Matyas, it does seem I am mistaken about that, but even when they did manage to get the propper vacuum, the thing spun slower then it did in air. Even if its free energy, 1 turn every 2-3 hours is not going to cut it unless it has massive torque, but it is a big step if the right people see it and accept it.

Page 55 and 56 are the 2 I'm talking about.

So has any credible physicist looked over this yet? i know its not been long for a deep analysis but if someone on ATS has skimmed through it and could give some quick thoughts it would be great for the less scientific minds on ATS

Originally posted by Angus123
Forgive my ignorance on this subject, but does this mean he has gone public with a way to get energy from "nothing"? I've heard that others that have worked in this field with success have been harassed and even murdered by TPTB.

It could end our economic and social ills on a planetary scale if true.

No, it does not mean energy from nothing. Zero Point energy simply means to harness the infinite amount of energy contained in a vacuum.

Originally posted by Solomons
So has any credible physicist looked over this yet? i know its not been long for a deep analysis but if someone on ATS has skimmed through it and could give some quick thoughts it would be great for the less scientific minds on ATS

For my mind, i say that Matyas' opinion is very valid. I have sent this to "my peeps" to see what they have to say.

Very Interesting indeed,

However very very early days with this research, and please read the article anyone who is imagining, or stating they are going to make this themselves at home, or that they will see large industrialisation of it...

The home bit, unless you are into Liquid Nitrogen and very very very good at engineering, it is ridiculously difficult and unsafe to try and cool rotar fans with liquid nitrogen without a proper set up and a real understanding of what you are doing, maths wise and engineering wise.

The results show a very chaotic response or conversion from the Vacuum Energy translation into mechanical.

Also the actual energy liberated or over unity of the system is EXTREMELY small.

As pointed out in the paper this could be down to the chaotic nature of the energy source, or the engineering of the system trying to convert or capture as such this energy, it seems to be either way as likely for both at the moment.

I do beleive the Prof has actually tapped into this in very small way as one part of the Paper jumps out at me:

The tests have not been quantitative. In some cases
rotations have been observed, which normally starts rather speedy (this means with a large torque indicating a large field strength) and also ended rather abruptly.

P 82.

However if the good Prof can actually prove the non gas ion (in our physical normal world) interaction on the rotars not adding to the movement generated, then maybe the first real Over Unity (in public domain) device has been created.

Even if using say Solar or such like sources of energy to aid or actually cool the rotars etc, then even if Over Unity would not be successfull, a renewable, clean and abundant free as such energy input would then facilitate a good energy output of clean free and ever lasting energy...

I hope he and others in the field can take this initial research and over many years as it would be at this stage sort out the engineering, output raitios and stability of such devices to craete what we all dream of.

Kind Regards

Elf.

Originally posted by Solomons
So has any credible physicist looked over this yet? i know its not been long for a deep analysis but if someone on ATS has skimmed through it and could give some quick thoughts it would be great for the less scientific minds on ATS

Yes this is what I was thinking as well. ATS needs some physics and engineering experts that they can consult for situations like this.

Waiting to see what bigfatfurrytexan's "peeps" have to say with keen interest....

I'm going through this fairly slowly; I'm read up to the end of section 2.2 so far. At that point, as long as all of the author's assumptions are correct, it looks fine. Certainly all his mathematics seems to check out. I'm not sure where equation 1.17 came from, though, but I think that's a fault on my end. At this point, I'd venture to say that it's all correct as far as I have read to, as long as the author is correct that electric fields propagate at light speed rather than infinitely fast.

I do have an electrical engineering degree, but I'm not currently working and I don't have a professional designation (P.Eng in Canada) if my credentials are important to anyone.

The torque squares with diameter.

Meaning a massive rotor would have massive torque.

However there is a very real practical limit to scaling for both size and liteness. At some point reached very quickly it falls apart because it is too lite. Or if it is more massive, you loose too much power to mechanical energy of moving the weight as opposed to getting that energy as output.

However if you rotated a massive magnetic assembly inside a coil, you extract that energy via electrical generation. I suspect from his description that a coil around his test designs would generate electricity, presuming that it did not somehow break the design.

The test of magnetic material would be the logical next choice. If a coil proved to be a viable addition.

nice find. When the world finally evolves from gas powered primitive overdressed overpriced rolling machines, we can say we climbed that mountain and then some.

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
I'm not sure where equation 1.17 came from, though, but I think that's a fault on my end. At this point, I'd venture to say that it's all correct as far as I have read to, as long as the author is correct that electric fields propagate at light speed rather than infinitely fast.

1.17 is simple
Magnetic energy density u=1/2 B(dot)H (dot mean scalar product)
and if B=mu*H, then u=1/2 * mu * H^2, then put Ampere law 1.16 there ant it is.

I read a little into the paper and quickly build a fast primitive model at home with some aluminium and a 4kV source that I have build my self at home once.

The parts I read in the paper was the Energy consideration of the spheres which looks good but doesnt really say a lot except that you have less energy in the outer sphere that was to expect.
This is electrotechnic.

The second part I read was about the rotor and how this should get a force on the blades that cause it to rotate.
This part looks rather mystical or all wrong to me from a electrotechnical sight. But I am no more that deep into the field so others that still are should check that out.

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
The results show a very chaotic response or conversion from the Vacuum Energy translation into mechanical.

The tests have not been quantitative. In some cases
rotations have been observed, which normally starts rather speedy (this means with a large torque indicating a large field strength) and also ended rather abruptly.

P 82.

This I observed and that makes me sceptical. I also saw it rotate into BOTH directions! I can't explain this chaotic behaviour myself. However it was also often simple stuck and doesnt move at all.

Also the actual energy liberated or over unity of the system is EXTREMELY small.

Let's say so. From my Observation of the model that I build: The actual force that shall rotate it is considerable extremly weak compared with the attraction force of the rotor to the upper pole which makes it very difficutl to mount it in a stable way. Next any wind influence seems to have a stronger impact than that force.

Considering his explanation of the force caused by columb the force for rotation and the attracting force to the top oltage pole shouldnt be that different if the rotaor blades are 45 degree. Yet I observed a magnitute in difference. That again makes me believe he is wrong with his explanation how it should get to rotate and that the force that should drive the rotor does not exists or is caused from something completly different.

As I say I only build a very wuick primitive model. If you really want to know what's happening you would have to build this more serious.

Anyhow my result. Tt is an interesting paper where someone sure put a lot effort into it. I like that.

Heh, must've been tired. Went back to look at it again, and it seems straightforward now, so much that I went and scrolled around to see if I typoed the 1.17!

Would it be possible to post a summary of important information with quotes from the document for people who don't have the time to read through it? Or is this against the TOS?

Edit - There's so much good information there it would only make sense to read it directly from the document.






[edit on 25-6-2009 by DarkCyrus]

Ok, I've read up to and including section 3.3 now. I took a note of the assumptions that the author has made so far in his work. Some are widely accepted by the scientific community, others are more questionable.

-that AC and DC electromagnetic fields propagate at light speed
-that generally accepted basic physics such as Coulomb's Law, Gauss's Law, etc, are correct
-that quantum mechanics and relativity are correct
-that the vacuum is supplying the (proposed) energy difference to the particle
-that permanent magnets emit permanent field energy
-that zero point vacuum oscillations display the same behaviour as other waves
-that quantum electrodynamical corrections such as vacuum polarisation do not only occur with photons but also with zero point oscillations
-that the particles of vacuum polarisation do not follow the propagation of the field and so they can distribute their energy all over the space
-that electromagnetic waves slow down in electromagnetic fields as compared to vacuum and that zero point oscillations also do so (basically the same as the point 3 lines above)
-that the alteration of the energy of the zero point oscillations in electromagnetic fields should be sufficient to explain the energy of those fields

He's starting to talk about some stuff that I'm not familiar with, like birefringence, and in particular I do not understand how he got to eq 1.39, so I am not sure if that is valid or not without a lot of research. Mathematically, I can follow what he did except the very last step (putting 1.35 into 1.39) but I don't know whether all of his reasoning in doing that is sound.

I'll keep reading again in a day or two. It's fascinating stuff, though whether it has any potential to do anything I cannot say until I have gone through it all.

Originally posted by MischeviousElf

I tend to agree with you, and as stated this is interesting may be the first signs of an actual energy translation from dark or true vacuum latent energy to mechanistic process but many many years of research are needed.

Errm, hasn't Bedini et al been demonstrating an energy translation from vaccuum energy to mechanistic process for years via his monopole motors?

I posted results of my little SSG experiment in the thread in my sig (last page).

OK, so the German scientist has put all the maths/physics (theory) in his report, but why does that make it more 'real' than all the physical demonstrations out there?

Hey, I'm a nobody, with no high-brow electronics/maths/physics training, but I managed to re-create the SSG experiment over a weekend in my garage. It certainly appears from my limited perception to tap zero point energy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fervent FE believer and advocator, and am excited that the theoretical scientists may now have something to chew on and work with, but am I missing something here??!??

[edit on 26/6/09 by RogerT]