Energy from the Vacuum? Real or BS?

  • Thread starter RonRyan85
  • Start date
  • #1
23
0
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? :approve:
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
741
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.
 
  • #3
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
These are a common, old hoax with a new face.
 
  • #4
138
0
russ_watters said:
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:
 
  • #5
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
pelastration said:
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.
 
  • #6
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
741
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.
 
  • #7
12
0
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.
 
  • #8
138
0
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #9
Alkatran
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
944
0
pelastration said:
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.

pelastration said:
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
 
  • #10
464
0
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.
 
  • #11
1
0
Entropy said:
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).
 
  • #12
221
2
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.
 
  • #13
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,711
7
MindHole said:
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....
 
  • #14
292
0
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
 
  • #15
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
juju said:
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.
 
  • #16
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
741
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.
 
  • #17
292
0
russ_watters said:
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.

russ_watters said:
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
 
  • #18
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
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,...
 
  • #19
292
0
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
 
  • #20
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.
 
  • #21
PJH
2
0
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
 
  • #22
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
741
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.
 
  • #23
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
Ok, now we're getting somewhere:
juju said:
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.
PJH said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
292
0
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
 
  • #25
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
juju said:
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.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Energy from the Vacuum? Real or BS?

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
806
Top