"Water, Plasmoids and the Zero-Point Energy" by Moray B. King

reply to post by boncho


Actually, wetter water is quite useful.

Everyday, millions of £/$ etc are spent on making water 'wetter'..using detergents and soaps.

Mary Rose
Hopefully at this point in time people can stop thinking that there is no such thing as free energy. They will understand that the meaning of the term is that fuel does not have to be burned to get energy if one can discover how to tap the zero-point energy in a device.

Having the public educated about that will help because that has been one of the stumbling blocks.

edit on 11/07/13 by Mary Rose because: Punctuation

How is the lowest energetic state a means of using energy? It's like the difference between a noun and a verb. It's like you are saying, "If we just learn to house, we will walk faster."

MysterX
reply to post by boncho

 

Actually, wetter water is quite useful.

Everyday, millions of £/$ etc are spent on making water 'wetter'..using detergents and soaps.

Well, in a sense, yes. Which is why I have to star you. I would like to kick you in the behind though, for pointing out exactly where these problems manifest. Breaking surface tension, and making something "wetter" is the difference between the layman explanation and the actual one.

Just like how the ground state of a system, somehow automatically means free energy.

boncho
How is the lowest energetic state a means of using energy?

It's not.

But people have not been aware that the energy in question is real and there waiting to be tapped by smart people. No laws of physics would be violated by power that does not burn fuel.

Mary Rose

boncho
How is the lowest energetic state a means of using energy?

It's not.

But people have not been aware that the energy in question is real and there waiting to be tapped by smart people. No laws of physics would be violated by power that does not burn fuel.

How do you tap the lowest sum of energy?

The closest thing I have seen with "CLAIMS" of so called "Zero point energy devices" is more akin to virtual particles and/or anti-particles. Which, take a ridiculous amount of energy to "come into existence" but the net energy gain is minus many factors.

SO…

Unless you are gonna tell us Hutchison's magic zero point energy rocks are going to work, I would like to know your inherent knowledge you draw on from studying these great inventors who have all figured out this incredibly easy secret of the universe, most of them don't even need proper academic work to do so.

Enlighten us, please!

boncho
How do you tap the lowest sum of energy?

Oh - you don't like the term zero-point energy now?

Hmmm. Before, you seemed very insulted about who should be given credit for coining the term.

Mary Rose

boncho
How do you tap the lowest sum of energy?

Oh - you don't like the term zero-point energy now?

Hmmm. Before, you seemed very insulted about who should be given credit for coining the term.

Where did I say I have a problem with the term. I asked you a direct question, how do you pull/use energy out of the ground state of a system? It's lowest energy state.

reply to post by boncho


No need to be mean, Boncho.

I already stated I didn't know the science and math involved, and only wish to defend the position of being interested in what they discover in new energy innovations.

CdT

CirqueDeTruth
. . . and only wish to defend the position of being interested in what they discover in new energy innovations.

That's what we need. More and more public interest and support.

"Tapping Zero-Point Energy" by Moray B. King:

ABSTRACT

The hypothesis for tapping the zero-point energy (ZPE) arises by combining the theories of the ZPE with the theories of system self-organization. The vacuum polarization of atomic nuclei might allow their synchronous motion to activate a ZPE coherence.

Experimentally observed plasma ion-acoustic anomalies as well as inventions utilizing cycloid ion motions may offer supporting evidence. The suggested experiment of rapidly circulating a charged plasma in a vortex ring might induce a sufficient zero-point energy interaction to manifest a gravitational anomaly. An invention utilizing abrupt E field rotation to create virtual charge exhibits excessive energy output.

INTRODUCTION

Today's physics might allow the possibility of tapping virtually limitless quantities of energy directly from the fabric of space.

Such a surprising conjecture arises by merging two separate theoretical areas of modern physics:

1) The theories of the zero-point energy (1-5) (ZPE) that model the vacuum as containing real, energetic fluctuations of electric field energy, and 2) the theories of system self-organization (6-13) which not only open the possibility of inducing coherence in this energy, but also provide the underlying principles on how this could be achieved (10). . . .

reply to post by Mary Rose


Look..the situation for me about all of this is like this;

I don't know if it is possible to tap energy from an obscure field our science is only just starting to acknowledge, much less understand in a meaningful way...but i sincerely hope for our species and our planet that it can be.

I don't care about terminology, who coined which term or any of the Nobel prizes that have or will be awarded to experimenters or researchers in the past or future...it's just window dressing afaic.

What i do know, without any reservation though, is in as little as 50 years our comprehension of physics and science, whether we're talking about ZPE, Quantum field casimir effects, dark energy mining or something totally undiscovered as yet, will be as different then, as our current understanding of physics and science is compared to an ancient Roman or similar.

The progress never stops, discovery is relentless and with the right resources, determination and innovation...pretty much anything is possible.

If we think it, we can invent it.

MysterX
If we think it, we can invent it.

Apt terminology helps to crystallize thoughts.

CirqueDeTruth
reply to post by boncho

 

No need to be mean, Boncho.

I already stated I didn't know the science and math involved, and only wish to defend the position of being interested in what they discover in new energy innovations.

CdT

You are talking with authority and conviction, so I am addressing that. People make statements as if they are matter of fact, and claim foul play if people question them? I wasn't trying to be mean, I was trying to point out logical fallacies.

If I went around claiming the Earth was flat, people I imagine would respond in kind to me. Saying you can't make money off something that costs nothing makes no sense.

reply to post by boncho


Inversion point/ reassembly of particles...

If I wanted to watch you squirm, I would just reference LENR again.

reply to post by boncho


Actually, what I meant to impress upon was currently established markets and science. To introduce this newer technology would eliminate current energies and businesses. Like oil, furnaces would have to be altered, perhaps even the whole infrastructure. This would displace a lot of jobs, devalue a lit of stock... so on and so forth. It disrupts the status quo.

Not that they wouldn't find ways to make income of new techs in energy. They always will and do. However I think there are interested parties who would rather ride the gravy boat on oil slick water, till earth is bled dry.

At that point they will reveal the new technologies that they too will have a monopoly on ... but I don't think it will happen a second sooner. It's sort of like what the tree guy did who supplied newspaper with pulp to make paper. Back in the early 1900's he set about a campaign with the newspaper he supplied to bury production of hemp. They were his biggest competitor in making paper. He set about it by villifying the crop - touching upon people's emotions by focusing on it's effect recreationally and advocated complete prohibition. But his reasoning was a lie , this stuff has been arou d as long as we have, but because the crop threatened his tree business as it was a cheap are more economic way to make paper they wanted a ban - eliminate the competition. So deforestation continues to this day and we still use trees, instead of a contiously renewing crop with a much higher return and yield rate. All because of greed.

To not think oil companies do the same to technology that threatens it's own market - I can't believe it. They will, and I believe have. That's how are whole economic model is set up. Your always driving for increased sales and returmpns, what's more it is set up as a competition. You want to beat out your competitors and come out on top - the best.

So all of that in a nutshell - I'm an entertainer of the theory that utilization and action in creating a new energy infrastructure is blocked. Buried. Suppressed. In the interest of the established market and system.

CdT

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth

To introduce this newer technology would eliminate current energies and businesses. Like oil, furnaces would have to be altered, perhaps even the whole infrastructure. This would displace a lot of jobs, devalue a lit of stock... so on and so forth. It disrupts the status quo.

Plenty of history to indicate that is not exactly the case. How many major companies have changed their operating standards? Changed their markets? Plenty. In fact, GE started as an appliance manufacturer but is now considered a financial company (if memory serves.)

As far as infrastructure, yes indeed, retrofitting infrastructure is big business, which supplies lots of jobs. And unlimited energy would open up about a thousand avenues of possibilities that didn't exist with cost limiting energy conditions. Have you ever wondered how much industrial energy bills are??

At that point they will reveal the new technologies that they too will have a monopoly on ... but I don't think it will happen a second sooner.

Some truth to that, but being the first in the market gives you an edge. The Japanese have been working on all the crap posted throughout this thread since the 50s, the US for about the same time.

They actually had proper science initiatives to try and find this stuff, and in most instances came up dry. But it isn't independent of one nation, you really think the US or Japan, or China, or any country suddenly found the answer to total power over every other nation and said, "Heck boys, we just gonna sideline this one so we can have wars over oil and coal and… and make money, and pollute the hell out of where we live, forget that it's gonna cost a fortune to clean up everything we do when cancer becomes a 9/10 occurrence."

It's sort of like what the tree guy did who supplied newspaper with pulp to make paper. Back in the early 1900's he set about a campaign with the newspaper he supplied to bury production of hemp. They were his biggest competitor in making paper. He set about it by villifying the crop - touching upon people's emotions by focusing on it's effect recreationally and advocated complete prohibition.

Completely different commodity. Completely different underlying factors.

How marijuana was prohibited

Twentieth-century cannabis prohibition first reared its head in countries where white minorities ruled black majorities: South Africa, where it's known as dagga, banned it in 1911, and Jamaica, then a British colony, outlawed ganja in 1913. They were followed by Canada, Britain and New Zealand, which added cannabis to their lists of illegal narcotics in the 1920s. Canada's pot law was enacted in 1923, several years before there were any reports of people actually smoking it there. It was largely the brainchild of Emily F. Murphy, a feminist but racist judge who wrote anti-Asian, anti-marijuana rants under the pseudonym "Janey Canuck."

As we get older and hear the conspiracies over and over, we begin to analyze them a little closer and closer. And in this case, given that bans came out long before Dupont was releasing it's synthetic fibres line, and it coincides with other various drug prohibition, it seems more likely that it was the first steps towards the war on drugs, more so than it had to do with the paper industry. Not to say that people who may have feared hemp had their own reservations or didn't play a hand in its final prohibition.

Meanwhile, DuPont in 1937 had just patented nylon and "a new sulfate/sulfite process for making paper from wood pulp"

The bottom line, is to say that the only contributing factor to hemp being outlawed was Dupont, is ludicrous.

n the United States, marijuana prohibition began partly as a throw-in on laws restricting opiates and coc aine to prescription-only use, and partly in Southern and Western states and cities where blacks and Mexican immigrants were smoking it. Missouri outlawed opium and hashish dens in 1889, but did not actually prohibit cannabis until 1935. Massachusetts began restricting cannabis in its 1911 pharmacy law, and three other New England states followed in the next seven years.

In fact, the world had just seen the opium wars, witnessed an entire nation being overrun by drugs, aimed at its citizens to destabilize an entire continent. And there was plant of money to be made off the drug trade, even more if it were illegal.

You can't have hemp without the female version of the plant. And the female version was persona non grata, so simply saying it was because of Dupont, fearing for their industry, seems a little short sighted.

And if it were possible to entirely outlaw a commodity, or a process, or a product. You would also have to omit that hemp has been cultivated after the supposed influence:

2) Presidents Washington and Jefferson both grew hemp. Americans were legally bound to grow hemp during the Colonial Era and Early Republic. The federal government subsidized hemp during the Second World War and U.S. farmers grew about a million acres of hemp as part of that program.

From the Hemp Industry Association.

The simple truth is that suppression doesn't work that well. There are plenty of places that have cultivated hemp since the US outlawed it:

SPAIN has never prohibited hemp, produces rope and textiles, and exports hemp pulp for paper. The Spanish word for hemp is "cañamo."

***

The best example would be China, since it's used hemp for eons,

But they use wood for their paper industry:

JIN JILING, China — In silent, temperature-controlled labs in a desolate part of Hainan, China's most tropical province, rows of women in medical masks and lab coats clone trees that grow freakishly fast.

The trees have official names, such as APP-22 or DH32-29, but Wending Huang, Asia Pulp & Paper Co.'s chief forester in China, calls them his "Yao Mings" after the towering Chinese basketball star. The tiny green tissue samples, methodically implanted in petri jars, will become hardwood eucalyptus trees that need only four to six years to reach full height, up to 90 feet or more.

From a supportive group, the hemp association:

CHINA is the largest exporter of hemp textiles. The fabrics are of excellent quality. Medium density fiber board is also now available. The Chinese word for hemp is "ma."

And from hemp wiki:

The world-leading producer of hemp is China

*

Now, hemp still could have been seen as a threat, so I can see how pressure from big business could influence policy in the US, but even where there was no pressure it did not become the death knell for tree-paper.

Each year, Huang's labs clone 190 million ready-to-plant "cutlings," which APP grows on 790,000 acres of managed timberland spread over eight Chinese provinces. The company cultivates fiber-rich hardwood as intensively as U.S. agribusinesses grow gene-optimized corn and wheat.

Read more from Journal Sentinel: www.jsonline.com...
Follow us: @NewsHub on Twitter

CONT

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth


CONT

And it certainly hasn't been silenced to the point that no one uses it or knows nothing about it.

So deforestation continues to this day and we still use trees, instead of a contiously renewing crop with a much higher return and yield rate. All because of greed.

You will have to source this as the paper industry is all about renewable sources. Deforestation is usually from other things. Unless you mean deforestation with the original intent to change the type of trees growing.

Reality is that deforestation is a minor impact in the paper industry, and pollution is the major downside.

Deforestation[edit]
Main article: Deforestation
Worldwide consumption of paper has risen by 400% in the past 40 years, with 35% of harvested trees being used for paper manufacture.

Logging of old growth forests accounts for less than 10% of wood pulp,

[7] but is one of the most controversial issues. Plantation forest, from where the majority of wood for pulping is obtained, is generally a monoculture and this raises concerns over the ecological effects of the practice.
Deforestation is often seen as a problem in developing countries but also occurs in the developed world. Woodchipping to produce paper pulp is a contentious environmental issue in Australia.[8] In the 1990s, the New Zealand government stopped the export of woodchips from native forests after campaigning by environmentalists.[9]

**

but because the crop threatened his tree business as it was a cheap are more economic way to make paper they wanted a ban

So why is China still using Eucalyptus (the standard for paper producing trees globally) even though they've had a thriving hemp industry?

From a balanced article that highlights both the pros and cons of hemp based paper, the cons include:

Detractors of the annual agricultural production of hemp fiber are just as vocal against growing hemp fiber. They contend that hemp farming is very demanding on the environment and would negate any possible benefits ascribed to it. Hemp fiber would be cost prohibitive when compared to silvicultural production of wood fiber.

Any annual crop demands a period of establishment and reestablishment, during which the site has to be intensely cultivated and treated for weeds and pests. This has to be repeated until the crop is properly established and done on an annual basis for crops like flax, wheat, cotton, or hemp. Most tree species, even if grown on a fast rotation, would mean less site disturbance and have much less need for chemicals; Trees are more forgiving of site preparation, chemical support, and revisits after planting.

***

This doesn't really mingle with your whole "Hemp is cheaper, hemp is the saviour" opinion.

To not think oil companies do the same to technology that threatens it's own market - I can't believe it.

And yet, it doesn't really coincide with reality, since "Big Oil" keeps going after oil and gas reserves that are harder, and harder to bring to market, costing more and more, and dwindling their profits. All the while investing in alternative energy but not finding the returns they were looking for:

Big Oil hasn’t just hit a dead-end on alternative energy. For years, the energy giants have struggled to replace oil and gas reserves. In effect, they are moving a step closer to liquidating themselves with every barrel of oil they produce. Exxon’s purchase of XTO Energy was designed to reverse that trend, but as an investment, it’s been a disappointment so far. For more than a decade, Exxon has been buying back its own stock, an admission that it believes shareholders can get a better return putting their money somewhere else. Few seem to be plowing that cash into green energy companies.

If wind or solar were inherently profitable, big oil companies would have invested more heavily.

www.forbes.com...

(EROI) also known as ERoEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested), is a common way of expressing the efficiency of the energy production process. The EROI for oil and gas, as well as other fossil fuels, has been falling for decades (see chart below). If it was a financial stock, you would have sold it years ago. - See more at: 8020vision.com...

Dwindling EROI is the nail in the coffin for oil and gas. They can't make nearly as much money as they used to, if they had an alternative, they would exploit the crap out of it. While they still can. Because if it gets too tight, and they can't meet production needs, they will go under, one by one.

So all of that in a nutshell - I'm an entertainer of the theory that utilization and action in creating a new energy infrastructure is blocked. Buried. Suppressed. In the interest of the established market and system.

Which you have failed to show entirely.

Mary Rose
Here is another presentation at the same conference: "CAVITATION, ZPE AND LECLAIR EFFECT NUCLEAR REACTIONS" by Mark Leclair of NanoSpire, Inc.

From pages 1 and 39 of a 39 page .pdf "NanoSpire Water Conference 2012":

reply to post by Mary Rose

Macrocationic Crystalline H2O Cavitation Reentrant Jets

Are you sure they aren't spraying themselves with macrocatatonic jets?

How to??

How long ago did mankind learn to grind sticks together
just to make fire? For warmth, in order to cook, to
scare of dangerous animals...

And now, we drill into the ground to get oil.
So we can refine it, put it in our cars and
drive to work.

So, do the sticks make the energy.
No, it is "potential" energy.

Can i put the crude oil in my car and drive away...
No...

And now you will say, Its STORED energy...whatever..
I still say its "potential". Maybe even THEORETICAL...

Uranium doesnt blow up by itself.
I cant put uranium in my house to
get electricity.

How do i "tap" the aether??

Well, i have no clue...And niether do you boncho.
Your to busy trying to make everyone else a sheep.
And your fear of loosing control is obvious. And so
is the gvmts. IF, im not saying its real, but IF it
comes, free energy (ZPE) will render all economy
invalid...