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.

 

How to Tap the Zero-Point Energy?

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
By the way a real scientist has a patent on a device to extract energy from the vacuum:

Quantum vacuum energy extraction

How come the OP wants to discuss nonsense terminology instead of a real patent by a real scientist?

I think I know why it won't work, but I wish the inventor all the best of luck in trying to make it work.


The other "real scientist," as you put it, on the patent, Garret Moddel, was a speaker at the 2013 Global Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference. His topic was "Learning About New Energy and an Old Demon." Here is the video. The introduction for his talk begins at 3:45:





posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Mary Rose
The other "real scientist," as you put it, on the patent, Garret Moddel, was a speaker at the 2013 Global Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference. His topic was "Learning About New Energy and an Old Demon."


He mentioned something I've not heard of before: "Live Open Science."



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Mary Rose

Mary Rose
The other "real scientist," as you put it, on the patent, Garret Moddel, was a speaker at the 2013 Global Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference. His topic was "Learning About New Energy and an Old Demon."


He mentioned something I've not heard of before: "Live Open Science."


In contrast to dead closed science?



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

boncho
In contrast to dead closed science?
Maybe in contrast to live closed science? I looked at the website and parts of the idea seem a lot like some fairly successful distributed computing projects like setiathome, in which I participated.

However, I learned about some of the pitfalls of this approach through my participation in setiathome. Even though the technology was set up to make it difficult to screw up and get the wrong result, if someone is technical enough they could and apparently did find a way to fudge the analysis. So the researchers had to have a quality control method in place to weed out these falsification attempts. They would send the same data packets out to multiple participants so me and 2 other people might receive the same data packet, and if I tried to hoax a result and the other two people didn't get the same thing, their software would reject my "anomalous" result. Also, they used the distributed computing as a "screening" process, not a final result, so they kept the original data and would carefully analyze any interesting results flagged by me and the other two people who got the same result on the same data packet again on their own supercomputer. This is not that hard to control so it was a fairly successful project.

However expanding the scope to having people build devices and test them, and collecting the data is more problematic, as even trained scientists have trouble doing that consistently (remember Fleischmann and Pons and cold fusion experiments which other scientists found were so difficult to replicate?). I've read the peswiki forums where people have reported their test results on trying to get overunity on their bedini experimenter kits, and the incompetence was pretty prevalent, especially when the people they reported they got overunity, but they were still paying their electric bill every month...why?


I don't see what hope untrained people have of avoiding all the pitfalls that even trained scientists sometimes fall into.

As long as the effort is carefully controlled enough like it has been successfully done in distributed computing, there is some merit to the concept, but the website does not reflect the same careful consideration that went into the success of the distributed computing projects.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Arbitrageur
As long as the effort is carefully controlled enough like it has been successfully done in distributed computing, there is some merit to the concept, but the website does not reflect the same careful consideration that went into the success of the distributed computing projects.


At the top it says the project is in its earliest stage.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Yes I noticed, but still the distributed computing projects have been going on for over a decade, so some aspects of this concept are not new (and could be, and probably should be used as learning experiences to refine the new project).



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Absolutely.

Would you be interested in registering on their website to share your expertise?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Arbitrageur
I've read the peswiki forums where people have reported their test results on trying to get overunity on their bedini experimenter kits, and the incompetence was pretty prevalent, especially when the people they reported they got overunity, but they were still paying their electric bill every month...why?


Aren't open-source projects like that for the purpose of building a prototype for proof of concept, which, in turn, would have to be scaled up quite a bit, at additional expense?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
On Sterling Allan's website is an article, "Bill Alek Preparing SmartPAK™ Power for Electric Bikes":


. . . Now, after years of research and development, he's about to step into the role of having an energy solution that could power the future, without pollution, by harvesting energy from the every-where-present wheelwork of nature, or "vacuum" as it is referred to in this particular variation.

. . . A means by which to harness "Dark Energy" is to reduce the "Stress-Energy Tensor." This is accomplished through the use of bifilar coil configurations, which neutralizes the effect of self-induction. This, in turn, reduces the overall impedance of the coil. The bifilar coil is driven by two independent transverse pump waves as described by researcher, Tom Bearden. The ferromagnetic core material used by the bifilar coil acts as a nonlinear medium or more commonly known as a Pumped Phase-Conjugate Mirror or PPCM. . . .



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Mary Rose
Would you be interested in registering on their website to share your expertise?
I have expertise and experience in some areas but I've never run a distributed computing project. I've only been a participant. The experts they need to consult are those who actually ran the projects.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Mary Rose
"Live Open Science"



Arbitrageur
Quantum vacuum energy extraction


I wonder whether the Live Open Science project can play a role in the further work that needs to be done on patent 7379286.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
By all means believe what you want to believe. However, most/all of the people involved have been quite often proven to have a track history of being con-men, some know this, some however are either too deluded to know this, or have been sold an idea by someone else and have more of a faith connection than anything more substantial.

The video on the first page of this thread... AMAZING.

Also, brilliant post of the "I know a lot about ZPE, but the powers that be, control everything any I cannot tell you" followed by lots of unsubstantiated claims of understanding experiments done centuries ago, along with bland statements that we cannot repeat this because the powers that be wont let it work because of testing... yeah? so what testing? You do know we can make copper today more pure than has ever been produced in the world ever in history right?

Just what I have come to expect on here.


Mary Rose, you so badly want to believe in something, but please do this... stop ranting/preaching about 'mainstream vs alternative' why? because you are invariably saying that mainstream = wrong and alternative = right.

If that was true... how are we communicating right now? it is like me saying "You know... people who make LCD displays, they got it wrong, they dont know how to make LCDs, what is happening isn't what they think." Then when presented with diagrams, evidence that LCDs work how we think they do, you just say "No, no i read this alternative theory and i believe it more than all that mainstream stuff" It is quite honestly exhausting and exacerbating.

I encourage everyone to think outside the box, if the box is what you consider the mainstream, and the outside is beyond our fringes of understanding... the issue some of us take is that you are so far outside of the box, that you deny that the box exists and you have formed your own box.

Apologies if that seems insulting, it really is not what I want to do, It is just that these alternative energy devices and theories need very very very close scrutiny, a scrutiny that NO ONE in that area is willing to allow. They sometimes make it look like they are doing so called open research... but the truth is this openness is just a buzz word to make it look cool and relevant.

For all the tinkerers and makers... I have yet to see anyone produce anything that works by extracting energy from the ZPE, eather or any other magic... Oh and I have read quite a few posts... im still waiting for those glasses that can see nuclear reactors through mountain sides btw... I wont hold my breath because... i know if i did, id die before they even remotely existed in reality.
edit on 18-11-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

ErosA433
Mary Rose, you so badly want to believe in something, but please do this... stop ranting/preaching about 'mainstream vs alternative' why? because you are invariably saying that mainstream = wrong and alternative = right.


I am very much aware of the problems in the alternative community with devices that don't work.

My problem with the mainstream community is the lack of recognition of suppression, sometimes brutal, of free energy technologies, and the arrogant attitude of only PhD's from mainstream universities are authority figures.

My interest is in making this a better world. Any fascination I have with alternative science and technology is related to that. I don't care who does it: I want inventors to succeed, whoever they are.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Hey Mary, leave him / her be.
His / her jibber jabber brings in much needed humour
to the thread.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Part of the issue, is that there is no real suppression or denial. What typically happens is that an inventor thinks he/she has something interesting... goes out and markets it as the next big thing. If they are new, the probably believe they have invented some physics crushing device! This is normally quite delusional, they will have this pointed out, and any scientist will, given one of these devices and some tools will figure out why it wont work or ever would work. Trick is to not let anyone examine it and invent some new language to describe it, a typical pseudoscience spiel of random buzzwords, probably throw a few names like tesla in and hope that people without any scientific understanding will buy into the device.

They go to conferences and market their device and ask for investments, and deadlines pass, and they make excuses say the gas companies are suppressing them etc... then rinse and repeat.

The so called suppressors or mainstream just sits on the sidelines scratching our heads thinking... what the hell are they talking about... 99.9% of this stuff is garbage.

On Zero Point energy extraction,
The issue we have as the apparent 'dreaded' mainstream is that we have already had a damn good go at making super efficient motors and generators, played with magnets and have an understanding of empirical and theoretical behaviours that go back centuries. To simply cross your arms and say "NO" is quite frankly ignorant. What is further outstanding is that there seems to be a case of not understanding any source material at a fundamental level before making a massive leap into the darkness.

Iv seen people present theories that boil down to leading an article and 'educating' themselves for about 5 minutes, understanding less than 0.001% of a subject, and then leap into the darkness and say "THE WHOLE OF SCIENCE IS WRONG"

Now, coming from a standpoint that Iv been in the educational system, first as a student and now as a researcher for about 12-13 years now, I have the impression that the whole debate on ZPE is exactly the same. Someone read something about energy in vacuum, and got all excited, and no one was polite enough to tell said person that they misunderstood nearly all of what they read.
edit on 18-11-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


Okay!

I need some comic relief.

I always have been too serious.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Mary Rose
I don't care who does it: I want inventors to succeed, whoever they are.
Even mainstream scientist inventors like Bernard Haisch who say every other claim of Zero point energy extraction he's seen is complete nonsense, and even his own idea for an ZPE invention might not work, but he wants to try it?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You should know the answer to that. Why do you think I've done so many follow-up posts about his work.

Did you read Tom Bearden's tribute to him for his courage?



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Mary Rose
Aren't open-source projects like that for the purpose of building a prototype for proof of concept, which, in turn, would have to be scaled up quite a bit, at additional expense?

Who can answer that question for me? Anyone with personal experience?



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   
of that one line you quoted, that applies for nearly every project ever conceived... the JET and ITER fusion reactors are exactly that... JET (and others) are a proof of concept, fairly small... and ITER is the bigger one, pegged to break even.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join