It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Yup, some big company will buy the patent or get the licensing and then bury the whole project.
Leave it in limbo like they have all the other alternative energy folk.
Every Energy Company in the world has pure, renewable free energy on a shelf somewhere...
~Keeper
Originally posted by cupocoffee
Originally posted by Crazy Man Michael
I see you're quoting from the Tom Bearden website, where he's quoting from "J. A. Wheeler and C. Misner, Geometrodynamics, Academic Press, New York, 1962." A 48 year old book is his reputable source for this data?
Yep. Wheeler was a thoroughly credible physicist, look it up. And physicists like him have been openly writing about absolutely staggering amounts of energy in the vacuum in physics texts for at least 50 years.
So all those who routinely claim that it's "impossible" clearly haven't gone and read the relevant physics texts
Originally posted by cupocoffee
Yep. Wheeler was a thoroughly credible physicist, look it up.
And physicists like him have been openly writing about absolutely staggering amounts of energy in the vacuum in physics texts for at least 50 years.
So all those who routinely claim that it's "impossible" clearly haven't gone and read the relevant physics texts
I have heard widely varying numbers for so called "zero point energy", some as low as practically zero and some as high as astronomical.
So, when you ask about the energy density of the vacuum, you get different answers depending on whether the person answering you is basing their answer on general relativity or quantum field theory.
The moral is: for a question like this, you need to know not just the answer but also the assumptions and reasoning that went into the answer. Otherwise you can't make sense of why different people give different answers.
the laws of thermodynamics still apply: one needs a *lower* energy and higher-entropy state for matter to exist in so that one can extract useful work, which is what we all care about in making a power plant. The zero-point is precisely that---the bottom---and there's nowhere lower to go.
... we have observed no evidence of its effect or existence in any astrophysical system, which can explore natural conditions far more extreme than what humans can generate.
Therefore we must come to the likely conclusion that the formal calculation is wrong or naive, being a simplistic theory prior to our full unification of quantum mechanics with relativity
Your question seems to imply that the classical laws of physics apply in the quantum world when obviously, they don't. We use quantum mechanics to describe the quantum world and classical Einstein-Newtonian physics to describe the macro world. We have yet to develop a unification theory to tie them together.
Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by
Hmm so since we in the world of matter are so completely unable to access that mind-bogglingly vast amount of ZPE, or vacuum energy, then can you explain how it is that all particles in all matter everywhere are in a constant state of spin - ie perpetual motion, which is supposed to be impossible? Where do all particles in all matter everywhere get their energy from in the first place?
And can you also explain where permanent magnets get their energy from, like the energy to cause a piece of metal on the ground to defy the force of gravity and jump right up into the air?
Oh and where does all electrical current everywhere come from?
Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by mbkennel
Hmm so since we in the world of matter are so completely unable to access that mind-bogglingly vast amount of ZPE, or vacuum energy, then can you explain how it is that all particles in all matter everywhere are in a constant state of spin - ie perpetual motion, which is supposed to be impossible?
Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by buddhasystem
But where do all particles get their energy from?
Where does all electrical current come from?
Originally posted by thedarktower
reply to post by CHA0S
you are using the big bang as an example of how this guys machine "creates" energy? Are you serious? If so, please elaborate. Using your theory on the big bang, show me how this knowledge proves the ability that a machine can and does create energy out of nothing. I am all for free energy, I understand how the theory of the big bang goes, but this machine does not create energy from nothing. No machine can. If you care to explain, in simple English, how this machine apparently does this, I would like to hear
Originally posted by Amagnon
If perpetual motion did not exist - the universe would instantly collapse leaving nothing behind.
Electrons constantly move, exhibit a constant charge - they never run out of batteries - where does their energy come from?
Fields ARE energy - they constantly renew the energy within themselves, not matter how much energy is 'taken out'.
These devices are real - they simply tap fields for work using switching - it should not be difficult to understand. If you could switch gravity on and off. like you can a magnetic field, then you would be hard pressed to deny the obvious.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Amagnon
If perpetual motion did not exist - the universe would instantly collapse leaving nothing behind.
In the context of motors and generators, "perpetual" really means producing energy perpetually, not just moving perpetually. You can put a gyroscope on magnetic bearings in a vacuum chamber and it will spin for quite a while, a good approximation of "perpetual". However if you want to tap this rotational energy source, it will slow down. I think it's pretty simple.
Then try thinking, you are discussing free electrons - I am discussing electrons bound to an atom.
Electrons constantly move, exhibit a constant charge - they never run out of batteries - where does their energy come from?
Electrons can move at different velocities, including rather low velocities. They can be accelerated and decelerated. I don't see your point.
Fields ARE energy - they constantly renew the energy within themselves, not matter how much energy is 'taken out'.
That is demonstrably false. When the Sun heats your umbrella, the surface of the umbrella gets hot. In the shade the umbrella produces, the energy density is much lower (and hence it feels cooler).
If there is discharge between two object originally having different potential, it's the electric field that does the firework. Its energy is spent in the process.
These devices are real - they simply tap fields for work using switching - it should not be difficult to understand. If you could switch gravity on and off. like you can a magnetic field, then you would be hard pressed to deny the obvious.
Laws of thermodynamics are there for a reason.
Originally posted by Amagnon
Yes, they have their place - but they do not apply to fields - no matter how much stuff falls to earth, no matter how many things are under acceleration due to gravity - it remains constant. Imagine what we could do if we could switch it on and off, and reverse it or change its vector at will - we can do all those things with magnets, and their field strength exceeds gravity.
Originally posted by Amagnon
What does sunlight have to do with a field? Sunlight is radiation - not a field, radiation is just energy
Electromagnetic radiation (often abbreviated E-M radiation or EMR) is a phenomenon that takes the form of self-propagating waves in a vacuum or in matter. It comprises electric and magnetic field components
A field is totally different - take gravity for instance - it moves anything that is 'up' to the 'down' position - but the field remains the same - it doesn't lose energy by doing that work.
An electromagnetic field, such as that produced by a permanent magnet, can be used to do work over and over again. You can pick up paper clips all day - it wont wear it out.
If there is discharge between two object originally having different potential, it's the electric field that does the firework. Its energy is spent in the process.
As far as standard science goes - it will tell you that a discharge is a transfer of electrons - so, again the field would have nothing to do with the energy moved or consumed by a discharge. The field is simply a side effect of a charge existing, it doesn't play any part in this kind of energy transfer.