Brilliant ideas, lame application - these could have solved all our energy problems!

originally posted by: Bedlam
And what was special about the fields? And in what way did exclusion of virtual states affect quantum tunneling? Inquiring minds would like to know.

All I know is just that quantum tunneling was involved. But I'm not exactly sure if it's due to quantum tunneling or the special fields.

I did make a much larger (macro scale) test prototype for real. Same thing that must be scaled down to microscopic size to dramatically improve energy efficiency and volumetric efficiency/thrust-to-weight ratio.

And the macro scaled prototype worked. It produced easily detectable thrust. It caused the custom lightweight, low friction turntable to which it was mounted to rotate. The contraption was completely airtight and isolated from electric fields as much as possible and it went which it faced.

More experiments are needed. I also haven't done doing it with a much larger area which the fields could overlap and strengthening the effect.

Don't worry I will not keep it a secret indefinitely.

Work is proceeding slower in this one as admittedly, I have said it in previous posts, it's a lot more complicated work. I'm not an expert in quantum theory.

The other thing I'm working on is purely for energy use and is a lot simpler and I only had to deal with aerodynamics and statistical mechanics, no quantum mechanics involved.

HOw I made it the other guy work?? It's a lucky hunch. I had the first glimpse of its principle when I was 15 years old when I first experimented about it. 15 years later, the concept had advanced greatly making it possible to miniaturize.

I will likely finish first the energy device. If that shoots me to "fame" and get real fundings, I'll do more serious work on the "warp drive" and call in people who are adept in quantum theory to further refine the principle.

No such thing as a free lunch. To get something out of vacuum, you need to input some energy first (such as changing the refractive index of materials to get light from vacuum).

And you can't run a car on light.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
It would seem to get any level of acceptance or credibility in the fields of free energy -- one would have to spend most of their life "buying into" the system and becoming a respected lead researcher in their field.

Once you've got respect and status, you could go off on a free energy experiment (label it something else though) and work away.

If individuals in the garages try this, they get laughed at. If mid-level researchers try this, they get shunned from their field.

Gotta love science -- so open to new possibilities!

If that garage-buit device can demonstate its purpose, it will be considered seriously. None of such devices have prooved their worth; they were either a hoax, or they created no true energy gain once looked at properly.

In particle physics at least... iv never seen a scientist who works on theory actually build anything. Now thats not to say the cross over doesn't happen, but, just saying. Theorists don't build the experiments, experimentalists and engineers do. And what you describe is more physics than engineering.

I know terminology crosses over, im in a conference right now and in the axion session one of the presenters described himself not as a physicist but a microwave engineer... so... i guess so

but so much of this simply doesn't add up. Doing the whole "I have it all in my head, if i let it out of my head they will kill me" is yet another clique to add to the list.

again as someone else said [citations needed]

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
It would seem to get any level of acceptance or credibility in the fields of free energy -- one would have to spend most of their life "buying into" the system and becoming a respected lead researcher in their field.

Once you've got respect and status, you could go off on a free energy experiment (label it something else though) and work away.

If individuals in the garages try this, they get laughed at. If mid-level researchers try this, they get shunned from their field.

Gotta love science -- so open to new possibilities!

If that garage-buit device can demonstate its purpose, it will be considered seriously. None of such devices have prooved their worth; they were either a hoax, or they created no true energy gain once looked at properly.

There are things that have been tested seriously in labs around the world. Eugene Podkletnov's experiment has been recreated or attempted to be recreated in several labs. Each time it didn't work he simply says "They didnt do something right"

Well its been about 10 years now, he hasn't been snuffed out, and people did take him seriously, and his excuses carry no weight anymore. He wants people to prove him right, and yet he doesn't want to allow people to duplicate his setup, or indeed does anyone else seem to know his setup but him... once again... adds no credit him at all

originally posted by: wildespace
No such thing as a free lunch. To get something out of vacuum, you need to input some energy first (such as changing the refractive index of materials to get light from vacuum).

And you can't run a car on light.

They still obey the 2nd law of Thermodynamics which now has been violated officially. This means we can now get the ambient energy from this medium.

This is not free lunch. We are simply using what is already there and when you do, it produces a void or reduced temperature which is transferred elsewhere, thus, no energy is created, nor destroyed. You simply "go with the flow" at the molecular level.

It already works in the "Brownian Motion" which provides free transport to relatively small particles of solid matter in stationary fluids at room temperature.

If you scale this up and you have a means to predict where the particles end up and how fast, you can hitch a ride in one of them and land in your desired destination without spending energy. You use the energy in the medium. This is unlike wind or water power because it works in perfectly still fluid medium.


I'm not sweet-talking anyone, you can see this yourselves in the microscope. Brownian motion = free transport.

It's like the "improbability drive" in the science fiction film "hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" at the molecular level.


It's just the most basic concept. I have advanced it to the point that order is naturally created out of chaos. Only pending actual experiments. All I need is time to do it. It's not even expensive to do.

a reply to: johndeere2020

Think about that 'light from the vacuum' for a moment.

Think energy application.

Now picture a tubular vacuum flask (generating this vacuum light phenomena), surrounded by another larger tube, whose inside surface is comprised of PV cells / solar cells....the 'PV tube' is sealed, so it's not gathering from the Sun, just gathering from the vacuum light...what we then have is essentially a never ending, completely free source of everlasting electrical energy being harvested from the vacuum light for as long as we wanted it to, day and night, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The output of the vacuum light probably wouldn't equal the energy available to the PV cells that would be harvested from the Sun, but these cells would generate constantly, for as long as the vacuum and PV cells lasted.

Imagine hundreds of these 'drainpipe diameter tubes, stacked in rows one atop the other...these could be built into floors, walls, ceilings, in foundations, underwater, in the garden...anywhere. Millions could even be used to power factories and whole towns.

Why has this not been done?

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: johndeere2020

Think about that 'light from the vacuum' for a moment.

Very interesting as I had several old vacuums that had a pair of headlights mounted on them. The brands were mixed but they worked well until the main brush wore down and the motor's brushes lost their shape and conductivity, and I used a brush on the vacuum to clean the dust off but then I brushed my arm against the stove and it caught fire. It was fine though the shirt wasn't a good one anway.

Throughout history there are many examples of things not being used to their full potential like the steam engine that long predated the industrial revolution. With steam engine technology sooner we could have advanced much quicker which means potentially right now we would have the ability to remove orange peels from the oranges without actually cutting the orange or squishing or really even touching it and without getting orange oil spraying from the orange skin's pores which is actually good for cleaning some things although it depends because certain substances dissolve better in certain things rubbing alcohol works great at removing some things but wont touch other things that plain water will clean and so on and so fourth.

a reply to: johndeere2020

But recently, some group of scientists have managed to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Note, you only need to violate to 2nd Law to make it work. You cannot violate the 3rd Law because it's absolutely impossible. If you can violate the 2nd Law, you can perform transfer of energy from "cold" to "hot" without using additional energy to achieve it.

Might seem unimportant, and is really only semantics..but if we keep using the word 'violate' when speaking about the laws of Thermodynamics, it adds a negative connotation to the whole exercise.

It's like we are doing something we ought not be doing...breaking laws.

I prefer to use the word 'circumvent' instead of violate...it changes from negative sounding (and thinking) action into more of a positive one.

It might seem unimportant, but words can indeed be weapons, especially in a psychological sense.

a reply to: James1982

Sorry James...i'm not sure i'm following your train of thought.

In fact, and again apologies if this isn't correct...but you come across as a Bot or AI, rather than Human.

If you're a Human, please don't take offence..it's just the impression i got reading your post.

originally posted by: MysterX

Might seem unimportant, and is really only semantics..but if we keep using the word 'violate' when speaking about the laws of Thermodynamics, it adds a negative connotation to the whole exercise.

It's like we are doing something we ought not be doing...breaking laws.

I prefer to use the word 'circumvent' instead of violate...it changes from negative sounding (and thinking) action into more of a positive one.

It might seem unimportant, but words can indeed be weapons, especially in a psychological sense.

I don't know. Hollywood uses similar phrases a lot, it must be selling well in films.

But you're absolutely right. It doesn't work well with people who are well versed in the related field.

a reply to: MysterX

It's got nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with the stark lack of hard, empirical data.

originally posted by: James1982
Throughout history there are many examples of things not being used to their full potential like the steam engine that long predated the industrial revolution. With steam engine technology sooner we could have advanced much quicker which means potentially right now we would have the ability to remove orange peels from the oranges without actually cutting the orange or squishing or really even touching it and without getting orange oil spraying from the orange skin's pores which is actually good for cleaning some things although it depends because certain substances dissolve better in certain things rubbing alcohol works great at removing some things but wont touch other things that plain water will clean and so on and so fourth.

That is probably forgivable.

But today, we have internet and no longer as ignorant as before. We have a lot less excuse for doing things that are not optimal.


For example....

We could already let computer automation replace all work of humans. I know this because I'm also a computer programmer who did several automation work...

...But we can't because our "free economy" won't allow it - even if the machines could do our jobs far more efficiently.

It will not actually hurt anyone bec once the machines attain self-sustainability, they can do all the work for free. Free food, free clothes, free shelter. Money will lose its meaning and poverty eradicated.

a reply to: johndeere2020

Brownian motion provides totally random transport to particles. If you try to suck net energy out of it, or Johnson noise, you will run afoul of Feyman's ratchet.

a reply to: MysterX

Because all these things that instantiate virtual photons require as much energy input as you get out of it. That's why this hasn't been done.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: johndeere2020

Brownian motion provides totally random transport to particles. If you try to suck net energy out of it, or Johnson noise, you will run afoul of Feyman's ratchet.

Random does not exist in nature.

Random is a concept born out of ignorance.

Shooting a dinner plate with a basic rifle at 1000 yds is a game of random chance.

Now fit that rifle with a properly calibrated sniperscope and you hit that target 100% why?? Because the sniperscope gave you more knowledge (and less ignorance) of where your rifle is pointing at relative to your target....

No one is sucking energy in my concept without returning it back. The Conservation of Energy cannot be violated.

I have figured out how to transfer energy from random fluctuations into the macroscopic scale in the most practical/cheapest way to make it available to the masses. Tragically, I don't have time now.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: MysterX

Because all these things that instantiate virtual photons require as much energy input as you get out of it. That's why this hasn't been done.

I'm not working with virtual photons but simply with the kinetic molecular theory in gases - this is a lot easier to achieve with relatively low/cheap technology.

The success of the molecular gas machine will pave the way for the more exotic energy from virtual photons because an analogy exists between the two. The latter is simply more dangerous to tinker which I'm not equipped to handle yet. The risk is from run away electrical discharges/EMP at deadly energies.

a reply to: johndeere2020

Absolutely random exists. It's an inherent part of QM.

Feynman's ratchet. It's why all devices of this generic type fail. That includes Brownian motion machines, Maxwell's demons and Johnson noise rectifiers.

eta: there's some nice writeups on it but doing links on a phone is painful

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: johndeere2020

Absolutely random exists. It's an inherent part of QM.

Random exists in QM, yes, but absolutely, NO.

QM can only tell you that most people leave their homes by 7:30 am or when the Sun is 1/4 up and seem to concentrate around tall buildings until 4 pm. But QM cannot explain to you why people do that or why some stay at home or some randomly stays and leave.

To a friendly space giant observing people, we may seem to act random...

But on our level, things make sense why we do what we do...


So the concept of random can only be subjective but not absolute.

Subatomic particles don't draw sticks or kick the odd particle out. Maybe they do but one thing for sure, the cause and effect still applies to unorthodox behavior, we simply can't observe but doesn't mean nothing ever happened.

QM is not the rule which the Universe obeys, it is simply a rough guide and as our knowledge increases, it is bound to change how we understand things.

originally posted by: [post=19365826]johndeere2020 You cannot violate the 3rd Law because it's absolutely impossible.

!

Says who?
Though your English has improved considerably like magic, your bs remains the same.
Take a hike.