Zero-Point Energy Generation (Free energy)

Originally posted by AnjeluvDeath
OK but before I board the plane..

Why would you if it's impossible? Can you start with admitting that there is no known law that actually makes vacuum energy extraction impossible? If so why so very hostile to the idea? If not can you cite the law so i can please show you why you are mistaken?

.does he demonstrate this in a controlled environment

The environment will NEVER be controlled enough unless it yields negative results that allows the current energy paradigm to persist; that's the whole point of claiming that the environment was not 'controlled' enough. So much for observing reality impartially.

for credible qualified scientists?

You mean scientist that can not and will not even consider the possibility that they are misrepresenting the known laws to create the belief that vacuum energy extraction is 'impossible'? Why would you trust people who would have incentive to sabotage the experiment to protect their own jobs and standing in the community? Why are scientist claimed to be a impartial breed of human beings? How old does one have to be to believe such fanciful things?

Or is it just people that believe stuff when they are told.

Like scientist and the rest of humanity who are generally a good natured bunch easily taken in by scams that exceed their capacity to understand or lies big enough to fool them? Just like claiming that the clergy are by nature ( despite the fact that they abuse children, want women back in the kitchen, and are basically racist in presumption) 'good' people it's insensible to claim that scientist are impartial and open to facts that would destroy their life's work. This belief in 'hero's' and 'pillars of the community' will really need to stop for human progress to proceed at the pace it very well could; your 'faith' is misplaced and should be preserved for the god of your choosing.

Stellar

reply to post by AnjeluvDeath


And Apparently you are freaking out for no good reason... I said skip that link if you can't get over that they are trying to make some money with the technology. Watch the other ones. You want more? Newtons 'laws'?:

Boyd Bushman:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Les Brown lecture:
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by DarkSecret
a bit paranoid are we?

he would have to be wrong to be paranoid which he really isn't.

Tesla died an old man and nobody shut him up. he was free to talk about his inventions.

As free as a person in jail is to profess his innocence. Hell you seem like a intelligent person and here you are telling me that vacuum energy extraction isn't possible ( bit of a circular argument but funnily so is the truth) a hundred years after it was proven to be very much so! What chance did Tesla have back in the day?

obviously banks would not invest into something that is fringe science.

Banks would perhaps not but bankers certainly did which is why JP Morgan and others invested in tesla's inventions early on. How else do you think they managed to steal so much of his work from him if not with somewhat legal claims?

as for private investors well there have been countless investment schemes into all sorts of "very promising devices" so i would keep away from those and many potential investors with a brain do so too.

Sure there have been and the reason why they will always keep investing in strange technologies is the utterly ridiculously large margin of profit that has historically been associated with getting patent rights early on. If you have a hard time finding investment in your area it might certainly be because no one believes you but it could also just mean that your invention might disrupt the profit mechanisms of too many individuals and groups. Hell it could mean your are just really greedy or smart and don't want to risk the people with the money ending up with both money and your patent? Isn't the investment patent rights field a minefield for newcomers on the best of days without having the potential of literally changing the world as we know it?

in fact if you don't have an engineering degree and some papers published on the subject in peer reviewed journals you should not expect anything from anyone because you're not qualified!

Utter nonsense. Since when does one require a qualification or peer review to make even breakthroughs? Do you not even understand that the truth does not require peer review or qualification to be the truth? Or do you believe that reality is completely subjective and thus decided by the majority or a educated minority?

but you can hope to get some govt money from prez O.'s alternative energy funding if you start up a company and provide some workable projects.

Right....

Let us cut through the scientific errors in how electrical power systems are presently viewed: Batteries and generators themselves do not power circuits. They never have, and they never will. They dissipate their available internal energy [[53]] to do one thing and one thing only: forcibly separate their own internal charges to form a "source dipole" [[54]]. Once the dipole has been formed, the dipole directly extracts electromagnetic energy from the active vacuum [[55]], pouring the extracted EM energy out from the terminals of the battery or generator.

Batteries and generators make a dipole, nothing else. All the fuel every burned, the nuclear fuel rods ever consumed, and chemical energy ever expended by batteries, did nothing but make dipoles. None of all that destructive activity, of itself, ever added a single watt to the power line.

Once made, the dipole then extracts EM energy from the seething vacuum, and pours it out down the circuit and through all surrounding space around the circuit [56]. A little bit of that energy flow strikes the circuit and enters it by being deflected (diverged) into the wires [57]. That tiny bit of intercepted energy flow that is diverged into the circuit, then powers the circuit (its loads and losses) [58].

All the rest of that huge energy flow around the circuit just roars on off into deep space and is wasted.
The Dipole Extracts Enormous Energy from the Vacuum

A Compilation of Briefing Papers Prepared For: The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

There is nothing new about any of these technologies which , once one actually becomes well enough informed to realise that, proves quite conclusively that suppression is on the order of the day, year, decade and sometimes century.

and then of course there's the ever present "i had the perpetuum mobile running but the govt took it and i lost the schematics" excuse. really? how can you forget how you built the most revolutionary device in the history of humanity?

We don't have to believe everything we read either and we definitely should not use the tricksters and fraud scams as evidence that there is nothing to a technology; should Bernard maddof's scam worth 65 billion dollars really be used to prove that there is nothing worth fighting for in a capitalist economic system? Hell it wasn't even a complex scam so doesn't that rather disprove how easily even educated people ( bernie's clients were mostly filthy rich) can be taken in with make believe stories about scientific 'laws' forbidding this that and whatever else?

my opinion is that any energy harvesting device (please stop calling them free energy!) has to be simple. look at the steam engine/generator, the electrical engine, any turbine, even a nuclear reactor (the experimental ones not the industrial ones) or solar cell.

I just don't think reality has to be inherently simple, logical ( no, i have not found one creation god or another to believe in) or even understandable. It certainly seems to be moving that way but you can't always tell considering all the theories the scientific establishment foists on a ignorant and innocent public. What i should perhaps ask is why it took so long for humanity to come up with steam engine's/generators if they were so simple to design or build? Do you have a engineering background?

if it's overly complicated or expensive to build a small demo device then it means it's a scam.

That must be the reason our first computers were the size of buildings; clearly this computer/IT technology stuff is just a clever scam. Admittedly these inventors should aim to make their devices as simple as possible but why should that be easy if the vast majority of them do not seem to understand where the energy is coming from? Why should inefficiency be proof that something is a scam when the history of science and engineering is literally filled with hopelessly inefficient devices and silly ridiculous 'principles' and 'laws'?

if after the device is built it's very complicated to get it audited independently, then it's a scam.

Logic that 'fails' so completely isn't a pretty sight.

heck even a 4th grader can build a small electric generator that lights a small bulb or LED powered by a water turbine with minimal adult supervision!

After 150 years of experimentation and design refinements, education systems and the general development of language and other means to facilitate such feats of engineering, yes. 4th graders and even much older people are also easily fooled by their preconceptions when the directions are not so clear:

Schlichting (1991) provided a striking example of how students do not see what actually is to be seen but what their conceptions allow them to see, so to speak. He presented the experimental setup shown in Figure 6 to a grade 10 class and asked where the thin wire starts glowing when the circuit is closed. There were three different predictions. (1) The wire will glow first at the left or the right side depending of the assumption of direction of current flow taken as current enters the wire there. (2) The wire will glow up First in the middle as two kinds of current (see above) will come together in the middle. (3) The wire will simultaneously glow up at all places (the correct view). After the prediction the experiment was carried out. Almost everybody saw what he or she expected.

www.physics.ohio-state.edu...

it's neither the banks nor the government or some shadow organization that keeps alternative energy from developing. it's just that nobody really got any of those devices to work and then replicate it independently in different labs.

And i am confident that you would have said this before the common electrical generator were designed as well. In fact radio communication isn't possible, metal ships can't float and heavier than air flight isn't possible.

And people wonder why science crawls forward at this pathetic pace.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
The environment will NEVER be controlled enough unless it yields negative results that allows the current energy paradigm to persist; that's the whole point of claiming that the environment was not 'controlled' enough. So much for observing reality impartially.

Really? That is your try? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I do not think you have any clue about the scientific method or even what a "controlled environment" is. It is nice that you have your links and names to drop but the only reason that you believe zero point energy is impossible, but this kind of explains exactly why.

As far as why it is impossible? Nothing can be created or destroyed, only transformed. So either you are doing work to make energy or it is not doing anything. Stop trying to sell Youtube and crappy little books.

You know what peer reviewed means dont you? You do not know controlled environment, so I have my doubts. If there is any confusion, let me know where I lost you. I would be happy to clarify.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by AnjeluvDeath

 

And Apparently you are freaking out for no good reason... I said skip that link if you can't get over that they are trying to make some money with the technology. Watch the other ones. You want more? Newtons 'laws'?:

Boyd Bushman:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Les Brown lecture:
www.youtube.com...

Why is it that when I agree with people, they see me as calm but when I do not agree, I am "freaking out?"

When did I freak out? I am just spreading the truth buddy. You tell me which of Newton's laws explain how you can gather energy with NO work. I guess I missed that lesson.

Originally posted by AnjeluvDeath
You tell me which of Newton's laws explain how you can gather energy with NO work.

You tell me why that is a valid or relevant question in a Zero Point Energy thread?

Do you have ANYTHING constructive to add to the topic?

reply to post by StellarX


Stellar, you're preaching the gospel to folks who already know the way things work. Or think they do.

It must have been a year and a half now that I held in my hand a Perfect Electret. It had been putting out power three years before I got my hands on it, and I'd short it out, and watch the meter rapidly spool up again. That one was the first generation, and there was a second and third generation also available.

Arie spoke with me the night before he was on his way to Europe to sign a European licensing agreement, and was found dead in the parking lot of the airport. It's odd how frequently things like this happen. Much too frequently.

Those most highly trained in the current theory of physics and electromagnetics, learned by rote, and that's all they understand. They don't understand the actual laws they argue.

That certain ignorance is precisely why we can't seem to advance our knowledge and get many of these technologies out the door and into the hands of industry.

Even when you physically show and prove what you have, these electromagnetic engineers and physicists shake their heads and claim - honest to God - "you have ghosts in your circuit."

So much for scientific testing and theory.

You're wasting your time arguing this here. Their minds are already made up, and even when you let them take their own measurements, validate their own results, since it disagrees with everything holy they already KNOW, then it's your fault, and some trick.

But they're too damned lazy to unlearn so that they can learn.

Patience.

It will happen, and they'll then all be saying, "I knew it all the time!"

Originally posted by AnjeluvDeath
Really? That is your try? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

That is the end of the beginning, yes. Should i quote Churchill in full?

I do not think you have any clue about the scientific method or even what a "controlled environment" is.

Well at least i will give you the benefit and presume that you actually know what it means. My point was not that such conditions can not be created but to suggest that this is a easy and ridiculous way way to disqualify every experiment that suggests that isn't presumed possible. It's much like the belief in god where the goal posts are always moved with those moving it in control of the 'standards' of proof.

It is nice that you have your links and names to drop but the only reason that you believe zero point energy is impossible, but this kind of explains exactly why.

You might want to retype that paragraph as it makes no sense. The reason i believe isn't so much because there isn't anything in science that suggests otherwise but because i have looked at enough well understood theory to see that large source of energy are simply written out of the standard equations for the sake of, originally, simplicity and then maintained to deceive.

As far as why it is impossible? Nothing can be created or destroyed, only transformed.

Who said anything was created or destroyed? Do you destroy the climate when you erect wind turbines? Do we cool the sun when we use solar cells? Do we slow down ocean currents or rivers when we build hydro plants? Why do people such as yourself wrongly presume anything is created or destroyed and then blame people who believe as i do for your misunderstanding/misrepresentation?

So either you are doing work to make energy or it is not doing anything. Stop trying to sell Youtube and crappy little books.

Beardens book was actually free; all nearly 1000 pages of it. Did you know that the Chinese people who popularized snake oil were in fact not lying as the snake used back in China could in fact alleviate much of claimed pains and ailments? Why presume that the snake oil doesn't work because your not informed enough to know which snake species we are discussing?

You know what peer reviewed means dont you? You do not know controlled environment, so I have my doubts.

Peer review is a process by which people who are trained at the same schools and institutions, from the same text books and by the same teachers keep each other from proving the text books, teachers and institutions wrong. The only reason why we have any progress at all is because text books don't last ( and are changed in reprints, sometimes to reflect the ideas of the newest consensus amongst the teachers), teachers die, and institutions change as their books and teachers do.

We most certainly don't have change because the system was set up to encourage it. Since i don't want to look like a complete fanatic i will admit that it has been and certainly could be far worse.

If there is any confusion, let me know where I lost you. I would be happy to clarify.

I am sure you will try and perhaps you might even find yourself learning a thing or two; you wont be the first.

Stellar

reply to post by AnjeluvDeath


You know, I understand all the concerns that you've been bringing up.

But I believe it's like dooper says. John Bedini for example has demonstrated his prototypes, in a "controlled" fashion, to plenty of "credible scientists". But many of them will still say "well this just can't be", even when they see it working for themselves.

Or, they are afraid of putting their careers and reputations on the line by speaking up for "Free Energy".

And the mainstream media is of course hesitant to cover any of this - unless it's in the context of a "Mythbusters hatchet-job" type deal.

So, folks in the new energy movement are forced to work around these problems. Form their own peer-review networks and third-party test agencies, etc etc.

There's still plenty of evidence that this is a valid science. Bearden's "MEG" is patented, Bedini already has his "Renaissance Charger" on the market and it's getting rave reviews. There are patents, there are independent replications, witness accounts, scientific articles, on and on and on.

Still don't want to believe it? Fine, but I don't really see the point of jumping into a thread such as this one and picking a fight with all the free energy believers.

SEAS has had several "devices" "to be revealed in a couple months" or "could be in production in less than a year" and "in current negotiation with the inventor"
for many years now. And though always willing to forecast the release of these new technologies loudly to anyone who would give them airtime for free, nothing at all has been forthcoming.
Caveat Emptor for those wishing to donate.

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
reply to post by AnjeluvDeath

 

You know, I understand all the concerns that you've been bringing up.

But I believe it's like dooper says. John Bedini for example has demonstrated his prototypes, in a "controlled" fashion, to plenty of "credible scientists". But many of them will still say "well this just can't be", even when they see it working for themselves.

Let me get this straight before I go any farther. You know that these scientists KNOW that it works, even though all they have actually stated is that it does not?

reply to post by AnjeluvDeath


I have seen footage of Bedini demonstrating his machines to scientists and engineers - you know, the "Energy From The Vacuum" series that you probably haven't even watched

Originally posted by StellarX

Well at least i will give you the benefit and presume that you actually know what it means. My point was not that such conditions can not be created but to suggest that this is a easy and ridiculous way way to disqualify every experiment that suggests that isn't presumed possible. It's much like the belief in god where the goal posts are always moved with those moving it in control of the 'standards' of proof.

No. Belief in God and Science are very different things. I scientific truth can be both replicated and correctly predicted. You have neither example.

You might want to retype that paragraph as it makes no sense. The reason i believe isn't so much because there isn't anything in science that suggests otherwise but because i have looked at enough well understood theory to see that large source of energy are simply written out of the standard equations for the sake of, originally, simplicity and then maintained to deceive.

I mean Possible and not IMPossible.
But have you ever seen it in practice and are you qualified to decide whether or not it was doing what it claimed?

Who said anything was created or destroyed? Do you destroy the climate when you erect wind turbines? Do we cool the sun when we use solar cells? Do we slow down ocean currents or rivers when we build hydro plants? Why do people such as yourself wrongly presume anything is created or destroyed and then blame people who believe as i do for your misunderstanding/misrepresentation?

The Laws of Physics
Because that is the defenition of Zero point energy. Perhaps you need some lessons.

Beardens book was actually free; all nearly 1000 pages of it. Did you know that the Chinese people who popularized snake oil were in fact not lying as the snake used back in China could in fact alleviate much of claimed pains and ailments? Why presume that the snake oil doesn't work because your not informed enough to know which snake species we are discussing?



Peer review is a process by which people who are trained at the same schools and institutions, from the same text books and by the same teachers keep each other from proving the text books, teachers and institutions wrong.

The only reason why we have any progress at all is because text books don't last ( and are changed in reprints, sometimes to reflect the ideas of the newest consensus amongst the teachers), teachers die, and institutions change as their books and teachers do.

We most certainly don't have change because the system was set up to encourage it. Since i don't want to look like a complete fanatic i will admit that it has been and certainly could be far worse.

If any of the above is true, then you should have no trouble convincing me with some evidence from somewhere. Maybe from that 'free' book.

I am sure you will try and perhaps you might even find yourself learning a thing or two; you wont be the first.

I would be happy to learn but first I need to understand how it is that it is so readily available and yet somehow mysteriously impossible to find or implement or replecate?


[edit on 29-3-2009 by AnjeluvDeath]

[edit on 29-3-2009 by AnjeluvDeath]

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
reply to post by AnjeluvDeath

 

I have seen footage of Bedini demonstrating his machines to scientists and engineers - you know, the "Energy From The Vacuum" series that you probably haven't even watched

Seen lots of footage of lots of things. Footage does not impress me about anything.

Yeah. About all that proof. Folks talk about "proof" and when you provide that very proof, they are so stunned, they still refuse to believe it.

They say it violates physics.

Not true.

Current physics, specifically EM physics, only has half the physics book to work from.

Based on this one-half of the book, they worded the laws of physics incorrectly. Thus they misinterpret the laws of physics. Because they only have half the available knowledge to base their laws on.

Maxwell's equations as taught in Universities is not Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's quaternions.

The ones taught in physics departments are butchered, simplified equations altered to reach equilibrium.

Thus they discount an entire universe of knowledge and understanding. And of course, capabilities.

They don't trust their own instruments. I've done this on another thread before, but let me say that today's instruments actually measure "losses."

What they call measured power, is actually measured loss.

Too bad.

Our brightest and most brilliant are the most blind and mistaken.



[edit on 29-3-2009 by dooper]

[edit on 29-3-2009 by dooper]

reply to post by dooper


and yet...there is no proof of any kind in any way, anwywhere.

reply to post by AnjeluvDeath

Oh, there's proof alright. John Bedini brought in a large, reputable forensic engineering team to test his work. To attempt to minimize negative influences of American physicists, he turned to the group who had traditionally defined pinnacle engineering: a German forensic engineering team.

They brought some of the finest German test equipment in existence. They tested and documented, tested more, documented their results, and tested and tested every way they could think of.

Finally they were finished.

John asked for them to certify their results. A natural request, since that was why they were brought in. Test, and then certify their findings.

Their response? "You have ghosts in your circuits." "This is impossible." "We cannot determine by any test how this energy gets from point A to point B." "It is impossible to transfer this amount of energy along these wires."

On and on.

Then the clincher: "We cannot certify the results. We would be the laughing stock of the scientific community, and our reputations would be ruined."

You want proof?

I really don't know what to tell you.

You can put one watt of power into the circuit, not be able to trace this transmission along the circuit, but at the target, you have 7,500 watts "appearing."

Thus the problem.

On the surface, it would appear to violate known, classical physics. But once you understand the mechanism, you realize that A) classical physics as stated is not accurate, and B) even then, it doesn't truly violate known, classical physics.

But it sure looks like it.

Thus the dilemma.

reply to post by AnjeluvDeath


I fear you will never gain any more knowledge, AnjeluvDeath, with your current line you have drawn:

'No. Belief in God and Science are very different things.'

When they call it the GOD particle, did you think they were joking???
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

How many words for various manifestations of aether do you want before you will accept that there is an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient substance that permeates ALL?

Akasa, Aether, Prana, Lifeforce, Zero Point Energy, Quantum Medium, Elan Vital(Vital Force), Unified Field, Torsion Field, Anima Mundi, Archeus, Gravity, Magnetism, Chi, Antusbyrum, Astral Light, Vril, Sidereal Light, Electricity, Orgone Energy, Soul of the World, Chaos(hence NWO occult 'order out of Chaos'), Proteus, Divine Intelligence, GOD, etc.

Please, Wake up. The separation of Science, Religion, and Philosophy can be no more.

P.S. This post should be dramatic when you understand truly what I am trying to say, unless of course you have already heard of all of these things, and researched what they are - then you can scrap this whole post.

reply to post by beebs


Would it make you feel better if I were to say that I just do not believe in the Christian god spken of in heaven? No tricks, I mean the good guy he ;oeve tp sjpw alost all fotyit


I believe conceit is a sin and so is pride so if you are excited about the responsetoy will glady toss at me since it is at the ready.... this way. Honna butn down mt neji=botd

[edit on 2-4-2009 by AnjeluvDeath]

[edit on 2-4-2009 by AnjeluvDeath]