Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 112 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here


Hot Links

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science


ECW E-Cat World


Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times



Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site


Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

Definite Proof for the Conversion of vacuum-energy
Posted on Tuesday, April 07, 2009 @ 22:02:06 GMT by vlad

Science Definite Proof for the Conversion of vacuum-energy into mechanical energy based on the Measurement of Machine Power/ Published in physic.philica.com

by Claus W. Turtur (Fachbereich Elektrotechnik, University of Applied Sciences Braunschweig-Wolfenbuettel) and Wolfram Knapp (Institut for Experimental Physics, Otto von Guericke Universitat, Magdeburg)

In some recent work the existence of the dark energy of the universe, also known as vacuum-energy, was investigated theoretically [1,2] and experimentally [3,4], resulting in the possibility to convert this energy into mechanical energy within the laboratory. A rotor within an electrical field was propelled by vacuum-energy, whereby ideally no electrical energy from the field-source should be used. A final proof that the observed rotation of the rotor is really based on vacuum-energy, is established for sure, as soon as the produced mechanical engine power of the rotor is larger, than the electrical power losses, which occur because of imperfections of the electrical isolation within the machine converting vacuum-energy.

Such imperfections of the isolation cause a discharge of the source of the electrical field, which has to be compensated in the real setup of an experiment in order to avoid that the field will disappear in the course of time.

This proof was brought with the experiment reported here, whereby an electrical power loss of (2.87+/-0.89) nanowatts is seen in comparison with a produced mechanical engine power of approx.(150+/-50) nanowatts, so that at least the difference is taken from vacuum-energy for sure.

Full article: http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=155

More articles by Dr. Turtur on the subject.:

Dr. Turtur, "Some of my Work on Physics": http://public.rz.fh-wolfenbuettel.de/~turtur/physik/



Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by vlad

Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?

Article Rating
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

"Definite Proof for the Conversion of vacuum-energy" | Login/Create an Account | 10 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: Definite Proof for the Conversion of vacuum-energy (Score: 1)
by Koen on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 @ 02:53:32 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla
This is very interesting and spot on.  I am glad Turtur and Knapp  chose to explore the electro'dynamics' of high 'static' voltage.
This is Nikola Tesla's claim finally proven by a simple experiment.

This shows that the usual classical electrodynamics theory (Maxwell theory) is incomplete:  it cannot explain this phenomenon.
This experiment shows a macroscopic effect, therefore a 'classical' electrodynamics theory should explain this result,  despite of the existance of 'quantum theory' and 'quantum effects'

I do not see this device as a 'electro-magnetic wave' receiver,  so what is the nature of the received energy? The remark 'it is vacuum energy'  is insufficient explanation, since vacuum energy can be anything.

I assume this device converts Tesla's longitudinal electric waves into mechanical energy.

This is great!

Re: Definite Proof for the Conversion of vacuum-energy (Score: 1)
by Koen on Friday, April 17, 2009 @ 00:11:53 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla
explains his experiment.

According to dr. Turtur:

The driving force is the Casimir force, enhanced by an external electric field,
The Casimir force between two parallel metalic plates is a 'pushing' force (not pulling):  the ZPE is pushing harder at the outside surfaces (that do not face each other) than at the inside

 (ZPE force 'A'  is stronger than ZPE force 'B'. The character '|'  is symbol for metalic plate.

      A ->  |  <-B->  |  <- A

So the rotor is not driven by the electric field between the rotor blades and its 'parallel' stator plate,  but in stead it is driven by the ZPE force at the outside surfaces that do not face each other. Between the surfaces there is less Zero Point Energy, because particular frequencies in the Zero Point Field are missing.  An extra applied electric field 'enhances' this effect, and lowers the Zero Point Energy between the plates, because of the 'Kerr effect'.
The vacuum condition was necessary to rule out  a possible driving force based on ionized air spraying.

The external electric field changes the refractive index of the plates, which also have an effect on the Zero Point electromagnetic waves. This is known as the Kerr effect. A typical Kerr cell may require voltages as high as 30 kVolt.


It is an interesting article filled with equations.
Dr. Turtur is not content about the ZPE models that are now in existance, so he derived his own models/expressions for modelling the ZPE.

He also derives from classical electrodynamics that 'static' electric fields constitute a constant energy FLOW. He reasons that the ZPE  is providing the energy (is the energy source)  in case there is a constant radial outgoing energy flow from a central charged sphere.

Turtur is taking for granted many assumptions from standard theory, such as the usual retardation of the electromagnetic potentials (limited by speed c) and thus the usual "Lorentz gauge" for which there is no experimental evidence.  These assumtions complicate the involved physics laws very much.

Turtur's reasoning is a bit speculative, especially the involvement of the Kerr effect:  Turtur's mathematical reasoning does not show clearly HOW MUCH the Casimir effect is enhanced by the external electric field and the Kerr effect of METALLIC plates.

There can be OTHER electro-optical effects involved, and to my humble opinion the driving force might be explained also by wave phenomena other than electromagnetic waves, such as electro-scalar waves.

Anyway, the clear experimental results speak for themselves,  many thanks Dr. Purpur,  and Dr. Knapp !!

And thanks Vlad for spreading the Zero Point Energy  news.

email to dr. Turtur (Score: 1)
by Koen on Sunday, April 26, 2009 @ 22:27:57 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla
Dear Dr. Turtur,

Now that you have described more details about the electric power measurements, the results are even more convincing.
You did check that the calibration of the picoAmp meter is correct, by means of a controllable power supply and a large resistor.

May I ask you the following:  what were the values of this large resistor and the voltage of the controllable power supply?
Was it comparable to the actual experiment conditions?

I am also studying possible ZeroPointEnergy models and various explanations.
Let me call the measured effects the 'Turtur' effect,  since I assume this effect is new and predicted by you.
The Turtur force (as a special type of ZPE force)  is not the Casimir force (just another ZPE force on very small distances)  because of its 1/d^4  dependance of distance ( d is the distance between the metallic plates),  and I suspect the Turtur force is   1/d^2  distance dependant,  since the distance of the plates of the Turtur/Knapp experiment is probably too big for showing an   1/d^4  dependance.

Therefore I am studying the essential diffence (in spectrum/phase/amplitude ??)  of the virtual photons of a static Coulombic field, and the virtual photons of the ZPE field as a ground state of the vacuum.  Maybe also vacuum polarisation is essential for explaining the Turtur force.

First one should try to explain the results in the framework of standard physics,  but if this is not possible, then one should look for the most realistic alternatives.  For example, dr. Werner Hofer developed his own version of physics on the atomic level:  microdynamics  (  http://www.ssci.liv.ac.uk/~whofer/md.html  ).
And personally I am not convinced that the Maxwell/Lorentz theory is a complete theory for describing all classical field effects, so I developed a more general theory.  Older electrodynamics theories (especially the older force/potential laws  before Maxwell and Faraday introduced the 'field' concept)  describe effects that are not covered by the Maxwell/Lorentz theory,  such as Ampère's longitudinal force component.

I am sorry I used the term 'free energy inventors'  in my previous email;    I did not mean to compare your scientific experiment with the (most of the time) unsuccessful ' free energy' claims by inventors of energy devices.  In many cases these inventors also refer to the ZPE of the vacuum, but rarely show an advanced theoretical model involving the ZPE, and how it relates to the device.

As soon as I have found some worthwhile to contribute to the theory, I let you know ...

Sincerely,  and cordial regards,
Koen van Vlaenderen

Complete overview of my work on the zero-point oscillations (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, May 10, 2009 @ 15:39:02 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Dear colleague,

now I have published a complete overview of my work on the zero-point oscillations of the vacuum - from the beginning of the theory to final experimental verification, building a machine converting vacuum-energy in the lab.

Here is the link:
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf [www.wbabin.net]
(93 pages, 1 MB, download for free)

Sincerely Yours
Claus W. Turtur

second reply from- and email to dr Turtur (Score: 1)
by Koen on Tuesday, May 05, 2009 @ 08:39:42 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla
Dear Dr. Turtur,

I assume the zero check is testing the Ampère meter  applying infinite resistance.
And indeed electromagnetic disturbance of the electronic signals in the cables attached to the meter is also something to rule out.
Thank you very much for this information;  for the credibility of the measured results this is essential,  and it looks fine now  :-).

Still, the measured current during the experiment is very small,  since the total resistance is very high (vacuum condition).
It must be almost impossible to find a resistance with know value that falls in the same range as the total resistance for the Ampère meter during the experiment.
This also raises the question how the picoAmpère meter was calibrated during its manufacturing.

The measured result is rather unexpected and I know of only one quite similar experiment, see

I know what a skeptic reader might say:  the measured force/thrust  can be explained by ionisation of the air, which then forms a plasma in which the rotor can push/pull against the layer of plasma.  But there are serious calculation about the ion-thrust force,  and for near-vacuum conditions the ion-thrust force is negligible, and even for non-vacuum conditions this force cannot always fully explain the measured forces.

The intriquing puzzle of explaining the result:

1) This is a macroscopic electrodynamic effect (the measured force is not gravitic I assume),  so I expect that eventually the classical electrodynamics theory needs adaptation.  Which laws should be generalised and how?

2) Quantum electrodynamics (quantisation of fields, etc ....)   still provides the classical picture on a macroscopic scale via the statistics of many particles. Your experiment shows that something is not fully understood also within the framework of QED and quantised fields. Maybe vacuum polarization is necessary to explain the results.

One way to come to this conclusion is to rule out that the simple photonic/TEM waves vacuum model is not sufficient  (too simple) as a model.

3) Theoretical approach:   first try to find a photonic effect that involves a high electric potential,  and try to estimate if this effect can explain the measured force.
Thus, is the Kerr constant for metals big enough to explain the measured force as a Kerr effect on vacuum TEM waves that enhances the Casimir force effect?
Can TEM wave polarisation effects  (for instance the Faraday effect)   enhance the Casimir force?  Are there some photonic effects that we did not consider yet?

If the TEM wave photonic vacuum model can not provide the answer,  there is no other option than to involve vacuum polarisation in the model.
Reflecting back to the classical electrodynamics that includes vacuum polarisation,  there might be 'vacuum polarisation waves'  involved that can have a speed much different than c,  so then the old "retarded by speed c"   potential models might not apply at all.

So one of my first questions is:  do you know the  Kerr constant of the metals applied in the experiment?

With kind regards,

Koen van Vlaenderen

p.s    I have a masters degree  for electrical engineering
and a strong fascination for physics,  and alternative (but based on realistic reasoning) physics theories,
such as  SED  (stochastic electrodynamics),  Werner Hofer's microphysics,  and Reginald Cahill's  theory of light speed measurements,
Ruggero Santilli's theory of unified physics,  Jack Sarfatti's model of gravity/dark-energy,   etc ....
All standard theories are also characterised by unproven (by experiment) assumptions that are often hidden in the form of circular arguments/logic.


Dear Koen J Van Vlaenderen,

I apologize for the delay of my answer. I was away from home for a experiment for which I do not have the equipment here in my laboratory. Now I am back home and I answer all Emails.

The Picoamperemeter was first calibrated by the manufacturer, but we checked the calibration with a resistor of 20 MegaOhms (the resistor was from the same type as we used in the experiment) and a voltage supply of 0...1 Volt (continuously adjustable voltage). The critical point is the zero-check, because we have to be sure, that there is no drift of the zero-point (0.00 pA). This was also checked and it was ok. Of course we used a specially shielded cable to connect the Picoamperemeter. This cable is also bought from Keithley. And this cable is necessary, otherwise it would not be possible to measure such small electric current as we did.

The force driving my electrostatic rotor has some certain connection (in background) with the Casimir-force (they go back to zero-point oscillations), but they are some aspects which are totally different from the Casimir-effect (without any connection with the Casimir-effect). For instance: The Casimir-force is observed between two electrically uncharged plates, without any electrical field. But the forces driving my rotor need electrically charged plates and thus an electrical field.

But both types of forces go back to quantum mechanical zero-point oscillations of electromagnetic waves. By the way, I worked out quantum theoretical background of the forcess driving my rotor, and I published this at   http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=138
But up to now, I did not do the calculations to find out, how the forces driving my rotor depend on the distance (this is the distance "R" between the field-source and the rotor-blades). I suppose, that the forces do not decrease with 1/R^4, but I think, that they should decreas much less rapidly.

My model (as published in http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=138) finally goes back to the question, how electrostatic (same as magnetostatic) fields act on the spectrum of photons (especially on the ground state |0> ). There is indeed a connection with vacuum-polarization, and I wrote about this also in the mentioned paper.

I absolutely agree with you, that the force driving my rotor should be explained within classical physics. This is, why I wrote the publication   http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=119
I am convinced that this publication together with the QED-publication mentioned above should give a clear evidence, that my force can be explained on the basis of established physics (perhaps with a minor supplement, such as my postulate, that the Lagrangian of photons  |n>  in electric and magnetic fields given by Heisenberg and Euler [19] can also be applied to the ground state  |0>  ). I don't think that we need "new physics" to explain the force driving my electrostatic rotor.

Well - some supplements to the classical Electrodynamics of Maxwell & Lorentz should be done in any case. But this is clear from a lot of obersvations, not only from my experiment. (Nevertheless I wrote a publication about a paradoxon in the Maxwell & Lorentz -theory (published at  http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3253), which was the activator to bring me to the idea of the electrostatic rotor.)

I will be glad to hear from you - and please forgive me for the time delay of my answer.

With Best Regards
Claus Turtur

Re: Definite Proof for the Conversion of vacuum-energy (Score: 1)
by yuridebura on Friday, November 20, 2009 @ 23:17:48 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message)
The existence of the vacuum-energy is nowadays generally accepted. It is verified by measurements of the expansion of the universe within physical cosmology [5,6,7,8]. This type of verification of the vacuum-energy is based on the gravitation caused by the mass connected with the vacuum-energy, since energy is equivalent to mass.

In the Theory of General Relativity, as the modern theory of the gravitation, the gravitative effect of vacuum-energy results in the cosmological constant Λ [9,10,11]. Although the existence of the vacuum-energy is proven, its energy-density is still unclear today. The value of the energy-density is regarded as the largest discrepancy in modern physics. As an average over several literature references of cosmology for personal loans [www.hostseeq.com], the energy-density can be estimated at about (9.0±0.27)·10-10J/m3, whereas in Geometrodynamics a value of h·c·π/Lp4=3.32·10+113J/m3 is suspected [12]. However the latter value is calculated by an integration over all wavelengths of the quantum mechanical zero point oscillations within the vacuum (these are infinitesimally many), whereby divergence problems are suppressed simply by the means of cut-off radii. Several other approaches to suppress the divergence problems of these improper integrals (leading to the energy density) result in further other values for the energy-density of the vacuum [13,14], but they do not solve the problem of the ambiguity.

At least the existence of vacuum-energy is beyond dispute, so that it should be possible to verify this energy in the laboratory. That is indeed the case. Two possible ways to this proof have been developed, namely for a metallic rotor in the electrostatic field in [2] and for a superconducting rotor in the magnetic field in [15]. Since the work presented here is based on the first mentioned method, this one is briefly recapitulated in the following lines.


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.