posted.

So your position is that we have a unified theory? Furthermore, my quotes constitute this theory?

I think the correct interpretation here is that we can see no way to access this energy. This does not rule out the possibility forevermore. It only means that at this point in time, with our level of knowledge, no way can be imagined that this could be possible. Without a TOE, to assert anything more than this is fallacious at best.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
So your position is that we have a unified theory? Furthermore, my quotes constitute this theory? Yeah, I said nothing of the sort.I think the correct interpretation here is that we can see no way to access this energy. This does not rule out the possibility forevermore. It only means that at this point in time, with our level of knowledge, no way can be imagined that this could be possible. Without a TOE, to assert anything more than this is fallacious at best. Your interpretation is wrong. Like the "light barrier" this is known as a "theoretical impossibility." Its not a matter of us not having figured it out how to harness it, it simply isn't possible.

Now of course our theories evolve and old theories are often found to be wrong, but I've said it before: I wouldn't bet against quantum mechanics. Our understanding of it will certainly change, but ZPE is part of a farily important implication that will likely not change.

This is known as Pseudoscience Fallacy #1.* "Anything is possible given that we don't know everything." Wrong. Just because we don't know everything, does NOT mean that anything is possible. Certain things are known to a high degree of certainty to be NOT POSSIBLE.

Further, since the same theory that predicts that it exists also says its not harnessable you MUST accept (or reject) both sides of the coin TOGETHER. If you want to throw out QM (I wouldn't), you throw out BOTH parts of the prediction. Its a catch-22 and I'm sorry, but you can't get out of it.



* Pseudoscience Fallacy #1 is whichever pseudoscience fallacy I'm discussing right now.

[russ_watters]

Something else I should have addressed before: And for good reason. [re: scientists rarely speak in absolutes] Your implication is that they don't speak in absolutes because there are no absolutes. Thats not correct. Scientists don't speak in absolutes because like anyone else they don't want to stick their neck out even on a one and a billion chance that they are wrong. And the certainty of the issue has little bearing on that.

Plane crashes are rare and surviving them even rarer, but they still give you the safety speach every time you fly.

This is a use of language issue. You're reading a hedge where there isn't one. Thats just how they talk. Those statements you quoted are VERY unequivocal.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Something else I should have addressed before: Your implication is that they don't speak in absolutes because there are no absolutes. Thats not correct. Scientists don't speak in absolutes because like anyone else they don't want to stick their neck out even on a one and a billion chance that they are wrong. And the certainty of the issue has little bearing on that.

Plane crashes are rare and surviving them even rarer, but they still give you the safety speach every time you fly.

This is a use of language issue. You're reading a hedge where there isn't one. Thats just how they talk. Those statements you quoted are VERY unequivocal.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I was more interested in the proper scientific interpretation here.

"At present, nobody knows how to exploit the zero-point energy in a macroscopic device that delivers sizable amounts of energy."

Again, I ask you for the theory to support your conclusions. The fact is, we don't have one. The rest of this is just a language problem.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Yeah, I said nothing of the sort. Your interpretation is wrong. Like the "light barrier" this is known as a "theoretical impossibility." Its not a matter of us not having figured it out how to harness it, it simply isn't possible.

Now of course our theories evolve and old theories are often found to be wrong, but I've said it before: I wouldn't bet against quantum mechanics. Our understanding of it will certainly change, but ZPE is part of a farily important implication that will likely not change.

This is known as Pseudoscience Fallacy #1.* "Anything is possible given that we don't know everything." Wrong. Just because we don't know everything, does NOT mean that anything is possible. Certain things are known to a high degree of certainty to be NOT POSSIBLE.

Further, since the same theory that predicts that it exists also says its not harnessable you MUST accept (or reject) both sides of the coin TOGETHER. If you want to throw out QM (I wouldn't), you throw out BOTH parts of the prediction. Its a catch-22 and I'm sorry, but you can't get out of it.



* Pseudoscience Fallacy #1 is whichever pseudoscience fallacy I'm discussing right now.

Russ, you want to make a legitimate scientific point of view into pseudoscience. Where do you think that I got most of my ideas? The answer is while studying physics in college. History is replete with closed minds that were wrong. I was told time after time that it is a "fact" that the expansion of the universe is slowing down. What more dramatic example do we need? For 50 years the only "valid" question was whether the expansion would stop or not. I am sure that you would have argued with equal fervor against anyone who questioned this interpretation.

[Joy Division]

Ivan, Russ is giving you the scientific interpretation. You don't need 6 pages of esoteric mathematics to figure this one out. ZPE basically is the Heisenberg energy-time relation. The theory that supports his conclusions is quantum mechanics. Theory predicts that the zero point energy exists and you can never use it to do work, all in the same line.

If the energy-time relation is wrong, (as it would have to be to allow you to harness ZPE) then there is no guarentee that the ZPE even exists.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Ivan, Russ is giving you the scientific interpretation. You don't need 6 pages of esoteric mathematics to figure this one out. ZPE basically is the Heisenberg energy-time relation. The theory that supports his conclusions is quantum mechanics. Theory predicts that the zero point energy exists and you can never use it to do work, all in the same line.

If the energy-time relation is wrong, (as it would have to be to allow you to harness ZPE) then there is no guarentee that the ZPE even exists.

Why do so many people refuse to recognize that we have limits? We do not posses all knowledge. I understand the reason that we can't use this energy in any practical way right now. But to argue that this will always be true is nothing less that pseudoscience. We don't know.

Could someone show me where in the scientific method prognostication is indicated as a function of science?

Are you and Russ really psychics or something? Do you have secret knowledge?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Theory predicts that the zero point energy exists and you can never use it to do work

Here we see that no one bothers to read what has already been established. When we test for ZPE, we do work with it; so this is already wrong.

[Ivan Seeking]

Until we know physics to be complete, we never know when someone like Einstein will come along and introduce a new variable that changes everything. Edit: Some of the arguments put forth here would have us ingore him or her.

What is wrong with the simple conclusion that based on what we know, ZPE cannot be tapped? This limitation applies to all science - based on what we know. Some seem to make a religion of science as if it were infallible.

[Joy Division]

Because it's not accurate to say, "Based on what we know ZPE cannot be tapped."

It is accurate to say, "Quantum Mechanics predicts that ZPE exists and that you cannot use it to do work. If Quantum mechanics is wrong on this then there is no reason for QM ZPE to exist. There may however exist some other form of energy similar to the ZPE that can be harnessed but there is so far no evidence as such nor any theory which predicts it. Therefore there is no reason to believe it exists."

Again it's very wrong to equate "may exist" with "does exist".

[Joy Division]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Here we see that no one bothers to read what has already been established. When we test for ZPE, we do work with it; so this is already wrong.

Your years of studying physics should have at least taught you that not everything needs to do work to be physically observable.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Because it's not accurate to say, "Based on what we know ZPE cannot be tapped."

It is accurate to say, "Quantum Mechanics predicts that ZPE exists and that you cannot use it to do work.

Based on the assumptions used in this hypothesis. Assumptions can be wrong or modified. Edit: or even transparent and unrecognized.

If Quantum mechanics is wrong on this then there is no reason for QM ZPE to exist. [/B]

Did I attack QM?

There may however exist some other form of energy similar to the ZPE that can be harnessed but there is so far no evidence as such nor any theory which predicts it. Therefore there is no reason to believe it exists."

Now you are into nothing but opinions. The consensus is the ZPE does exist. This could be wrong, but it is the mainstream opinion.

Again it's very wrong to equate "may exist" with "does exist". [/B]

I am only claiming the existence of ZPE to the extent that this is accepted by physics.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Your years of studying physics should have at least taught you that not everything needs to do work to be physically observable.

Are you saying that since we do work when we demonstrate the Casimir Effect, this energy if free? You seem to be contradicting your own position.

[Joy Division]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Now you are into nothing but opinions. The consensus is the ZPE does exist. This could be wrong, but it is the mainstream opinion.

I am only claiming the existence of ZPE to the extent that this is accepted by physics.

Yes the consensus is that Quantum mechanical Zero Point Energy exists, the one that stipulates it cannot do work. I'm merely pointing out that your argument that only half of that statement may be wrong (Making ZPE useful.) is as arbitrary as saying the first part is wrong and that ZPE doesn't exist.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Again, I ask you for the theory to support your conclusions. The fact is, we don't have one. [?] [?] [?] So I guess I went through that whole description of "theoretically impossible" for nothing? Theoretically impossible literally means impossible because of a scientific theory. In this case, HUP. Or better yet, ZPE theory itself (which is based on HUP).I was told time after time that it is a "fact" that the expansion of the universe is slowing down. What more dramatic example do we need? Thats not even close to the level of proof for HUP. Russ, you want to make a legitimate scientific point of view into pseudoscience. By definition, a legitimate scientific point of view is a position held by legitimate scientists - such as the ones you quoted. NONE claimed that they believed it even theoretically possible to harness ZPE. I submit you will not find one who will. However, you fallaciously took the corollary to be true: Since they didn't say it is absolutely impossible, it must be possible. Ivan, Russ is giving you the scientific interpretation. You don't need 6 pages of esoteric mathematics to figure this one out. ZPE basically is the Heisenberg energy-time relation. The theory that supports his conclusions is quantum mechanics. Theory predicts that the zero point energy exists and you can never use it to do work, all in the same line. Thank you, that is exactly my point. Are you and Russ really psychics or something? Do you have secret knowledge? Heh, apparently HUP and Pseudoscience Fallacy #1 are still secret knowledge even though I have posted them for all to see. [note: I didn't make them up]. Ivan, PLEASE take to heart PF#1. You're going to get yourself scammed someday if you don't. Here we see that no one bothers to read what has already been established. When we test for ZPE, we do work with it; so this is already wrong. That is simply not correct. Example: A voltemeter does no work. Did I attack QM? Yes. You did. ZPE is QM (is HUP). By saying ZPE theory is wrong, you are saying QM is wrong. I am only claiming the existence of ZPE to the extent that this is accepted by physics. Convenient. You are also claiming properties of ZPE contrary to the extent that is accepted by physicists. Have cake eat cake.

Ivan, your arguement boils down to: 'If I ignore the part of the theory that says I'm wrong, then the theory says I'm right.'

[russ_watters]

Lets see if we can actually agree on a couple of things.

ZPE theory says this (boiled down and simplified): Due to quantum fluctuations, energy exists even in a vacumm and is perfectly symetrical.

Do you agree that is what ZPE theory SAYS?

Now your OPINION is that the first part of the theory could be right while the second part (after the "and") could be wrong.

Am I correct in my interpretation of your opinion?

[Ivan Seeking]

Look, you both want to take out of context every point just to make yours appear objective. I have stated many times that based on our present level of understanding, we can't use ZPE for any useful application. If you insist on arguing that you know all that may be possible, then there is no use in arguing the point any further. Your position is one that I understand and that is indefensible. You are arguing a point of religion - absolute belief.

This is not objectivity. This is religion.

We will have to agree to disagree. I will say no more.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Look, you both want to take out of context every point just to make yours appear objective. I have stated many times that based on our present level of understanding, we can't use ZPE for any useful application. If you insist on arguing that you know all that may be possible, then there is no use in arguing the point any further. Your position is one that I understand and that is indefensible. You are arguing a point of religion - absolute belief.

This is not objectivity. This is religion.

We will have to agree to disagree. I will say no more. lololololololololol. Backed you into a corner. I thought you had more honor than that. I truly am disappointed.

In any case, I was thinking about the issue some more:

Clearly the casimir effect is real. It is a force that exists and can be measured. A force is the potential to do work - you can take those plates and move them closeer together to convert the potential energy into kinetic energy. This is all true.

So I realized the problem: you believe that newly "created" kinetic energy to be "useful work." Something that if we figure out how can be harnessed. But thats wrong. It hasn't been created, its been CONVERTED.

It isn't useful work because it is SYMETRICAL - you give it all back when you pull the plates apart. This is EXACTLY how magnetism works. If such an asymetry were possible, we would have found a way to use magnets to create free energy long ago. From that ramp thing (can't remember if that was in this thread), clearly many people still think you can get more energy back than a magnetic potential can give. I've seen LOTS of such devices that try to use magnets to convert potential energy into kinetic energy, then get the potential energy back without losing the kinetic energy.

In fact, this is just another manifestation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

ZPE is still a 'mysterious' effect, so people don't connect it to the way magnetism works. But then clearly even with magnetism, people try to get around the first law of thermo.

And (say it with me): I wouldn't bet against the first law of thermodynamics.

[Ivan Seeking]

I thought you had more honor than that

This is called cheap bait. Do you wish to digress into personal insults now? This is your objectivity?

I understand your point. You don't or won't understand mine. I see no reason to argue about something that has no resolution.

[Zantra]

/sigh

I can see what the current views are. This post has basically degenerated into a pissing contest. Shall we whip out our collectives on the virtual table now and get it over with? For the last 2 pages it's been nothing but arguing fine points and somantics.

Here's some food for thought

Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949

I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processings is a fad that won't last out the year."
- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice-Hall, 1957

But what...is it good for?"
- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip


I could provide other examples from different inventions, but this suffices. Current science does not allow the usefulness of ZPE. Hopefully people like russ won't be researching it and other important fields, or it may set things back another 50 years.

How about instead of whining about how it doesn't work, you try and find a way that it will work? Human nature is one of curiosity- that is what leads to innovation and progress. 600 years ago we KNEW the earth was flat. At one point we KNEW the earth was the center of the universe. And today, you KNOW that ZPE is useless. I am not a scientist, but I question everything. I TRY to view things objectively, but I have an open mind, and I do realize that we are not the masters of all, and that we still have much to learn.

Perhaps we will discover that ZPE is indeed inaccessible, and then I would say "I guess it wasn't possible" But I'm on much firmer ground than one who finds that it is, after firmly denying the possibility at all. Does that make me a "NUT"? Am I a "looney" for not accepting everything that is spoon fed to me because we "KNOW" what is what? Well damn, then I'd best start runnning, because it's a long way back to the cave and I have yet to spear dinner for the wifey. Without people who question everything, you'd still be banging your thoughts out on a stone tablet. And I leave you with this quote.

So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got through college yet.'"
- Steve Jobs, cofounder of Apple Computer

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zantra
Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949 Zantra, I explained earlier what a "theoretical impossibility" (barrier) is, but maybe I need to clarify and explain the difference between that and an ENGINEERING "barrier." Your analogy is of an ENGINEERING barrier and there is a world of difference between the two.

-An engineering barrier is breakable without changing the laws of science.
-A theoretical barrier is not breakable without changing the laws of science.

Computers are a good example - the fundamental problem in computer chip construction is manufacturing techniques. Its a technological problem. NOTHING that we knew about science made the invention of the transister impossible and NOTHING that we knew about science made it impossible to construct smaller transistors.

There is however a THEORETICAL barrier coming with computer chips in the next few years (5-20 depending on who you ask). Coincidentally, its QM again. As the wires get smaller and smaller, QM makes it impossible to keep the electrons on the right wire. This is a real barrier and it is not breakable.

The usual example though is "the sound barrier." Often cited by those in media as an unbreakable barrier and leads to some of this confusion. However, it was always known by scientists (and anyone who had ever shot a GUN) to be an engineering problem and not a real theoretical barrier.

Now - is it possible that the laws of science will change? Certainly. It happens all the time. But even a discovery that would make scientists giddy would not rise to the level necessary to make ZPE harnessable. ZPE is not harnessable because of QM and thermodynamics - two of the most powerful scientific theories we have. And you wouldn't need to make a slight adjustment in them - you'd need to throw them right out the window.

There are NO examples of such a strong theoretical barrier ever being broken (much less two at once!). It has never happened (please don't cite Aristotle: science didn't really get going until Galileo). I've said it before: I'm not betting that the most fundamental scientific theories we have are going to be thrown out.

Ivan, this is a physics board (being a moderator, you should know). If you want to talk physics, I gave you a bunch of points (new ones) to respond to. If you want to leave the arguement, fine. But invoking religion to get out of a scientific arguement is reprehensible.

[AndersHermansson]

Can you attribute the ZPE with a temperature?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ivan, this is a physics board (being a moderator, you should know). If you want to talk physics, I gave you a bunch of points (new ones) to respond to. If you want to leave the arguement, fine. But invoking religion to get out of a scientific arguement is reprehensible.

Ok I will try one more time. I just don’t care to argue when I feel that I have made my point.

I completely agree with your objections as to why we cannot access ZPE. Just like you, I have studied thermodynamics. What I can't seem to get across is the idea of implicit assumptions. Implicit in every hypothesis is a set of assumptions. From my point of view the physics is never wrong, but the assumptions can change. For now, it seems that this ZPE is the lowest energy state; the bottom of the well so to speak - thus no useful work can be done with it. However, consider the case of the Casimir effect. Here we find that we can create a well that is just a little bit deeper. Right? [Assuming of course that ZPE exist, and that the Casimir Effect is a manifestation of this ZPE.]

Clearly this cannot be used to do anything useful. But, what if for example we discover a deeper well? What about the other 6 or 8 dimensions that are thought to exist? Perhaps we will find some way to modify space so that the assumptions can change.

I don't know how else I can say this: Current theory does not allow for ZPE to be used to do useful work. I acknowledge this point.

There has never been a theory in the history of physics that has escaped modification; except for the ones that today we think are correct.

Physicists can't even agree on the definition of "measurement".

Why do you want to close the books and erase all question marks? On what basis can it be argued what will be possible; How can we say what new theories may come along in a year or a thousand years? We don't have a unified theory. Until we do, all bets are off. This does not mean that any nonsense notion qualifies. This means that we cannot define the limits of reality in any satisfactory way. Therefore, in a purely objective manner, we can look for cracks in the lining - little hints that other truths exist that as yet lie undiscovered.

The only justification that I can find for your position is the belief that we effectively have finished in physics. Do you feel that physics is nearly complete?

[sascha]

Is not the problem here a conceptual one: to understand WHY there is a symmetry of just this kind, as stated by QT, which appears in energies among others? Till now, QT has always been correct, also in counterintuitive situations. Nobody denies this. The question at stake is whether QT decribes strictly all of material reality or only that part which its language makes accessible, which is confirmed in every new setup that is judged in that language -- the language of measuring the minimal. QT still has its unsolved measurement problem, and in physics there is the problem of uniting strictly all of its theories.

In this question, one should not forget that QT, in spite of theory always being correct for concrete objects / processes, approaches reality from a reduced point of view: wanting to understand everything by measuring. In doing so, it introduces a bias, because it must miss what is not measurable — namely the ultimate order, which makes reality as it is, or in other words the overall laws and forces that make up the strict whole (neither laws nor forces are measurable, and yet decisive for understanding). Logical coherence does as such not yet warrant completeness of grasp.

The problem arises through the fundamental conceptual choices, whose perspectivity produces the corresponding edges beyond what is understandable in the chosen terms. Physics has developed and is applied many conceptual distinctions, but no physical theory today can explain conceptually why there are 'things' arising, existing for their time, then disappearing, while others of the same type reappear (the 'things' being renewed so to say). QT can measure the 'things' while they are around, but not explain fully their origin and hence why they are around. This does nor discredit the correctness e.g. of QT in measuring, it only says that full understanding must go beyond an isolated theory. ZPE is at a threshold and needs thus, for understanding all of what is going on, other concepts than those coming from ideas of measuring (or any position of the same "Cartesian split" type: distinguishing, observing, describing, etc., which look at the object from outside and can thus grasp only some attributes).

The point is to set out without a bias (such as distinguishing, observing, describing, measuring). This is conceptual work — interesting for some, and boring for others. Is anybody here interested in getting into this? I think I have some tidbits to offer on the path to more overall clarity.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by sascha
I think I have some tidbits to offer on the path to more overall clarity.

I would like to hear more about this just out of interest.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I would like to hear more about this just out of interest.

Ditto on that for me. So far what you're saying is making sense to me.

[sascha]

I will try to put it into a nutshell (I could also offer you texts of publications, but you can decide on that from what I am saying now). My point is that these days practically all approaches in philosophy and science operate in setting out from a primal assumption (axiom, basic measurement, basic postulate, belief, hope, presupposition, etc.). Whether assumptions are conscious or not makes no difference as to their effect. The only difference is that conscious assumptions allow the erection of rational systems. But logical coherence does as such not yet warrant completeness of grasp. The reason for this is that operating on the basis of assumptions -- never mind how stringently and coherently -- always is a way of 'talking' into the undivided totality of content that would need to be considered, before having given it a chance to reveal all of its interconnections. Hence in the end complete reality always produces some 'surprise'.

Nowadays philosophers and scientists are obessed by the idea of predicating, i.e. saying something about something. Moreover the vast majority (especially the analytical branch of philosophy) adopted a pet belief whereby something can be real only if it is material (confusing existential manipulability with intelligibility). This way of proceeding would like to be bold, but is merely rash. In the face of complete reality, in the end eg. QT is compelled to state some strange interconnection in all of matter (and dresses it up in ideas of 'entanglement'), or philosophy is compelled to state some strange interconnection in all of intersubjectivity (and dresses it up in ideas of 'language'). Etcetera.

All such systems are self-limited by dint of the primal assumptions. Unthinkingly they chose a path on which one can only get lost in the myriad of 'elements' that seem to open up, but which are only the result of having to shift the original problem (eg. understanding agency, or being, or change, or whatever) into ever new dimensions (atomism is an example, with no end in sight concerning the minimal 'piece': it is only a question of how much energy you pump into the breakup process).

There is a blind spot in any possible logic of operating in a Cartesian split (distinguishing, observing, describing, measuring, etc.), and this blind spot can only be shifted around. Translations into Boolean systems does not solve the problem, because the respective distinction does not cover the principle of distinguishing as such. Do you know eg. George Spencer-Brown, Heinz von Foerster, Rudolf Kaehr, or so? They have proved all this logically. Their proposal for a way out is an arbitrary move -- i.e. some newly 'plausible', supposedly final assumption. Gotthard Guenther has presented the most advanced attempt to overcome the blind spot, by adopting the formal aspect of Hegel's dialectics. By this trick, the blind spot is shifted into unawareness in linguistic terms -- which does of course not mean that it is eliminated in an absolute sense (I guess Hegel would not be very happy with it).

In the approach that I propose there is a way out that has absolutely no blind spot. Instead it sets out on the law of nature that governs all mental processes -- and which remained in penumbra, in spite of usual reference points such as Frege, Russell, etc. This law can be formulated eg. in the following way: any fundamental query, after having been led to ist ultimate end, yields an intrinsically polar structure in the ensuing concepts. The content of the query, when pursued to its own fulfilment, opens up a strictly polar conceptual space. This is the the other side of the coin of strict completeness in a grasp, as in 'A plus non-A': Any conceptual aspect A can be thought only on the 'background' of non-A. This fact gave rise to many streams of thought under the banner of dialectics, since knowing A makes us aware of its intrinsic dependency on non-A, so becoming aware of non-A can make us realize also what A is all about. This stems from the interesting fact that A plus non-A together cover completely the universe, under one aspect: the queried one (here A). There is completeness and perspectivity, simultaneously.

My approach is to apply the principle of complete self-referentiality to the polar concepts resulting from a query -- by the same mental process that yielded that conceptual polarity itself. The result is a set of four categories that is strictly universally applicable. No basic assumption whatsoever enters the system. The law of conceptual polarization is a law of nature and can be understood as such, in looking at its manifestations. For example the (originally Aristotelian) query 'what is change?' (process) leads to the four categories of 'law' (intrinsic way of being), 'force' (agency), 'disequilibriability' (of the respective force structure), and 'foundational equilibrium' (of what constitutes the respective force structure). Such a set of categories is not observable, it is not ontic, it has a heuristic value: telling what to look out for in (eg. phenomenological) observation. There is no problem of inifinitesimals.

In this way, no aspect of today's science gets lost, but all of its aspects can be brought together in an understanding that does not have the drawbacks (blind spot) of proposals like of the Vienna Circle. For example the processes in all sciences, from physics and chemistry through biology and the humanities to theology, could be approached in one conceptual continuum. It's a really transdisciplinary approach.

[sascha]

Concerning ZPE, I felt I should add a few things: parts of an article, published last year ("Conceptual Conditions for Conceiving Life — a Solution for Grasping its Principle, not Mere Appearances", in G. Palyi, C. Zucchi, L. Caglioti, eds.: Fundamentals of Life; Paris: Elsevier, 589-624. It develops the query of processuality, and contains a reference to (Schaerer [2001]): "Why Matter Matters Massively"; in Frontier Perspectives 10(2), 52-59. My completely processual approach makes mass more universally understandable.

5.1. Understanding the principle of material matter
What appears as 'material matter' can be understood at its origin as the law of being at disposal, manifest in a concrete way. This can only be a force and its exact counter-force, i.e. a complex of two forces in equilibrium, counterbalancing each other dynamically. As such this can't be observable, because observation implies a third instance, an influencing force. In quantum theory this is known and said to "perturb" the configuration; the process is called "decoherence" and makes decidable in the macroscopic realm (through implied interactions) whether "SchrÚdinger's cat" is alive or dead, which is undecidable on the non-disturbed quantum level.
By not being freely roaming forces, but impeded by mutual opposition, the two primal forces acquire an additional vectorial quality, a concrete one that they can't have when no otherness is implied. Once forces are bound in a new equilibrium, their hindrance vector makes them into an energy structure (ZPE) and accounts for the arising aspect of 'resistance' that we can't avoid associating with material matter, since it is the palpable characteristic that it shows us even when we do not think in the least. The reason for the seeming massiveness of matter to senses is that the laws of the bodies, also of organisms ('desires'), are an 'otherness' for whatever force structure comes along. Transcending otherness is possible through overcoming consciously the difference, i.e. in a mental act of full identification.
All material reactions imply and cause some other ones. This closedness of causalities in the realm of inert matter — 'actio = reactio', and any cause has another one — means that the inert domain as a whole constitutes one 'organism' ('interacting parts'). In our approach this specific organicity is rooted in the coherence of 'materia prima' as the 'substance' that entails the many-facetted energy flux of weaving and unweaving matter.
Two forces can be united in mutual opposition in other ways than under the idea (law) of something at disposal: two forces can be combined eg. under the idea of annihilation, i.e. pure nothingness. The first offers existentiality to structures of othernesses, while the latter does not. This explains why a universe based on anti-matter can exist for a while, but can't subsist: matter, the structure of 'something-at-disposal', engenders continuity in the interactive process of othernesses, while anti-matter alone, offering no existentiality, can't avoid producing discontinuity. Structures that agglutinate under the law of discontinuity can't last, they are self-annihilating. Today's physics has no criterion for this difference.
Viewed only instrumentally (not in its own quality), matter looks like a 'something', a 'thing'. We have it already in the "energy quanta" which Max Planck discovered in black body radiation, and those of light that Einstein postulated for the "photoelectric effect": where an 'otherness' is implied, the primal continuity is necessarily broken and must give rise to discontinuous 'entitites'. This is correct within the language of separability, and will be confirmed again in every situation or experiment that is interpreted in that language. Nevertheless it is not absolutely true, but only relative to this language. Through our categories one can see that in its core, i.e. its intrinsic nature, material matter is not a cause, but an effect — of forces. This view explains as much the energy density of the 'vacuum', which baffles cosmologists because their concepts can't reach there, as it clarifies the phenomena of coherence arising in the double-slit experiment and those demonstrated in Alain Aspect's experiments. On the level of biological theory, it clarifies the belief that material matter can be the ultimate cause of life: it is not, it is only a necessary condition for existing. No doubt life forms can be manipulated by manipulating their necessary condition, for instance on the genetic level. But nothing is gained by believing that this knowledge of manipulability is already all the knowledge of what life is all about.
In the complexifications beyond "materia prima", with every additional 'otherness' introduced, with every new force interfering, matter becomes more complex. At every threshold a new disequilibrium is introduced (by an additional force), leading to a new equilibrium and its respective disequilibriability. These processes induce the set of variations that lead in nucleosynthesis to the types of equilibria, called 'particles' and 'atoms', that are known in the Mendelejew table, their isotopes, etc. By their dis- and re-equilibriability patterns these force structures entail the factual transmutational processuality that we know in chemistry. Material matter can be synthesized only in a short-lived mimickry as long as the creation process does not arise out of its basic law: absolute equilibrium of two mutually counterbalancing forces.
The essence of material matter is thus a basic equilibrium of forces that allows all structurations by additional forces. The actualization of a higher-level equilibrium makes a structure of fluxes perceivable as a singled-out entity. In inert matter, all equilibria are a result of external influences — eg. objects follow gravity; iron near oxygen will oxydate; etc. Alive structures incorporate an overall coordination that allows specific reactions to their environment (e.g. chemotaxis). To the degree that the coordinating instance of such an entity becomes really equilibrated in its own condition, i.e. 'forcelessly united' with its context (in human words: relaxed), the flux through it becomes unimpeded. This opens the door to actualized unification with the environment and thereby to new structurations. Thus the most interesting energetic interactions arise in points where an equilibrium is actualized, freeing a path for a shared flux. This is the point of innovation out of which new 'particles' arise in physics, and in biology eg. the symbioses (Margulis). The idea of units in competition is conceptually too narrow to grasp the crucial point.

5.2. The relevance for practical physics that encompasses life
Living beings need material matter for constituting their bodies, as a necessary but not sufficient condition for enabling life's processes. The sufficient condition is given only when the organized and organizing agency, the respective law-&-force aspect, is included too. No change is possible without a force; but subsistence is possible for any pure orderliness as such, in a Platonic sense. A mind can reach there when willing to 'listen'.
The utility of our new categoreality is seen in considering a chart of the nuclides. The horizontal lines show the isotopes, i.e. atoms where the number of electrons depart from the number of the stable state. The further away this number is from the number warranting stability, the shorter the half-life period is of that atom (isotope), i.e. its 'life cycle'. This shows that already on the level of material matter there is indeed a force aspect that re-equilibrates disequilibrations. Where certain isotopes display a longer half-life period than their off-center position would allow, a relative sub-equilibrium arises by the implied forces, analog to the less relative equilibrium of forces found in a more stable chemical element.
Our categories can open interesting doors also to understanding phenomena that are named 'mass' and 'energy' — whose conceptualizations remain unclear in physics to this day. In the light of our categories, 'materia prima', the primal symmetry of forces, has no mass in the sense of 'inertia'; it is the constance of balanced force opposition at the very foundation of all secondary material structures. The intervention of 'third party forces' makes 'energy' arise, spatio-temporally organized force, as the compensatory flux that must permeate the rest of the universe. Such "decoherences" cause, in new equilibria, the structures that store energy and thus have 'mass'. Our categories allow a detailed analysis of these, and allow thus a clarification of otherwise still controversial concepts around 'mass' and 'energy'. For details, see Schaerer [2001].
The approach proposed here shows also that for instance the phenomena of electromagnetism and radioactivity show nature's way of reacting to disequilibration. Not only in natura naturans (cosmos as causative principle, pure law & force), but also in natura naturata (cosmos as concretely manifested principle, law & force & matter) all types of radioactivity are gradually absorbed and tend towards zero, inoffensive to all forms of life. In the same way, the equilibrium of electricity is adjusted (electron-proton-balance) to a degree that looks incredibly exact when setting out from the 'modern' supposition that some parts must dominate the whole. The sheer facts show that the overall law of necessary equilibration of arising disequilibria, the central concept of the matter aspect as proposed in this essay, is indeed fundamental. It explains also why nature has no need to provide for a sensory system that is sensitive to electromagnetic or radioactive events. If human beings disrupt those equilibria, measuring what they do is of their responsibility.

[exeric]

Hi, I'm new to this group so I hope I'm not committing any faux pas
here.

I've come to some conclusions or maybe opinions would be a better
description. I don't think the ZPF should be miligned just because there are people who want to use it for their own wacky agenda. For any advancement in physics new ideas have to be given a fair chance. Basically a useful new theory has to
include all previous experimental results and explain new results
that havn't been explained so far. Sometimes you get to that place through unusual means. So that's what I've tried to do. Since I'm not a physicist or mathematician I can't properly call my ideas theory because I'm not offering any mathematical or experimental proof. What I call them are my PHYSICS PREMISES. To me they are the most logical system of physics ideas that don't contradict the history of experimental results to date and also include explanations of results that are so far unexplained. If anyone thinks that experimental results ARE being contradicted here please let me know. This is just my best effort with no perfection implied or promised. Here they are:

1. When a charged particle (electrons, quarks) accelerates it
creates an acceleration with respect to the Zero Point Field (ZPF).
This acceleration creates a Poynting vector in the ZPF. This
Poynting vector acts as a non-random frequency or frequencies rising
above the ZPF random sea. The relative acceleration between the
charge and the radiation vector acts according to Maxwell's Laws to
create a counter emf on the accelerating particle. This counter emf
is the force we normally observe as inertial mass.

2. Gravity is a pseudo force and there is no mass of any kind as we
know it. Gravitons do not exist. What we instead observe in daily
life is the interaction of charged particles with the quantum vacuum
field or ZPF.

3. The effect we call inertial mass is the sum of the counter emf
exerted on individual charged particles in a body accelerating with
respect to the ZPF.

4. The effect we call gravitational mass is due to a distortion in
the ZPF between two massive bodies (in the classical sense) due to a
canceling of components of the ZPF spectrum between the two bodies.
The components being cancelled are related inversely to the square
or the distance between the two bodies and to the cumulative total
of charges in each body. Random fluctuations at the local (quantum)
space of the ZPF act on all bodies but only when there is a
distortion of the ZPF is there a net vector. The vector is always
related by field theory to the complex distortion of the ZPF. This
distortion in the ZPF causes the appearance of curved space. (The
Casimir Force is a special case of gravitation where the mass is not
included in the formula because it exists as a force between two
plates where the thickness of the plates goes to 0. In this
particular case the force is related to the area of the plates and
inversely to r^4. On an intuitive basis I would think that as the
plates go from 2 dimensions to 3 as in the real world that r^4 would
integrate r^2.)

5. The "dark energy" that has been discovered to be a large
percentage of the total energy in the universe is this ZPF. As the
universe expands the ZPF expands with it and the boundary of the
universe as we know it is where the ZPF stops. At the point where
the ZPF stops physical laws conforming to the laws of our universe
no longer exist. Inertial and gravitational mass cannot exist
there. Another possibility is that mass entering that area will
collapse in on itself as the electrons, protons and neutrons come
together without the energy of the ZPF to support the base energy
level.

5. Because inertial and gravitational mass is a result of counter
emf it means there is an opposing magnetic field to the Poynting
vector of the ZPF around each accelerating charged particle. This
charged particle magnetic field is the spin of each charged
particle. The quantitative sum of each charged particle in an atom
reacting with the ZPF accounts for the atomic weight for each
element. Every increase (or decrease) in spin as each charged
particle accelerates requires more energy in exact proportion
Einstein's equations for mass. In a gross way spin can be thought
of like a flywheel exhibiting rotational momentum.

6. The outer shell of an atom - the electron energy probability
space - if given sufficient rotational spin may block the
reactionary magnetic field energy from occurring in the inner
charged particles. Sufficient electron spin is most easily gained
via ELF radiation in ferromagnetic atoms per experimental results of
Professor Fran De Aquino (uncorroborated so far).

7.Finally and importantly, the reason mass hasn't been identified as
counter EMF until now is because the zero point field not only
exists at quantum energy levels but in quantum space. In other
words there are no continuous lines of flux between identical
wavelengths in spaces larger than Plancks constant. This means an
atomic inductor may have its individual particle charge spins
increased but there is no homogeneous effect larger than at its
constituent electron and quark spins. The randomness of the ZPF in
space means that no individual effect can be discerned except at the
charged particle level and those charged particle contributions
simply appear as the inertial or gravitational mass of each atom.

So there it is. I've not put in the references that have helped get
to these conclusions because this is just an informal note. They are
mostly papers posted at these locations.
1. http://www.calphysics.org/sci_articles.html
2. http://users.elo.com.br/~deaquino/

[jagulars]

Free energy is con game terminology just like the slick mind game of an energy producing device that does not rely on natural resources.

You must understand that energy, theorized or not, that is resident in a vacuum is a natural resource just as much as coal and crude oil and wood is.

Various peoples past and present claim to have such devices but this is a load bull when it is not known to the public nor used by the public. For all intents and purposes, and for its current value and service to mankind, it does not exist. In other words, it's words with no substance to back it up. Words that gain them notoriety and massive profits and a comfortable living for most of thier lifetime when they produce nothing except proving that they are not the masters of science but learned men of rhetoric.

I say put the product on the table or shut up. People are sick of hearing it.

Obtaining energy from a vacuum would have its destructive consequences to time and space just the same as the world suffers from slashing the earth open to obtain electricity. On a large scale, splitting a galactic hole in the fabric of our 3d world could pose to be a problem. Good or bad, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction so until the ramifications of widespread use of a device that pulls energy out of space can be measured, it very well could destroy us.

On to other matters. There are more people than I can shake a stick at the world over who in some form or another and for some reason or another have some interest in or thier fingers into devices commonly known as "zero point" or "over unity". for further info on that, just look it up on the internet since there are endless references to it, all being massive amounts of rhetoric since they have no product for the millions of dollars thrown at the issue and at least a good 50 years of the passage of time and at the same time that they have nothing feasable to show, they say that interests that consume natural resources have hidden away such perfectly good technology. If this was the case, they, zp/ou proponents also would have had it long ago and made good on thier promises of benefiting mankind.

Personally, I don'y buy a word of it because if such technology as zp-uo (zero point/over unity) is so easily and conveniently squirlled away by NRI's (natural resource interests) how come the proponents of zp-uo have nothing to show for millions of dollars and 50 years?

Check this out:

http://home.ntelos.net/~heapbigchief/SDIES.bmp



.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by jagulars
Free energy is con game terminology just like the slick mind game of an energy producing device that does not rely on natural resources.

You must understand that energy, theorized or not, that is resident in a vacuum is a natural resource just as much as coal and crude oil and wood is. That is true, but you must understand that there are sources of energy so vast that anything we could take out of it would be a drop in the bucket (so to speak). As a result, it makes sense to consider them essentially limitless. Energy from the sun is one such source. Fusion power from seawater (if its ever made to work) would be another. And ZPE, were it not a contradiction in terms to harness it, would be another.

[jagulars]

We do not know the after effects of pulling energy/electrons out of space. If it was largely localized by several large machines or or every appliance that consumes electricity would have one integrated into it that could easily disrupt surrounding space, weakening it and opening up a hole.

Enstien almost blew himself up, twice, destroying the rest of the area. Many times I have thought that, "it could blow up in your face" is where that statement came from.

Removing electrons from atoms creates different atoms. Zp/ou is also easily converted/made into a weapon. Captain Proton is lurking around the corner so watch it and the new age deer hunter certainly wouldn't be caught without his neutron beam.

The device you see in the link contains no such threats (except to those who collect electricity bills) nor does the world have to suffer in wait for something so fan"trek"tastic that it may not even happen at all. They do not want to phase out natural resources gradually until this technology comes along. They want to wait till they actually have a zp/ou device and then start the phasing then with no free electricity devices in the middle to bridge the gap.

Plus, they want something that is totally independent of all other technologies and not using any part of any existing technologies because they want to globally lock it down so in effect and reality, these people are doing nothing but conspiring to become the next generation of power brokers and thier talk of the good of humanity is bull. I belive that if zp/ou has and value, it should be public domain, the property of humanity for the benefit of the whole world to move into a new age of civilization, and produced at cost, if not, you will be still paying the electric bills, except to to different collectors.

The only way this can happen is if the proponents and pursuers of zp/ou are humanitarians and not investors or profiteers or patent attorneys or any such thing.

Devices as you see in the link can fill the gap between natural resources and zp/ou but they don't allow it (copy that pic while you have the chance) because it will catch on and the world will lose interest in zp/ou and then its goodbye notoriety and easy income because such a device like this can be set up in just about any house, knocking out of the picture both the NRI's and those who wish to dominate zp/ou technology.

A self supporting power supply is the only feasable answer right here and right now for free electricty, affordable by the common man, until zp/ou can be validated. So by oppressing and suppressing such free electricity devices, they are no better than the NRI's that are supposedly suppressing and oppressing any type of free electricity device or any type of zp/ou devices.

If you examine it carefully, you will see that this a political and financial and power war between the current suppliers of energy and those who are conspiring to put them out of business in the name of humanity and then lock down their own version of free electricity.

I think that the next age of civilization has no place for such types of industrial "lords" so the people and the masses of the world should ban together to find an honest and legal means to get those people out of the way or else we are only moving from one disaster to another.

[exeric]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jagulars
[B]Free energy is con game terminology just like the slick mind game of an energy producing device that does not rely on natural resources.

]

I think you saw my post and just saw what you wanted to see. If I'm not mistaken I never mentioned anywhere a theory for harnessing free energy from the zero point field. There is a very large split between those interested in the ZPF and those people promoting ZPE. Remember that difference: its only one letter but it means the world in terms of the emphasis and seriousness of the people interested in it.

The zero point field is a fact. Its not pseudoscience. Do you remember the first thing you thought about when you first leaned about electrons orbiting the nucleus (I grew up when they still taught the Bohr model, you may remember slightly different stuff), in the fifth grade or so. My first thought was "damn, that can't be. What keeps it moving. Why doesn't it run out of energy and fall in or just escape the nucleus." I'm sure you had similar thoughts or else you have an uninquisitive mind. Basically we were taught that that's just the way it is. Well, we now know that there is a constant interchange of energy between the electron and the ZPF that maintains a continuous balance between the push to escape and the pull inward. At zero degrees the electron doesn't fall in because the ZPF maintains a base energy level in the electron.

There are many other examples in physics that have a much better explanation when a ZPF acts as an energy intermediary. That is not to say anybody can siphon off that energy. It is too random both in time and in space for there to be any homogeneous effect that is easily used. It is much more likely in my opinion that at some time, perhaps in the far future, there will be a way to shield that energy exchange from happening. Perhaps it will be caused by a local distortion in the ZPF.

Many people believe that inertia itself is a result of a body interacting with the ZPF. That is, a body, as it accelerates must plough through the ZPF, and in so doing the ZPF imparts energy into the body. In this way it would be seen that everytime we accelerate we are using the energy of the ZPF. But it seems just too simple for most people to accept - even the free energy guys. We do work when we accelerate and that work is caused by the resistance of the ZPF. And in turn we have a higher energy level after acceleration and that energy has been taken from the ZPF. When we deaccelerate or accelerate in the other direction we then exchange energy back to the ZPF. It all balances out in the end.

[onycho]

Originally posted by Zantra

the mid 1920's Townsend Brown [2] discovered that electric charge and gravitational mass are coupled. He found that when he charged a capacitor to a high voltage, it had a tendency to move toward its positive pole. This became known as the Biefeld-Brown effect.

Here is an interesting site that deals with the 'Biefeld-Brown' effect.

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-biefeld.asp

Apparently for this effect to work on large objects (ie, space craft) the amount of ions in space are too small and the amount of propulsion has yet to be produced in the experiments done to date.

[jagulars]

Apparently for this effect to work on large objects (ie, space craft) the amount of ions in space are too small and the amount of propulsion has yet to be produced in the experiments done to date.

Use this in space, or your basement, anywhere.

http://home.ntelos.net/~heapbigchief/SDIES.gif

[Inverselepton]

check out the home page

[jagulars]

check out the home page

I didn't see anything there out of the ordinary. Is there something specific there to look at?

http://home.ntelos.net/~heapbigchief/SDIES.gif


.