Energy from the Vacuum? Real or BS?

[RonRyan85]

I listen to late night talk show "Coast to Coast am" ;mostly to Art Bell
and have a few books on physics,(One by Dr. kaku)and there are some
who speak about how it's possible to build power units that produce
more power than you put into it and others that simply get the power
to run electrical appliances, tv sets, ect. from the air . "The Search for
Zero Point Energy"; a book , tells of the quest to find such devices. One
man claims there have been devices already built that do this in a small
way but before the units can be manufactured for sale, the inventors are
either bought off by the big OIL companies or the inventors are killed.

Some claim the "Free Energy Devices" will never be allowed until there are
no oil deposits left on Planet Earth and the Oil Companies need another
form of energy to power their new electric cars, Hydrogen powered cars,
or their new fuel cell cars.

What do you think? Is the hope for a clean Energy source that gets its
power from thin air a real possiblity or are the laws of Physics telling us
that all of this is a pipe dream?

 

[Chronos]

Bet on the laws of physics. ZPE represents the lowest possible energy state of the vacuum. Since the only way to extract energy from a system is to send it to a lower energy state, it suggests there may be a problem with this idea.

 

[russ_watters]

These are a common, old hoax with a new face.

 

[pelastration]

These are a common, old hoax with a new face.

Another assumption you make.
I am sure that in the near future you will see on CNN other information. We are building the prototypes of the Gravitational Power Plant. Free, everywhere, no input (except the structure), only output. Conform natural laws. No magic.
You suggested mechanical engineers (btw, thanks), ... they are involved. :shy:

 

[russ_watters]

Another assumption you make.

Assumption? No, I've had some experience with these specific hoaxes and the more general category they represent - that's how I know its both common and old. :rofl:

...no input (except the structure), only output. Conform natural laws.

Those two statements directly contradict each other.

 

[Chronos]

With all that free energy just waiting to be sucked from the void, I have a design for the ultimate weapon. Build a really big storage device and just keeping charging it with your favorite free energy machine. Eventually it will cataclysmically discharge or explode. Come to think of it, this probably explains how stars go supernova.

 

[ynot]

The ZPE guys remind me of when I was 12 years old, and thought that putting a generator on the front wheel of a bicycle and a motor on the rear wheel would allow me to travel, if not forever, but further than without them. It's fun in a childish way to think about this stuff, but then you find out why nobody has done it before by studying some basic physics. Or you don't, and you post lots of BS on the internet, and show everyone you stopped learning at 12.

 

[pelastration]

Those two statements directly contradict each other.

It is not. How can you say something like that if actual natural laws don't know what dark matter and dark energy is?
You don't know the design, so you don't know what you are talking about. But you know in advance that it is a hoax. That's what I call an assumption.

It reminds me of that professor proving mathematically in 1957 that satellites never could be launched in orbit. One year later you had the Spoetnik in orbit. That professor used the scientific method.

I will stop here, I spent to much time on PF. You can keep on your hoax idea, I will continu to make the design and concept in a working industrial reality.

 

[Alkatran]

It is not. How can you say something like that if actual natural laws don't know what dark matter and dark energy is?
You don't know the design, so you don't know what you are talking about. But you know in advance that it is a hoax. That's what I call an assumption.

Because you use energy to go up and gain energy to go down. If you could gain energy wheels would spin forever because the parts going down would gain more energy than the parts going up, or vice versa.

It reminds me of that professor proving mathematically in 1957 that satellites never could be launched in orbit. One year later you had the Spoetnik in orbit. That professor used the scientific method.

And obviously if it was wrong once...
Don't argue by analogy

 

[Entropy]

If ZPE does every become possible it won't be anytime soon and would involve physics beyond anything we know today, so don't worry about it.

 

[MindHole]

If ZPE does every become possible it won't be anytime soon and would involve physics beyond anything we know today, so don't worry about it.

I would go further and say it's not at all possible. I would also recommend that you save your money and don't buy these books by these people or invest any money unless it's some strange way of entertaining yourself. They will make all these promises yet never deliver. Ever. Money invested with free energy/ZPE people will disappear into the vacuum (joke).

 

[username]

Loooked into this a long time, at the end of the day might be possible but to be honest the physics? are WAY beyond me . I Would say forget this stuff 99% is a scam anyway. Try to think of your own stuff, this is worse than useless. Waste of time and time can be worth much alot.

 

[brewnog]

don't buy these books by these people or invest any money unless it's some strange way of entertaining yourself.

You mean to say you *don't* like reading about PMMs? I love it! The more contrived and ridiculous they are the better, especially if they are followed by the story of what happened to the crackpot inventor after he was laughed all the way out of the patent office...

 

[juju]

Hi,

Saying it is impossible is as dogmatic as saying it is a certainty. Personally, I believe it is possible. This doesn't make it so, but I won't be surprised or overwhelmed if it occurs.

Many times in my life I have been certain and many times I was wrong. It still happens. Certainty comes only with reality and the future is unknown.

juju

 

[russ_watters]

Saying it is impossible is as dogmatic as saying it is a certainty.

That depends on what you base the assertion. Many people claim its possible because "anything is possible." That's unscientific and wrong and not a reasonable basis for the assertion. Many people who claim it is impossible claim it because it violates the laws of physics. That's a reasonable basis for the assertion. So...

Personally, I believe it is possible.

First, what exactly do you mean by "possible" and second, on what do you base that assertion?

My position is that it is impossble, by which I really mean extrordinarily unlikely. For it to be possible, most of what we know about physics needs to be wrong.

 

[Chronos]

Assuming GR is correct and the universe is flat, as determined by WMAP and other studies, the actual vacuum energy density is limited to about 8E-27 kg/m^3. Assuming you could actually extract that energy, you are going to need a mighty big generator to get 1 joule of output.

 

[juju]

That depends on what you base the assertion. Many people claim its possible because "anything is possible." That's unscientific and wrong and not a reasonable basis for the assertion. Many people who claim it is impossible claim it because it violates the laws of physics. That's a reasonable basis for the assertion. So... First, what exactly do you mean by "possible" and second, on what do you base that assertion?

By possible I mean that there exist certain experiments and theories (not of the mainstream of course) that point toward the existence of an energy that can be extracted apparently from the vacuum.

My position is that it is impossble, by which I really mean extrordinarily unlikely. For it to be possible, most of what we know about physics needs to be wrong.

It might be that that what we know of physics is not all there is to know about physics.

Whose work might point in these directions. Here's a few names. Tesla, Sarfatti, Puthoff, Haish, Rueda, Evans, Sachs, Bearden, and Bedini to name a few.

juju

 

[selfAdjoint]

Here's a few names. Tesla, Sarfatti, Puthoff, Haish, Rueda

A much misrepresented pioneer and four cranks. Tesla never said anything about the zero point energy. Sarfatti talks but doesn't calculate, and his main use is to put down Puthoff. Haish and Rueda depend on Puthoff,...

 

[juju]

Hi,

Tesla called his form of energy radiant energy. Whether it was standard vacuum energy or not is unknown at present.

Calling four of the others cranks is really a misnomer. They may be wrong, but they have some serious ideas that should be considered.

juju

 

[vsage]

"Coast to Coast" is not a reliable source of information. I listened to the show a few times and most of it was "the chupacabra was sighted in northwest Canada because some cows were found slaughtered" or something else ridiculous.

 

[PJH]

Check out Thomas Bearden's website: http://www.cheniere.org/

They even have a patent for it.

Also consider this: The vacuum as we currently know might very well not be a true perfect vacuum afterall. It may be a vacuum as we can measure/observe it, but it might contain something we can't measure/observe at this moment. So the energy from a "vacuum" idea might very well be possible and true, in a way.

- PJH

 

[Chronos]

There is no shortage of patents for utterly ridiculous devices that just plain don't work. And you would be well advised to take Thomas Bearden with a large grain of salt. He is not considered reliable by those whom are regarded as reliable.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere:

By possible I mean that there exist certain experiments and theories (not of the mainstream of course) that point toward the existence of an energy that can be extracted apparently from the vacuum.

The experiments are fraudulent and there are no coherent (consistent, experimentally verified) theories. The reason they aren't in the scientific mainstream is they aren't scientific. So that's not a reasonable basis to believe harnessing ZPE is "possible."

It might be that that what we know of physics is not all there is to know about physics.

It is certainly and trivially true that we don't know all there is to know - but that is utterly irrelevent: for harnessing ZPE to be possible would require what we know to actually be wrong - and that is highly unlikely.

Tesla called his form of energy radiant energy.

Light is radiant energy. In fact, the work Tesla did that conspiracy theorists and cranks are picking up on had to do with microwaves and radio waves (also forms of radiant energy). This has nothing at all to do with ZPE and is where sellfAdjoint gets the characterization "A much misrepresented pioneer." When Tesla talked about "free energy," he wasn't talking about the generation, he was talking about transmission.

Also consider this: The vacuum as we currently know might very well not be a true perfect vacuum afterall. It may be a vacuum as we can measure/observe it, but it might contain something we can't measure/observe at this moment. So the energy from a "vacuum" idea might very well be possible and true, in a way.

There is energy in the vacuum - this has been proven. But the theory that predicted it also predicted, as a consequence of its very existence, that it couldn't be harnessed. That's a catch-22 of the worst kind and can't be gotten around.

 

[juju]

Hi,

You all believe it's impossible because your physics say it is impossible. You believe the experiments are fraudulent because your physics say they must be.

I believe it is possible since there are some theories, that you don't subscribe to, which say it is possible.

I am not someone who will believe unconditionally without final proof. However, I will believe that final proof may be possible.

juju

 

[russ_watters]

You believe the experiments are fraudulent because your physics say they must be.

No, I believe they are fraudulent because the people claiming to have done the experiments never release their results or designs. They do not follow the scientific process.

I believe it is possible since there are some theories, that you don't subscribe to, which say it is possible.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. The fact that the evidence is fraudulent (when evidence is even presented) means the "theories" are, at best, unscientific. Most are even worse: they directly contradict real scientific evidence.

If you like, we can go through some specific exmples and show you the flaws.

 

[juju]

http://www.cheniere.org

http://www.compukol.com/mendel/
http://www.aias.us/
http://aias.rfsafe.com/
http://www.calphysics.org/index.html

http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~mirkoz/07zero.html
http://www.zpower.net/zpe.htm
http://users.erols.com/iri/
http://www.free-energy.cc/
http://universalresearchanddevelopment.org/
http://www.seaspower.com/
http://jnaudin.free.fr/index.htm
http://www.americanantigravity.com/
http://www.zpenergy.com/
http://www.freeenergynews.com/index.html
http://www.freeenergynews.com/news/

 

[Ba]

I'm really supposed to be studdying so I just picked one of the simple sites.
http://www.free-energy.cc/

Look at this more closely:

Free energy also includes amazing technologies like a car powered by a water fuel cell, a battery charger powered by the earth, or a home furnace powered by permanent magnets.

Is there any free energy here? Let me see, a car powered by a water fuel cell? A battery charger powered by the earth? A furnace powered by permanent magnets ? I see something taking energy from something else, you could just as well add rotational engine powered by oil, oil is part of the earth.

Power is the energy provided over time. Everything stated here pulls energy from our enviroment. If free energy means this exploitation of our environment then there is indeed free energy, any energy we can come up with is free. I believe the electromagnetic energy travels through the vacuum this after all is how we get light from the sun, there are other electromagnetic waves, gamma etc. But these come from objects in space not the vacuum itself.

 

[Chronos]

I took the liberty of touring these sites, saving Russ the trouble [I have too much free time]. Of course it's all baloney on bunk sandwiches with a smear of horsehockey

http://www.cheniere.org Tom Bearden's web site, nuff said

http://www.compukol.com/mendel/ New and improved TOE
http://www.aias.us/ Free energy devices [FEDs]
http://aias.rfsafe.com/ FEDs
http://www.calphysics.org/index.html ZPE research [CIPA is out of business]

http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~mirkoz/07zero.html Bizarre paper on radiating electrons
http://www.zpower.net/zpe.htm FEDs
http://users.erols.com/iri/ FEDs
http://www.free-energy.cc/ FEDs
http://universalresearchanddevelopment.org/ FEDs, atlantis, etc
http://www.seaspower.com/ FEDs
http://jnaudin.free.fr/index.htm FEDs, anti grav devices [AGDs], alchemy
http://www.americanantigravity.com/ AGDs - the Marcus Device?? [I wonder why he never told us he was an inventor]
http://www.zpenergy.com/ FEDs
http://www.freeenergynews.com/index.html FEDs
http://www.freeenergynews.com/news/ FEDs

There is no shortage of sites like these [I googled on free energy and got about 5.8 million hits], just a shortage of credible ones. For an historical discussion of free energy devices and their illustrious inventors see:

http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html

 

[juju]

They said all possible inventions were already invented - they weren't

They said bumblebees couldn't fly - they can

They said we couldn't go to the moon - we did

You say overunity energy production will not be realized - it will

You say anti-gravity is impossible - it will come to pass

Get on the train even if you have to ride in the baggage car.

juju

 

[brewnog]

Juju, while keeping your mind open to new possibilities is often a good thing, I believe you're misguided and you should listen to what some other members are telling you. For a start, why don't you do some research into the 'bumblebee' thing, and see the difference between someone saying that something's impossible, and it actually having been proven impossible.

To put it simply, your examples of 'people saying this couldn't happen' either have no scientific grounding, or were based on bad science.

Best wishes

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, to be fair, for nearly every inspired insight there are a thousand naysayers. When we can't imagine how something could be true or how something could happen, the default position is often do declare it impossible or nonsense. This is a trap that many scientists and engineers fall into. IMO, much of the overly negative declarations are really due to peer pressure. You learn to be a naysayer rather than an explorer because it's much safer and no one calls you names. Rather than saying something like "we don't know how that might be possible", or "that would violate principles of physics that are well understood so we don't see how claim X might be possible", we say, no, that's impossible.

In my experience engineers are much worse about this than physicists. I think this speaks to the crux of the difference between the two. However, in spite of everything that I've said, within most fringe subjects I find oceans of nonsense, so really both perspectives are correct to a point.

 

[russ_watters]

I took the liberty of touring these sites, saving Russ the trouble...

I am eternally in your debt.

A worse trap, Ivan (and juju), is the logical fallacy that scientists have been wrong before, and therefore must be wrong now.

And yes, juju, those are all mischaracterizations.

 

[Wave's_Hand_Particle]

I listen to late night talk show "Coast to Coast am" ;mostly to Art Bell
and have a few books on physics,(One by Dr. kaku)and there are some
who speak about how it's possible to build power units that produce
more power than you put into it and others that simply get the power
to run electrical appliances, tv sets, ect. from the air . "The Search for
Zero Point Energy"; a book , tells of the quest to find such devices. One
man claims there have been devices already built that do this in a small
way but before the units can be manufactured for sale, the inventors are
either bought off by the big OIL companies or the inventors are killed.

Some claim the "Free Energy Devices" will never be allowed until there are
no oil deposits left on Planet Earth and the Oil Companies need another
form of energy to power their new electric cars, Hydrogen powered cars,
or their new fuel cell cars.

What do you think? Is the hope for a clean Energy source that gets its
power from thin air a real possiblity or are the laws of Physics telling us
that all of this is a pipe dream?

One of the most interesting "Free Energy Devices" ever created are Batteries made from ZPE instead of the normal Fuel Cells. These were patented in the UK, they work on the principle of an Electro-Magnetic-Vacuum.

Batteries are constructed with an outer casing just like ordinary Batteries-AA.ETC. The inside contains an area of Vacuum Energy (actually it is two chambers of Positive Vacuum and Negative Vacuum), the chambers exchange energy rather like Quantum Tunneling, the Bottom Chamber ( lower half of the Battery) contains ordinary Matter[Low Energy] , so is infact a Negative Vacuum with Positive charge.

The top half is made from Negative Matter and is Positive Vacuum, which has the potential of Negative Charge. The system uses a potential membrane that causes the chambers to flip back and forth( Quantum Flip). Electrons are transported from - to + and Positrons appear back at the Low Energy chamber.

In essence, the problems started to appear in principle when someone actually Weighed ordinary Batteries with a full Charge, and then again when the batteries had run 'Dry'. The difference in Weight, according to the measurements, ordinary batteries actually weigh EXACTLY the same when FULL or EMPTY!

So if a pair of NEW, double AA duracell batteries cost $1.99, you use them for a while and, according to the Wieghts and Measures , they contain exactly the same Energy 'Full or Dry'?..so what have you actually used in between?

The ZPE low-energy Vacuum Batteries,actually are self-charging when they are actually in use.

 

[LunchBox]

Batteries are constructed with an outer casing just like ordinary Batteries-AA.ETC. The inside contains an area of Vacuum Energy (actually it is two chambers of Positive Vacuum and Negative Vacuum), the chambers exchange energy rather like Quantum Tunneling, the Bottom Chamber ( lower half of the Battery) contains ordinary Matter[Low Energy] , so is infact a Negative Vacuum with Positive charge.

The top half is made from Negative Matter and is Positive Vacuum, which has the potential of Negative Charge. The system uses a potential membrane that causes the chambers to flip back and forth( Quantum Flip). Electrons are transported from - to + and Positrons appear back at the Low Energy chamber.

Wow... where to begin...

First of all, I would like to see this patent.

Second, mixing matter and anti-matter is a VERY risky proposition. Electrons and positrons mutually annihilate, releasing an E=m*c^2 amount of energy.

Third, it is extremely difficult to create any mentionable quantity of positrons, let alone contain them (as stated previously, since they annihilate on contact with any electrons).

I seriously hope this post was a joke of some sort that I just completely missed...

And I was serious about wanting to see this patent. Please send me a link.

Cheers...

 

[Wave's_Hand_Particle]

A quick lapse of concentration on my part, I see it is still pending a classification detail?

I will dig out the overall details with regard to the above, plus the 'Bose-Nova', Piston that is at this moment 'un-classified'.

For your eyes only:http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rcarrete/talks/2003-05-27-SIAM-DS03.pdf

http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-53/iss-8/p17.html