How to Tap the Zero-Point Energy?

Mary Rose
He talked about it in his presentation that he gave at the 2012 Bedini-Lindemann Science and Technology conference.

Jeane Manning has a blog post about that presentation, including a comment about Paul Babcock's account of his bad experience. The blog post is entitled "Paul Babcock uses magnetic flyback – for our benefit":

Before the showing at the Bedini-Lindemann conference, why had no public audience ever seen that video clip? Paul Babcock explains. “We made that video almost ten years ago, and we buried it. Because all it got us was trouble.”

When trying to raise funding to build a company, he explains, telling the truth about how world-changing your discovery is may create resistance in the status quo. He and his team ten years ago were younger “and kind of naive, thinking ‘Hey we have a great thing. The world is going to welcome us with open arms.’ Wrong. It’s time to get your beating for doing good work. And it really set us back,” Babcock adds, “in the world of finance and business anyway.”

When is his company going to take that revolutionary prototype shown in the film and develop it into a commercial motor? Not until he can pay the million-dollar cost of product development himself, Babcock tells us vehemently. Not until he doesn’t have to beg for startup money and go to financial institutions for funding. In the meantime, Flyback Energy is happily in the business of making acceptable helpful products.

This must be his company: FlyBack Energy

Mary Rose
Mike Waters is a beneficiary of and technology consultant for Sterling Allan's New Energy Systems Trust.

Here is his website: A Cure for Global Crises

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arbit

thats funny

The way he is abusing the term, if you put a fart in a vacuum, it would be vacuum energy. But that's not the way vacuum or zero point energy is defined.

Maybe ZPE is just a large fart, but I define it as all that electromagnetic energy left after you take everything else out. Now exactly how do you wanna define the vacuum energy?

I notice you avoid this simple q.

Will

Mary Rose
Please share with us what you think you know.

Actually I have to give credit to mbkennel for noticing this problem with Haisch's patent also, and mbkennel demonstrates more knowledge of this topic than 99% of ATSers. I added a diagram and my own comments but I basically agreed with mbkennel's description of the apparent problem here.

Mary Rose
He also said there is no reference to it in google.

That's more of an indication that it's not helpful, isn't it? In order to be helpful expressions need to be shared by more than one person for communication to take place. Besides, we've been breaking molecules apart using their kinetic energy long before he made up that term, and it's facilitated chemical reactions which can release energy but it's pretty standard stuff...I don't see what it has to do with free energy. Seems like a "snake oil sales pitch" to me to call something this well understood by a fancy name. Normally it's just done with temperature, by heating things up which speeds up the molecules and with certain molecules this can break them apart or facilitate chemical reactions.

www.ehow.com...

The kinetic energy motion is essentially the same thing as heat. So as you add heat to a chemical reaction, the kinetic energy will increase, making the molecules collide and increasing the reaction rates.

will2learn
Maybe ZPE is just a large fart, but I define it as all that electromagnetic energy left after you take everything else out. Now exactly how do you wanna define the vacuum energy?

I notice you avoid this simple q.

Will

My first post in this thread was a complaint about people making up their own definitions, aka dictionary abuse.

"I define it as..." Why do some people feel compelled to commit dictionary abuse by making up their own personal definitions of words that don't match generally accepted usage?

Whenever possible I try to use accepted definitions for words, which would be dictionaries for layman terms and scientific references for scientific terms, instead of making up my own definitions. It makes for more effective communications.

So instead of making up my own definition, I'll point you to the wiki and ask you why you feel that definition is wrong:

Zero-point energy

The concept of zero-point energy was developed in Germany by Albert Einstein...
Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant.[3] A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field.

Notice the reference to "the lowest energy state", meaning unless you can bring the field to a lower energy state, you can't extract any energy from it, and if you can lower the energy state, then it wasn't vacuum, or lowest "zero-point" energy state to begin with. So almost by definition, this zero point energy can't be extracted as someone else already pointed out earlier.

Note you can add electromagnetic energy to a region (vacuum, atmosphere, or other media) and then extract it, but that added EM is not zero point or vacuum energy by definition, even if it's in a vacuum.

Arbitrageur
That's more of an indication that it's not helpful, isn't it?

No, it is not.

It's an indication that more attention needs to be given to the work of people like him who are the trailblazers.

Here's a 2 part YouTube video of Haisch himself talking about the patent:

Uploaded on Aug 4, 2010

Presented at the Annual Meeting for the Society for Scientific Exploration, June 10-12, 2010 Boulder, Colorado, USA.

We propose to indirectly tap a new source of energy, potentially greater than nuclear, well known in quantum physics but considered by physicists not to be useful since it cannot be directly accessed. Zero-point energy is a well established concept originally proposed by Planck and Einstein in 1913. Later it was shown to arise in quantum physics from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It has a number of well-known effects. For example, zero-point energy prevents helium from solidifying under normal pressure even at absolute zero temperature. It can also be detected as quantum noise in circuits.

We investigate the feasibility of accessing this zero-point energy source indirectly by capturing electromagnetic energy emitted by transient changes in energy levels of electron orbitals, due to interactions of atoms (preferably monatomic noble gases) with the quantum vacuum field while cycling through Casimir cavities. We would induce shifts comparable in principle to, but larger than, the well-known Lamb shift, by suppressing quantum vacuum field modes within the Casimir cavities. The "Lamb shift," a well explored mainstay of quantum electrodynamics, consists of a shift in the energy levels of electron orbitals, resulting from an atom's interaction with quantum vacuum fluctuations. Recent experiments have shown that Lamb shifts can be controlled and enhanced. It is likely that electron orbital shifts analogous to (but not identical with) Lamb shifts can be induced by moving atoms under modest pressure through Casimir cavities, due to suppression of some wavelengths of quantum vacuum fluctuations in Casimir cavities. This orbital shift should produce emission of electromagnetic energy (photons) as the atoms enter the cavities. We refer to the shift so induced as the "Casimir-Lamb shift." As the moving gas atoms leave the Casimir cavity, the Casimir-Lamb shift would be reversed due to absorption of electromagnetic fluctuations from the ambient quantum vacuum field, without violating the second law of thermodynamics.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Here's a 2 part YouTube video of Haisch himself talking about the patent:

All you ever do is repost presentations, conference power points, papers (many of which aren't scientific), and if you are lucky enough to find a bonafide scientific paper, you quote a portion of it, and offer no opinion of your own.

That tells us you do not even make an effort to read through the work you are trying to support, but others on the forum make that effort, and I find it disrespectful that you don't even bother to address their arguments but instead spam what you find in google searches.

The mission of Jovion Corporation is to develop pollution-free, portable, scalable, distributed power sources that require no fossil or nuclear fuel and emit no waste, carbon or harmful radiation, based on the Casimir-Lamb shift.

See “Test of zero-point energy emission from gases flowing through Casimir cavities"

The link to the 10 page .pdf about the test is here.

4. Conclusions

A clear infrared signal has been measured for gases flowing through polycarbonate Casimir cavity nanotubes, both when uncoated and when coated with gold. The signal was obtained for all gases tested, N2, Ar, Xe and He. In an attempt to explain the results in terms of conventional thermodynamics, we analyzed them to see if Joule-Thomson cooling, frictional heating, adsorption/absorption heating, or turbulence could account for the results. None of these clearly fit the data, but it is possible that a combination of effects could. At this point it appears that ZP energy extraction from the quantum vacuum remains a possible explanation for the observed radiation. More experimental work will be required to determine if this is the correct explanation.

reply to post by Mary Rose

4. Conclusions

Inconclusive.

So again, do you read anything you post?

boncho
All you ever do is repost presentations, conference power points, papers (many of which aren't scientific), and if you are lucky enough to find a bonafide scientific paper, you quote a portion of it, and offer no opinion of your own.

I noted that about Mary Rose's failure to offer her own take or twist on what she's posting before. It's not conducive to productive discussion or debate. I saw her offer her own opinion once or twice and even thanked her for doing it, hoping positive reinforcement would encourage more such behavior, but it didn't seem to help much since it's still pretty rare.

Mary Rose
Here's a 2 part YouTube video of Haisch himself talking about the patent:

At least you cited a real scientist this time!

Note the first thing he does is call all the other claims you find online about zero point energy extraction and conspiracies etc not credible (he says he doesn't believe any of them). Then he goes on to admit that his technology hasn't been proven experimentally either, and admits it may not work, as I said earlier.

He also gives a description of vacuum energy that will2learn hasn't seemed to have grasped yet.

He has to run a pump to operate his device and either the pump will use more energy than is extracted, or less (Could be the same but that seems unlikely). If somehow the pump uses less energy than is extracted, it truly would be revolutionary, and I would love to be proven wrong because such a result would be fascinating. But I suspect my hypothesis will be proven right, that operating the pump will take more energy than is extracted, and then it's nothing really all that special though it might give more insights into flow properties related to Casimir cavities, but no net zero point energy.

The ultimate arbiter of who is right of course is experiment and observation, so he needs to build the device and test it to make that determination, and replications by others would need to confirm any "revolutionary" result as he calls it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arbit

Now you are being funny without knowing it. In the definition you cite (did you read it?)

Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, ....

This is the energy of the vacuum, it also includes lots of other energies, what is so difficult for you to grasp? All of the other energy types in the vacuum is sourced from countless places. the vauum is like a mirror image of the universe, which does not hold too well for the standard model, but quite nicely for mode3rn aether models.

So by your definition the simple passive tuner taps into the EM element of the vacuum field. Its NOT semantics, this is the energy Tesla was referring to as all around. Funny how several have already made devices that work off of it and you seem to be in denial.

Will

reply to post by will2learn

Yes of course I read it which is why I explained the two types of EM fields, those at zero point which energy can't be extracted, and those not at zero point from which energy can be extracted.

You don't seem to have read my post and fail to understand that the EM fields which can be brought to lower energy levels in the process of extracting energy from them were not zero point fields because they were not at their lowest energy state, so they are not the fields that make up vacuum energy by definition.

As that link further explains:

Zero-point energy

In quantum theory, zero-point energy is a minimum energy below which a thermodynamic system can never go.[12] Thus, none of this energy can be withdrawn without altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero-point energy.

So if you withdrew energy from it, it wasn't at the lowest energy state, because the only way to withdraw energy is by lowering the energy state and by doing that you've proven it wasn't zero-point or vacuum energy to begin with.

Mary Rose
This gives me hope. This is my first experience seeing a mainstream source express a sincere interest in tapping the zero-point energy.

From Sterling Allan's website:

They are presently (as of Feb. 4, 2009) looking for major funding of around $10 million to carry out more sophisticated testing.

So, that's where it stands?

Mary Rose

They are presently (as of Feb. 4, 2009) looking for major funding of around $10 million to carry out more sophisticated testing.

So, that's where it stands?

Not exactly, Stirling Allan's website needs some updating since he says Jovion has no website, but now they do:

jovion.com...

Right under the mission statement they have a link to a 2012 paper which has nearly the same schematic as in my 2011 post explaining my hypothesis that the pump will take more energy to operate than can be extracted. In the 2012 paper I didn't even see a value for the amount of energy used to operate the pump, so my hypothesis wasn't even addressed, but they clearly show the pump in the schematic and talk about the pump in the results.

The paper's conclusion is inconclusive:

In an attempt to explain the results in terms of conventional thermodynamics, we analyzed them to see if Joule-Thomson cooling, frictional heating, adsorption/absorption heating, or turbulence could account for the results. None of these clearly fit the data, but it is possible that a combination of effects could. At this point it appears that ZP energy extraction from the quantum vacuum remains a possible explanation for the observed radiation. More experimental work will be required to determine if this is the correct explanation.

So they completed an experiment but they can't really explain the experimental results and whether they result from zero point or more conventional explanations.

As Haisch explained in the videos you posted, it's less than certain that the Casimir effect itself is evidence of zero point energy, since it can be explained with alternate means, so credit to Haisch for at least mentioning contradicting points of view, the mark of a real scientist, but he loses small points for minimizing the opposing point of view when he doesn't really know or have any proof.

So I guess it's not surprising that when we had more than one possible explanation for the Casimir effect even before the experiment, after the experiment we still have multiple possible explanations (and still no accounting for the energy used by the pump that I noticed).

I guess they still need more funding and looked for clues on the jovion site about this but they don't say they're looking for investors. Also noteworthy is that I didn't see them selling DVDs like some other ZPE claimants. But if there is any credible hope for ZPE, this is the only instance I've seen that doesn't seem to be based on pseudoscience.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


So four years later the mainstream is not providing funding for the needed experimentation. Too bad.

Mary Rose
So four years later the mainstream is not providing funding for the needed experimentation. Too bad.

That is simply because they have not put forward a plan that interests people.

Here is some funding that has been obtained to:
Print a comic book- $197,512 pledged of $25,000 goal
www.kickstarter.com...
and
another comic $143,379 pledged of $27,500 goal
www.kickstarter.com...
and
to produce a Iphone/Android game $108,195 pledged of $7,500 goal
www.kickstarter.com...
and
Another comic writer, this time to produce a Album $141,115 pledged of $9,500 goal

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

So four years later the mainstream is not providing funding for the needed experimentation. Too bad.

What exactly do you define as "mainstream"? Jovion is a private company that probably raises funds to closed investor groups. I have sat down on 1st and 2nd round boards and seen money thrown at worse ideas, who is to say he hasn't raised funds yet? He could have been given 20 million but he doesn't need to disclose this to you.

Haisch has been given money from the "mainstream" many times over, in his legitimate pursuit of scientific work (which he is capable of):

Bernard Haisch is an astrophysicist based in Palo Alto, formerly working on a NASA grant at Lockheed, now heading up his own nascent scientific think tank, the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics.

www.metroactive.com...

Bernard Haisch has recently received a $200,000 DARPA grant...

Link

Based on this work, a multi-year NASA study (funded by NASA Headquarters and separate from the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program) began in 1996 at the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center. Toward the end of the NASA study, over $2M in private philanthropic funding became available and as a result the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (CIPA) was established in Palo Alto.

www.calphysics.org...

So….

NASA, DARPA, Lockhead, is that mainstream enough for you? SPAWAR, along with a dozen other organizations have all dumped a ton of money into the same research, and they all say it's useful on the nano-scale, and Bernard admits the same, but still claims there might be "zero point energy" in there, while simultaneously admitting a half dozen other possibilities.

boncho
www.metroactive.com...

Bernard Haisch has recently received a $200,000 DARPA grant...

Good answer which covers some of what I was going to say, like the fact that Jovion is a private corporation which are typically major sources of funding, rather than recipients. I think I heard him say he needed 10 million dollars to research the ZPE patent but that's a little harder to come by than $200,000, and if Jovion is private, as you said we don't know how much of that $10 million (if any) might be available. Even if funding is available it takes time to do, and if they plan to build a vacuum chamber that adds some time. (In the video he talked about non-vacuum alternatives which were cheaper and easier to test but he indicated that testing in a vacuum chamber would have advantages but also extra costs and complications).

On Sterling Allan's website there is a page, "Venturing to the Zero Point," devoted to lengthy, information-packed Q & A directed to Tom Bearden regarding the work of Haisch (and Puthoff).

This statement stands out for me:

. . . So one must take that “extra step” from the observable zero-point level to the nonobservable virtual state vacuum fluctuations, and then directly connect the two. . . .

Also on Sterling Allan’s site is a page for an open-source project for an Ed Gray motor variant.

(But I've learned from a video of a 2012 Bedini-Lindemann conference presentation by researcher Mark McKay that Ed Gray was not the actual inventor.)

Apparently this project is not current because a 2006 notation regarding an associated claimed over-unity device – an URL for a website – is a dead link.

However, it is interesting to read the five factors that are offered on this page entitled “Five Factors That Make the Gray System Work”:

1) The 'Radiant Event' which is developed from the H.V. steel anode and coupled to the load circuit by the copper collection tubes appears to provide a large increase in energy. I attribute this to the ionization of air molecules in the spark gap. Each bound electron gains a quanta of electromagnetic radiation during the ionization process. As there is a multiplication of free electrons due to avalanche the release of quanta of electromagnetic radiation when the free electrons strike the H.V. anode is proportional to the increase in free electrons. The process by which electrons release EMR on impact to the H.V. anode is referred to as the "Inverse Photoelectric Effect."

2) The increase in 'free electrons' due to avalanche is directed back to the primary and secondary batteries. See schematic and trace the circuit path back to the neg. terminal of the batteries.

3) The current in the circuit is recycled back to the negative terminals of the batteries.

4) The power pulse delivered to the electromagnet load is [ in phase] high voltage, high current for the optimum duration at the optimum time.

5) The collapsing EMF of the electromagnets is utilized to recharge the secondary batteries. Not shown in the schematic but stated in the Tech. Discussion and Patents.