How to Tap the Zero-Point Energy?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Heck, couldn't do any justice to the video. both
these guys turn my stomach.
But just curious if they have any working free energy device?

Angelic Resurrection
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.

In some sense one could say the sun is overunity in that there's more power coming out of the sun than is being put in the sun.

But if you look at the internal system of the sun, it is losing mass to create that energy, so in one sense the "device" (the sun) appears to be over-unity but the "system" (the internal workings of the sun) does not. So part of whether a device can be over-unity or not depends on how you define the device and the system.

The other part is of course whether our understanding of physics is adequate to determine what's possible. I think there are gaps in our understanding, but I've failed to see convincing evidence from any over-unity claimants that they have filled the gaps in such a way to make possible what current theory suggests is not possible.

Haisch has his vacuum energy patent but he hasn't proven such a device can be built and will actually work. I don't think it will work as his patent suggests, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I agree that ,the current understanding of physics is,
not adequate to encompass all possibilities.
And maybe , that is why Walter Gerlach, was forced to
give up his gravity research / and or the Nazi Bell project.

Mary Rose

I listened to this again, taking notes on what I hear Paul Babcock saying about the things he does:

• Using plasma over an arc
  
• Using external coupling
  
• Using electricity multiple times
  
• Taking out drag force from motors
  
• Turning up clock speed not voltage
  
• Creating a high speed switching system
  

reply to post by Mary Rose

I listened to this again, taking notes on what I hear Paul Babcock saying about the things he does:

Using plasma over an arc
Using external coupling
Using electricity multiple times
Taking out drag force from motors
Turning up clock speed not voltage
Creating a high speed switching system

If he could actually do any of the things he says he can do, he wouldn't have to say it, he would simply do it. If he cannot demonstrate any of his alleged abilities in controlled circumstances, he simply cannot do them at all.

reply to post by DJW001


He does do it. He demonstrated his work at a university and was thrown out.

reply to post by Mary Rose

He does do it. He demonstrated his work at a university and was thrown out.

Really? Can you provide an account of the incident?

reply to post by DJW001


He talked about it in his presentation that he gave at the 2012 Bedini-Lindemann Science and Technology conference. As far as I know it's not on YouTube.

reply to post by Mary Rose

I think what DJW means is if he had a better motor, he'd be selling the better motor. There's a huge market for better motors. If he had a better product there would be a market for it regardless of what academics said.

But is he selling a better motor? No, he's selling talk. Talk is cheap, so are his videos. He's marked them down 88%

MAGNETIC ENERGY SECRETS PART 1
Suggested Retail Price $147.00
Insane, Giveaway PRICE! $17

In that video I didn't hear him make impossible claims, really none of what he said is impossible but some of it is semantics, like whether you can use electricity multiple times. That's a semantic statement which doesn't mean a lot compared to standard motor test results of power, efficiency, etc.

Motor design has a lot of variables and it's possible to improve one aspect at the expense of another, for example we can make motors more efficient by adding cost. Then you have to factor in prices of electricity, and determine how long it takes the improved efficiency to pay back the cost increase (breakeven). If that's the same period as the expected life of the motor, there's no cost benefit to the purchaser, though of course as fuel and energy prices rise, efficiency becomes more and more cost effective even with higher initial cost.

Anyway the people who specify and buy motors in volume can easily do comparisons and if he really had a better motor for their needs it would be an easy sell. But if he has a better motor, why isn't he selling it? Don't give me this university excuse, the university is not where the market for motors is.

Mary Rose
He talked about it in his presentation that he gave at the 2012 Bedini-Lindemann Science and Technology conference. As far as I know it's not on YouTube.

Here is a screenshot of the video that he said was rejected:

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The whole system is stacked against anyone who makes claims the academics don't like. Investors rely on the PhD's to advise them.

Ridicule is what inventors are up against.

reply to post by Mary Rose

The whole system is stacked against anyone who makes claims the academics don't like. Investors rely on the PhD's to advise them.

No, they don't. If they did they wouldn't be building coal powered plants, now would they?

reply to post by DJW001


Your point is academics advise against building coal burning plants, which get built anyway, and that proves inventors are not subject to the approval of the PhDs?

Arbitrageur
Talk is cheap, so are his videos. He's marked them down 88% :lol

The ridicule card again.

Arbitrageur

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?

Arbit

Of course its a radio receiver picking up natural background sources. This ABSOLUTELY IS a device picking up free energy from the aether or vacuum. A faraday cage is not an integral part of a vacuum hence my earlier comments on a non-iron vacuum container. What exactly do you think a free E device will look like and work like, just tune in to the background energy. What do you think all that energy in the vacuum is anyway?

There's little point dismissing something that so clearly works, just by saying its a tuner. MIT and NASA have been playing with the ideas. Its the usual big business priorities, 'lets make a power station this way' as opposed to a house sized device. St. Elmo's Fire Energy Co. is already selling a commercial device of this nature for factories.

Free E devices already known to work, no new science, no new tech, just do it

Will

Mary Rose
reply to post by DJW001

 

Your point is academics advise against building coal burning plants, which get built anyway, and that proves inventors are not subject to the approval of the PhDs?

Are you saying it doesn't?

reply to post by DJW001


No.

I'm pointing out that one does not rule out other occurrences.

Here is a screenshot of Paul Babcock's 2013 Bedini-Lindemann Science and Technology conference:

will2learn
Of course its a radio receiver picking up natural background sources. This ABSOLUTELY IS a device picking up free energy from the aether or vacuum.

You may think it's semantics, but words actually have meaning, and you are distorting meaning when you say that. Electromagnetic radiation is not the same thing as zero-point or vacuum energy which is the topic of this thread.

I already posted a link to a patent by Bernard Haisch on a device which he thinks may be capable of extracting energy from the vacuum, and a faraday cage would not prevent it from functioning. If such a device worked it would be a true vacuum or zero-point energy device.

By the way all we get from the radio receivers from natural (not man made) radio sources are very tiny fractions of a watt, maybe microwatts or maybe someday milliwatts. However it doesn't seem likely you would ever be able to power your house with it. There are people who have tried to power their house by stealing electromagnetic radiation from manmade sources pf EM radiation like nearby power lines, but it's not legal.

Mary Rose
Here is a screenshot of Paul Babcock's 2013 Bedini-Lindemann Science and Technology conference:

More cheap talk.

If it's so great why doesn't he make something useful and sell that?

He doesn't have to have anything that works, so he sells DVDs. I don't want a freaking DVD, I want a better power source, or motor, or something I can actually use. The only thing I can use his DVD for is a coaster.