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.

 

There is PLENTY of evidence of ZPE in action

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by just an allusion
Alright, so by "ZPE" we're referring to a Zero Point Energy system wherein the irreducible minimum energy possessed by a physical system is either equal to or greater than the amount of input energy required for it to function, you know, wherein the work product exceeds the amount of work required for it to work, and not so much a matter of a particular substance, object, or configuration of substances or objects, that generate a form of energy without any apparent outside influence or instigation ...Agreed?



Alright, now that we've bantered the terminology about a bit, allow me to provide a clarification of my take on "ZPE"...

Anyone here ever hear of the ITER? Or, perhaps, the toroidal coil Tokamak reactor?:

www.iter.org...

What the eventual purpose of this project is is to generate an energy output greater than that initially required to enable it, thereby canceling out the initial input power requirements by neutralizing them with a power output first equivalent to ("balanced"), then greater than ("zeroed"), the initial input which is, as I tried to explain in my quoted post above, my concept of "Zero Point Energy".

Here's a larger image:

www.iter.org...
(If you look at the image close enough, you'll see the woman pleading with me to come in and clean up for dinner, and me begging for just a little more time, lol!)




posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DutchBigBoy
All the big corporations who make money with selling energy in various ways like oil companies do hold back the technology. They will not want their income to get lost.

[edit on 5-7-2010 by DutchBigBoy]


That's total baloney.

The U.S. Army, Airforce & Navy spend tons of money dealing with fuel logistics. They would love to get rid of it all.
General Electric, Westinghouse, Toshiba, Siemens, Honeywell, L3, Lockheed, Boeing and SAIC would dream to design, sell, and service these new "free energy" devices.

It would be stupendously profitable, and together they are more important than the oil companies. Remember that now, 90% of the planet's remaining oil is owned by nationalized petroleum companies from places that capitalists are not fond of.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
On the basis of ZPE = Vacuum Energy... this new article may be of interest to some:

"Neutron Stars Are Doomed if Vacuum Energy Goes Wild"
www.space.com...

In the article is stated:
"What is often thought of as the empty vacuum of space is actually filled with ghostly energy and virtual particles wavering in and out of existence, a bizarre prediction of quantum theory that numerous experiments have proven true."



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
First of all, my research in electromagnetics, gravity, & 'free' energy (free meaning you don't have to pay for it, or use any hydrocarbon fuel) goes back 30 years.


Cool, you've researched electromagnetics. Could I ask you a few questions?

1) If you have an infinite plane of charge, how does the electric field vary with distance?
2) What is the curl of the vector potential A?
3) Can I perform work on a charged particle with only a static magnetic field?
edit on 20-10-2010 by imnotbncre8ive because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Larryman
On the basis of ZPE = Vacuum Energy... this new article may be of interest to some:

"Neutron Stars Are Doomed if Vacuum Energy Goes Wild"
www.space.com...

In the article is stated:
"What is often thought of as the empty vacuum of space is actually filled with ghostly energy and virtual particles wavering in and out of existence, a bizarre prediction of quantum theory that numerous experiments have proven true."


On the basis of ZPE = Ether (Aether)... this new article may be of interest to some:

"Constant change: Are there no universal laws?"
www.newscientist.com...

In the article is stated:
"That might mean resurrecting the ether, the substance once thought to permeate all of space before Einstein abolished it over a century ago, ..."


So, my guess is: Zero Point Energy = Vacuum Field Energy = Ether. But does ZPE also = Quantum entanglement field too - for a FTL communications mechanism?



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by imnotbncre8ive
 


Answering your questions;
1) the field varies infinitely with distance (of course you will never get an infinite charge because it will leak away to ares of lesser charge.
2) Vector A does not have a curl component, B does, this will be at a tangent to the vector A, being 90 deg.
3) Only if the particle is moving. Of course you can set it moving by varying mag field intensity (delta B)-and you can accelerate them almost to c.(particle beam weapons)
Maxwell clearly made the distinction between vector & scalar fields, a vector is composed of magnitude (power component) and direction (information component). A scalar field may be composed of magnitude & 3 dimensions phi, theta and radius-representing a 3d point in space. A scalar may also have n extra dimensions, not direction related, but still regarded as 'information' functions. How about Q? Is it really connected to the mass of a particle? Spin is also important, making field theory the most complex subject there is, no, i am not an 'expert' but i have made plenty of observations that show gaping holes in classical physics.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Larryman
 


Exactly, i've been saying this for ages. Thanks for the link, i must have hundreds of papers like this



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by The Cusp
 


You will find you can pause the video and read the documents.
They state very clearly what ZPE is, where it comes from, & why it's being supressed. I also stated that most 'free energy' devices are faked, but the ones that actually work receive the most criticism, i also explained why.
The mathematical proof is there, so is the physical evidence.
I also know why some inventors meet with 'accidents' & why others don't.
Aspden & others explain how 'overunity' is not breaking any physical laws, Bearden's theory of 'engineering reality itself' is not as crazy as it seems.
It is clear that conventional EM theory is in a bad way.
What makes ME angry is that we should have had this technology 100 years ago


Conventional EM is a lopped off half of the story. "Maxwell's" Equations, as taught today, are really Heaviside/Briggs truncations of Maxwell's quaternions - and eliminate fully half of what Maxwell put forth. It is in the whole that it becomes clear why so much is "unexplained" or "impossible" by today's science. The whole explains things so much better and offers far more options.

I, too, am furious that we don't have free energy, floating cars and houses, Jetson backpacks, and other marvels. Electrogravitics, sucked into black ops in the late 1950's, would have given us all that.

Thanks for the marvelous thread!



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by DutchBigBoy
All the big corporations who make money with selling energy in various ways like oil companies do hold back the technology. They will not want their income to get lost.

[edit on 5-7-2010 by DutchBigBoy]


That's total baloney.

The U.S. Army, Airforce & Navy spend tons of money dealing with fuel logistics. They would love to get rid of it all.
General Electric, Westinghouse, Toshiba, Siemens, Honeywell, L3, Lockheed, Boeing and SAIC would dream to design, sell, and service these new "free energy" devices.

It would be stupendously profitable, and together they are more important than the oil companies. Remember that now, 90% of the planet's remaining oil is owned by nationalized petroleum companies from places that capitalists are not fond of.


Not so. Free energy would eliminate the need for money, freeing Humanity in autonomous power over self, and eliminating power over others. Ergo, the present power elite will do anything to keep it suppressed. Read The End of Entropy linked in my sig.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
very interesting concept of zpe and/or free energy type theory. certainly, letters or calls from government agents would dissuade me certainly. i would propose that the government is already setting up or in the process of setting up such devices already. with any new forms of energy creation devices, the set up is initially laborious and set up money is high. the argument has always been the time and resources needed to set up new ways of producing energy outweigh the cost of the energy itself. unless of course, there are nuclear accidents which suddenly arise which force the world community to actively look for alternative energy, like right away. as far fetched as it sounds, it reminds me of the republic's clone army, which suddenly becomes available, just when needed, in a galaxy far far away.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


Yes I think at the very least people need to stop calling it zero point energy if they expect to be able to get any energy out of it.

On the other hand, it saves me a lot of time researching ideas from ignorant people when they claim that they can extract energy from something that by definition is already at its lowest possible energy state:

Zero-point energy


Zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have and is the energy of the ground state...

The discovery of zero point energy did not alter the implausibility of perpetual motion machines. Much attention has been given to reputable science suggesting that zero point energy is infinite, but zero point energy is a minimum energy below which a thermodynamic system can never go, thus none of this energy can be withdrawn....
You can read the rest of the explanation at the link.

By the way we've already built the "Atmos clock" runs with no batteries or winding and extracts its energy from thin air without violating the laws of physics, so why are people so intent on trying to violate the laws of physics to extract energy, when we can extract energy from thin air without violating the laws of physics?

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Arbitrageur]


Well to be fair, Robert Forward showed that in principle, it is possible to extract energy from the vacuum, but the real question is whether or not you can extract any useful energy from the vacuum.

This paper describes his thought experiment well enough.

But undoubtedly the biggest question in relation to the quantum vacuum is how much energy is there. As I mentioned in another thread, GR states that if the energy density of the vacuum was really as large as some claim, then the universe would crumple into a tiny ball. So according to GR, there should be either zero or close to zero vacuum energy. Considering GR's success, it's a safe bet that there's little of it. However, the energy density of the vacuum is still a highly debated topic in physics and by no means resolved.

"What's the energy density of the vacuum?"


edit on 15-3-2011 by GeeGee because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2011 by GeeGee because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2011 by GeeGee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeeGee

Well to be fair, Robert Forward showed that in principle, it is possible to extract energy from the vacuum, but the real question is whether or not you can extract any useful energy from the vacuum.

This paper describes his thought experiment well enough.

But undoubtedly the biggest question in relation to the quantum vacuum is how much energy is there. As I mentioned in another thread, GR states that if the energy density of the vacuum was really as large as some claim, then the universe would crumple into a tiny ball. So according to GR, there should be either zero or close to zero vacuum energy. Considering GR's success, it's a safe bet that there's little of it. However, the energy density of the vacuum is still a highly debated topic in physics and by no means resolved.

"What's the energy density of the vacuum?"


I think it is fair to say there is a great deal of energy - the whole universe is accelerating in its expansion from it, after all. And how can you extract energy that is useless? That has me scratching my head.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu


I think it is fair to say there is a great deal of energy - the whole universe is accelerating in its expansion from it, after all. And how can you extract energy that is useless? That has me scratching my head.


It's stated in the paper I linked:


However, if one is considering a net cyclical process on the basis of, say, the Casimir Effect, then energy would not be able to be continually extracted without a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Thus, Forward’s process cannot be cycled to yield a continuous extraction of energy. Here, the recharging of the battery would, owing to frictional and other losses, require more energy than is gained from the ZPF. There is no useful engine cycle in this process; nonetheless, the plate-contraction phase of the cycle does demonstrate the ability to cause “extraction” of energy from the ZPF. It does reflect work done by the ZPF on matter.


It takes the same amount of energy to pull the plates apart because the casimir force is conservative. Some researchers (Fabrizio Pinto) claim the casimir force can be rendered non-conservative if you alter one or more of the physical properties affecting the casimir force, but I can't comment on the validity of this. He (Pinto) has a couple of published papers in the Physical Review Letters, but nothing that convinces me that it's possible to extract useful energy from the vacuum, assuming the vacuum energy density is as enormous as some claim it to be.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GeeGee
 


My issue with the link you offer is that Einstein's work was based in large part on "Maxwell's" equations, which are really Heaviside/Briggs truncations of Maxwell's quaternions. This truncation threw out precisely half of what Maxwell described. It is no wonder that there is so much unexplained. And the assessments made in that article all bring up Einstein's work.

Tom Bearden, who has a grasp of the quaternions, is likely a better source - and HE says that there is plenty of energy to be had.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Exactly.
I have read several papers from Bearden, Aspden & others, that support this.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by imnotbncre8ive
 


Answering your questions;
1) the field varies infinitely with distance (of course you will never get an infinite charge because it will leak away to ares of lesser charge.
2) Vector A does not have a curl component, B does, this will be at a tangent to the vector A, being 90 deg.
3) Only if the particle is moving. Of course you can set it moving by varying mag field intensity (delta B)-and you can accelerate them almost to c.(particle beam weapons)
Maxwell clearly made the distinction between vector & scalar fields, a vector is composed of magnitude (power component) and direction (information component). A scalar field may be composed of magnitude & 3 dimensions phi, theta and radius-representing a 3d point in space.


In actual classical physics, the answers are

1) uniform magnitude, direction perpendicular to the sheet of charge
2) the magnetic field is the curl of the vector potential
3) no. Varying magnetic field intensity is not a 'static field'.


A scalar may also have n extra dimensions, not direction related, but still regarded as 'information' functions.


Then it isn't a scalar any more, now is it?


How about Q? Is it really connected to the mass of a particle? Spin is also important, making field theory the most complex subject there is, no, i am not an 'expert' but i have made plenty of observations that show gaping holes in classical physics.


Indeed, you have filled some much needed gaps in the literature.


assuming the vacuum energy density is as enormous as some claim it to be.


I see no experimental or observational evidence that it so (like, of course, gravitation!) and thus conclude that the computation which seems to generate an enormous energy density must be erroneous or misleading.


edit on 26-3-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by DutchBigBoy
All the big corporations who make money with selling energy in various ways like oil companies do hold back the technology. They will not want their income to get lost.

[edit on 5-7-2010 by DutchBigBoy]


That's total baloney.

The U.S. Army, Airforce & Navy spend tons of money dealing with fuel logistics. They would love to get rid of it all.
General Electric, Westinghouse, Toshiba, Siemens, Honeywell, L3, Lockheed, Boeing and SAIC would dream to design, sell, and service these new "free energy" devices.

It would be stupendously profitable, and together they are more important than the oil companies. Remember that now, 90% of the planet's remaining oil is owned by nationalized petroleum companies from places that capitalists are not fond of.


Not so. Free energy would eliminate the need for money, freeing Humanity in autonomous power over self, and eliminating power over others. Ergo, the present power elite will do anything to keep it suppressed. Read The End of Entropy linked in my sig.


"Free" energy would never be any more "free" than solar panels are $0. Funny that they cost money and resources and are an ordinary engineering problem even though nobody has to pay for the fuel.

It's like thinking that the power elite would suppress petroleum (the then powerful-cheap energy) in Texas in 1900 because it meant that the plebians could get around faster than on horses. In fact, the actual power elite, e.g. J.D. Rockefeller, exploited it as fast as humanly possible.

Technology is not going to change human nature.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by GeeGee
 


My issue with the link you offer is that Einstein's work was based in large part on "Maxwell's" equations, which are really Heaviside/Briggs truncations of Maxwell's quaternions. This truncation threw out precisely half of what Maxwell described. It is no wonder that there is so much unexplained. And the assessments made in that article all bring up Einstein's work.


Screw the theory---what experimental phenomena are consistently observed which are missing from the Heaviside/Briggs 'truncations'?

I personally believe the answer to be "none". Remember to consider things like thermodynamics of photon gases where you have to count up all degrees of freedom.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Infolded Whittaker potentials. Read Tom Bearden's Gravitobiology. I had a link where you can read it online, but can't find it at the moment,



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


1. I do not believe the 'classical physics' model to be in any way complete, or even accurate.
Sure, it works as an everyday 'rule of thumb' just like a carpenter can cut a 6" piece of wood without even stopping to measure it & he will be more or less right.
2. A carpenter who cuts a piece exactly 149 millimeters long, because he knows the wood will expand & contract, will leave just the right amount of space. Because he knows that the material he is working with is not constant.
3. I am not a mathematician, i use formulae in my everyday work & i avoid those formulas that give rise to errors because they are based on assumtion or old data, rather than observation.
I like to break things down into their relevant dimensions;



As Dirac stated;

media.abovetopsecret.com... hmachines/&action=view&id=172906
I am not interested in esoteric theory unless that it can to be supported by observable facts.
I have tested many theories, and am one of the best debunkers of my own work, i have repeatedly observed that it is possible to extract this 'vacuum energy' or call it what you will. It exists.
The 'classical' physicists are in a real frenzy trying to explain it, they can't.
First it was 'dark matter' then it was 'superstrings' then 'dark energy' (closer to the mark) and have they found the Higgs boson yet? Higg's field theory is remarkably similar to modern aether theory

Don't take my word for it, read this;
media.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 30-3-2011 by playswithmachines because: Pic was too big




new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join