How to Tap the Zero-Point Energy?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   
From the 10 page .pdf file "Zero Point Energy Tapping":


Ever since a celebrated authority on Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), Nobel Laureate physicist Richard Feynman, pointed out that according to QED there is enough energy in a vacuum volume the size of your cupped hands, to boil all the oceans on earth, people have been wondering if it will ever be possible to tap this inexhaustible source of free energy in a practically useful way.

. . . The first of Bohr’s mistakes can be rectified if one understands an “Electrostatic Mach’s Principle,” first published by Bass & Zes in a 1995 paper on Zero Point Fluctuations (ZPF), and a more recent paper by myself pointing out that this work had actually predicted several startling astrophysical discoveries which appeared on the front pages of national newspapers during 1998-2001, both of which papers are available on my website. . . .

However, the best way to understand how the ZPE can be tapped is to understand the abovementioned Electrostatic Mach’s Principle, which explains the ZPF of condensed matter.

Indeed, the best hope of ZPET consists of using some type of nonlinear condensed-matter circuit as a sort of “antenna” to convert ZPE into observable ZPFs which can be used to drive an electrical current by some kind of resonant interaction. . . .
edit on 11/08/13 by Mary Rose because: Substitution




posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Here is a 34 (short) page .pdf file, "Electron Entrapment - Free Energy."


. . . Planet Earth receives – or collects – electricity: in the form of charged particles (electrons), from the Sun all the time.

Most of this electricity arrives in a fairly steady stream that we call the Solar Wind.

There are times, however, when this electrical material/energy arrives in massive blasts. This happens when the Earth takes a direct hit from a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME): a huge cloud – which can weigh many millions of tons – of charged particles and super-heated gas.

Our focus here, though, is on the interaction between the electrons that arrive from the Sun and the Earth's magnetic field.

This is the model that we need to emulate.

Magnetism is the key. . . .



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


He claims that QEM is debunked, but I fail to see his work on the declaration. Do you? He also claims that the unlimited potential of zero point energy is in the casimir effect, which then goes on to reference nano tech.

Did you miss my Post?



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

This article is wrong about the date on the ZPE discovery. It started in 1912 Zero Point Energy: Planck Radiation Law



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Mary Rose
Here is a 34 (short) page .pdf file, "Electron Entrapment - Free Energy."


. . . Planet Earth receives – or collects – electricity: in the form of charged particles (electrons), from the Sun all the time.

Most of this electricity arrives in a fairly steady stream that we call the Solar Wind.

There are times, however, when this electrical material/energy arrives in massive blasts. This happens when the Earth takes a direct hit from a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME): a huge cloud – which can weigh many millions of tons – of charged particles and super-heated gas.

Our focus here, though, is on the interaction between the electrons that arrive from the Sun and the Earth's magnetic field.

This is the model that we need to emulate.

Magnetism is the key. . . .



Do you understand the difference between charge and current? No, obviously not. This is what con men count on.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 



To return to the subject of tapping the ZPE, the best illustration of ZPE is probably the Casimir Effect discussed in the Appendices below, where it can be predicted quantitatively with great precision strictly in terms of classical EM concepts augmented by probabilistic considerations as in the authoritative treatise on SED, The Quantum Dice, by de La Pena & Cetto.

Therefore the best way to understand the origin of ZPE in a rational, non-mystical, neo-classical manner is to study the abovementioned Electromagnetic Mach’s Principle.


QEM debunked? Please post the quote where he says that.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Mary Rose
From the 10 page .pdf file "Zero Point Energy Tapping":



Ever since a celebrated authority on Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), Nobel Laureate physicist Richard Feynman, pointed out that according to QED there is enough energy in a vacuum volume the size of your cupped hands, to boil all the oceans on earth, people have been wondering if it will ever be possible to tap this inexhaustible source of free energy in a practically useful way.
We have theoretical predictions, and actual measurements. Sometimes they agree, but sometimes they don't.

When they disagree, which should we assume is right? What the theory says the measurement should be? Or the measurement itself? Normally, it's the latter, unless we have something like the loose connector in the FTL neutrino measurement experiment at CERN.

So, if we go by the measurements instead of the theoretical predictions, vacuum energy is

about 6 × 10^-10 joules per cubic meter

To boil just one cup pf water takes 73048 Joules, which means you would need the vacuum energy from 121,746,666,666,667 cubic meters of space if you could extract 100% of the energy, which it's doubtful that even part of it can be extracted since it's already at the lowest energy state.

That's about 49 billion Olympic sized swimming pools of vacuum you'd need all the vacuum energy from to boil one cup of water, if you could even extract it which you probably can't! So much for boiling all the oceans on Earth.

The theoretical prediction cited in your quote is

based on somewhat naive theoretical calculations.


People who think measurements are wrong and naive theoretical calculations are right generally don't have their brain firing on all cylinders, especially when the discrepancy is so large. This isn't the teeny tiny discrepancy in the FTL neutrino experiment we're talking about here.
edit on 8-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Mary Rose
From the 10 page .pdf file "Zero Point Energy Tapping":



While I agree with many of the statements in such standard accounts as in the Appendices below, particularly the mathematical equations from Quantum Mechanics (QM) and QED referred to in such accounts, I dissent strongly from the standard physical interpretation of such equations, often referred to as the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM/QED.

For a documented popular exposition of my dissents, see my paper about the Big Bang on my website, wherein I not only advocate replacement of QM/QED by SM/SED [see below] but also advocate replacement of the conventional interpretations of Special & General Relativity (SR/GR) by more recently published neo-classical versions [e.g. by Lorentz & Ives, and by Wilson] which would be perfectly understandable by Euclid & Newton and would not require the reader’s “willing suspension of disbelief” in the sense of disregarding logical coherence and imagining that somehow reality is actually weird.


Here is the page for science links from his website: Science Articles



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by boncho
 



To return to the subject of tapping the ZPE, the best illustration of ZPE is probably the Casimir Effect discussed in the Appendices below, where it can be predicted quantitatively with great precision strictly in terms of classical EM concepts augmented by probabilistic considerations as in the authoritative treatise on SED, The Quantum Dice, by de La Pena & Cetto.

Therefore the best way to understand the origin of ZPE in a rational, non-mystical, neo-classical manner is to study the abovementioned Electromagnetic Mach’s Principle.


QEM debunked? Please post the quote where he says that.


Do you even read the stuff you post or do you just see words you don't understand and think it's really really smrt?



For a documented popular exposition of my dissents, see my paper about the Big Bang on my website, wherein I not only advocate replacement of QM/QED by SM/SED [see below] but also advocate replacement of the conventional interpretations of Special & General Relativity (SR/GR) by more recently published neo-classical versions [e.g. by Lorentz & Ives, and by Wilson] which would be perfectly understandable by Euclid & Newton and would not require the reader’s “willing suspension of disbelief” in the sense of disregarding logical coherence and imagining that somehow reality is actually weird.


Each model has strengths and understanding in different applications, to say that one "should be replaced" is kind of extreme isn't it, since there is no unifying theory yet?



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I could find no reference to "QEM." What does it stand for?



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   

will2learn
I have just flicked thru the pages on Bedini and fail to see where he has been 'debunked' for his free E devices. Just a lot of criticism of the process, his other projects (some very dubious), attacks on the proponent, but not much on the reason the device does not work well apart from the fact it shouldn't. Can you point to something specific about his free E device that proves it does not work?

I agree the idea seems absurd, but tapping the vacuum is possible, I've done it. A friend also bought one of Bedinis battery charger/enhancers and being a curious electrical engineer checked the claims. It wasn't a free e device, but certainly recovered spent batteries and improved the performance of new ones.
This is logically inconsistent.

"It wasn't a free e device"

"Can you point to something specific about his free E device that proves it does not work?"

I point to your own statement saying it wasn't a free e-device.

If you want something more specific than that, the obvious fallacy is the inability to "close the loop" and use the output to power the input and thus not only make it a self-runner, but also extract the "overunity" energy he tries to imply it generates. That is what proves it doesn't work, because if it did work, you'd be able to do that.

By the way you can buy battery conditioners for a tiny fraction of the $4000 or so he was selling those experimenter kits for.
edit on 8-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by boncho
 


I could find no reference to "QEM." What does it stand for?


If you don't know QEM or QM stands for, you should not be making these threads.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Tapping the zero point is simple. Create a strong vacuum in a stable container . This strong vacuum actually warps the very fabric of space. Anti-matter particles (which are around us constantly ie. Higgs Sea) then basically condense within the vacuum space. Next apply a pulsating spark catalyst. This causes the condensed anti-matter, to react to the catylst (normal matter). Result? Perfect annihilation. It's a matter/anti-matter reactor. I could theoretically build one with hardware store materials. Notice how outerspace is a super strong vacuum? All of outerspace is theoretically a giant zero-point chamber. All you would need is a craft capable of generating a electrical (meissner) field. The craft could then draw uppon an unlimited supply of energy. All the energy you could ever need exists all around you. It just has to be condensed, then agitated.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Arbitrageur

This is logically inconsistent.

"It wasn't a free e device"

"Can you point to something specific about his free E device that proves it does not work?"

I point to your own statement saying it wasn't a free e-device.

If you want something more specific than that, the obvious fallacy is the inability to "close the loop" and use the output to power the input and thus not only make it a self-runner, but also extract the "overunity" energy he tries to imply it generates. That is what proves it doesn't work, because if it did work, you'd be able to do that.

By the way you can buy battery conditioners for a tiny fraction of the $4000 or so he was selling those experimenter kits for.
edit on 8-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


The device that wasn't free e was a battery conditioner put out by Bedini it worked very well. Only costt 50$

The free e device is a passive crystal set, that whistling you get on the speaker is free e. Radio types try to avoid it. Seeing as one of these tuners will work in a vacuum I would say thats a free E device working on known principles. I am sure you have seen them. they are able to trickle charge batteries. Even the phone co.s are getting in on the act. These do not even need a primer battery.

I was more suspicious of Bedinis refusal to put his device in a Faraday cage

Will



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


There is no acronym "QEM."

You were wrong.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

will2learn
The free e device is a passive crystal set, that whistling you get on the speaker is free e. Radio types try to avoid it. Seeing as one of these tuners will work in a vacuum .....

I was more suspicious of Bedinis refusal to put his device in a Faraday cage
You are right to be suspicious of that.

Put it in a vacuum inside a Faraday cage and you get nothing, so you really have to be careful about claiming it "works in a vacuum", because in that case it doesn't work in a vacuum, so it's got nothing to do with vacuum or zero-point energy.

It's a radio receiver, right?



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Only on the first page of this thread, but, "Every new idea is first ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and finally it is accepted as common sense." Just a little quote I remembered while reading naysayers posts, while the op may or may not have any truth to it open discussion is always important, some people come up with great ideas from discussing things that may or may not be true.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by boncho
 


There is no acronym "QEM."

You were wrong.


Typo, QED and QM. I have only been giving this thread passing attention, a follow up post I quoted QED/QM, which should have been obvious. As I said, typo, read my signature, similar things happen with acronyms too.

QED


Quantum electrodynamics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantum field theory

v t e
In particle physics, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. In essence, it describes how light and matter interact and is the first theory where full agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity is achieved. QED mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism giving a complete account of matter and light interaction.
In technical terms, QED can be described as a perturbation theory of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. Richard Feynman called it "the jewel of physics" for its extremely accurate predictions of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen.[1]


en.wikipedia.org...

QM


Quantum mechanics (QM – also known as quantum physics, or quantum theory) is a branch of physics which deals with physical phenomena at microscopic scales, where the action is on the order of the Planck constant. Quantum mechanics departs from classical mechanics primarily at the quantum realm of atomic and subatomic length scales. Quantum mechanics provides a mathematical description of much of the dual particle-like and wave-like behavior and interactions of energy and matter. Quantum mechanics is the non-relativistic limit of Quantum Field Theory (QFT), a theory that was developed later that combined Quantum Mechanics with Relativity.


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 8-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Arbitrageur


If you want something more specific than that, the obvious fallacy is the inability to "close the loop" and use the output to power the input and thus not only make it a self-runner, but also extract the "overunity" energy he tries to imply it generates. That is what proves it doesn't work, because if it did work, you'd be able to do that.



Over unity devices do exist. But when you achieve over unity, you are breaking
the law of conservation of energy, and playing with time, and no one knows, what is
the equal and opposite reaction to playing with time.

Cheers



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


Paul Babcock talked about beatings he's taken from the academics over things he is able to do:






new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join