 |
There are currently, 145 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Answering extracting vacuum energy question
Posted on Tuesday, December 08, 2009 @ 00:00:00 UTC by vlad
|
|
Tom Valone's answer to the CMNS Google group: Brian,
To briefly
answer your quantum vacuum question about "what's wrong" with Scott []'s
generalization about ZPE, first of all, it's amazing to me that such an
old-fashioned, close-minded skeptic exists right within the camp that has given
birth to the most progressive discoveries of ZPE related to heat, energy,
gravity and inertia that have been published in peer-reviewed journals like
Physical Review. I guess everyone has a skeleton in their closet. However, in this case, Scott's
opinion in his first paragraph below (...Specifically, the ZPF is the lowest allowable energy state of the
vacuum. If some of that energy was extracted, the remaining energy would be
less....and that is not allowable...) is unfortunately misguiding
public and scientific opinion against the great body of recent ZPE work
addressing this specific issue with fresh, new approaches that do not violate
the second law.
To begin with, Hal Puthoff, Bernard Haisch, Frank Mead, and Fabrizio Pinto, and Paulo Correa (all PhDs) have been credited with patents and journal articles on "the extraction of ZPE for useful energy". Eric Davis, Jordan Maclay, Thorsten Ludwig, Goychuk, Scully (all PhDs) and many others have published excellent journal articles on ZPE energy usefulness.
Since many people still may not have heard of nor read my book, Zero Point Energy: Fuel of the Future, which explains the history, discoveries and these approaches to ZPE conversion including a review of some of the patents and articles, or my prior Feasibility Study renamed for publishing as Practical Conversion of Zero Point Energy from the Quantum Vacuum for the Performance of Useful Work (with 300 references), I'll be glad to send FREE review copies of either book (the second study is more technical) to anyone on this email list.
Suffice it to say, there are many approaches documented in both books to the conversion of ZPE fluctuations. One amazing example, taken from my "Tools for the Vacuum Engineer" is also in the second book and online at http://users.erols.com/iri/ZPEToolkit.htm . It takes advantage of the modification of the dielectric constant of a surface by light, which increases the Casimir force. The article should be studied by all physicists interested to get up to speed on the zero point energy revolution taking place just in the past ten years. Fabrizio Pinto published in 1999 the "Engine cycle of an optically controlled vacuum energy transducer" (Phys. Rev. B, V. 60, N. 21, p. 14740) that proves thermodynamically the excess electricity (500 pW) which can be generated by a 100 micron Casimir cavity that has a switchable microlaser inside. Recently (Sept. 1, 2009), Pinto's patented concept has received a new shot in the arm with the U of CA at Berkley's smallest semiconductor laser in the world which is only a few hundred nanometers in length, small enough to easily fit into Pinto's micron-sized Casimir cavity http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/tech/40267 called a "plasmonic laser".
An article of mine is also attached for more information on another non-thermal
noise approach to ZPE conversion. Interestingly, Bernard Haisch (patent
#7,379,286 on a Casimir cavity method) and I (see diode paper attached) have
independently chosen two different solid state approaches to conversion of ZPE
but coincidentally used the same 10 cc box as an example and surprisingly, have
come up with a very similar average range of several hundred watts estimated
electrical output. There are many more approaches to be investigated,
including for example, Prof. Jordan Maclay's positive/negative force oscillating
Casimir cavity based on his NASA-funded discovery of the box-size boundary
between the two opposite forces. Hopefully, this will help elevate the
discussion to a more informed and sophisticated level of debate. (The Koch
'measurement of quantum noise' article has been posted on the IRI nonprofit
website in its entirety - notice especially his Fig. 6 graph of current spectral
density which caught Prof. Christian Beck's attention to which he declared 10^12
Hz as a practical cutoff frequency for ZPE and dark energy.)
Sincerely, Thomas Valone, PhD, PE Integrity Research
Institute 5020 Sunnyside Avenue, Suite 209 Beltsville MD
20705 www.IntegrityResearchInstitute.org888-802-5243, 301-220-0440 800-295-7674, FAX:
301-513-5728 Also see: Koch, R. H. et al.
"Measurement of quantum noise in resistively shunted Josephson junctions" Phys.
Rev. B, V. 26, N. 1, July, 1982, p. 74 http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/Kochquantumnoise.pdf ----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott ..."
To: CMNS
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 8:24 AM
Subject: CMNS: Re: extracting vacuum energy
>
> From: "Brian ..."
> To: CMNS
> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 3:36 AM
> Subject: CMNS: extracting vacuum energy
>
>
>> Does anyone have any views on what is wrong (or not wrong) with this
>
> We've spent a lot of time considering the possibility of extracting energy
> from the vacuum. It is important to realize that the same physics (QM,
> QED) that predicts the existence of the zero-point field also forbids the
> extraction of energy from it. Specifically, the ZPF is the lowest
> allowable energy state of the vacuum. If some of that energy was
> extracted, the remaining energy would be less....and that is not allowable.
> But, as nearly everyone is on the lookout for something wrong with QM, this
> realization doesn't slow folks down much....:)
>
> Turtur's electrostatic motor design is naive in my opinion. But he has at
> least performed a serious experiment....and obtained a very interesting
> result. I am concerned that he's only monitoring the current through the
> rotor itself. There is another path for electrical current through his
> apparatus....from the overhead disc to the walls of the vacuum chamber.
> I wonder if the rotor would still rotate if he removed the picoammeter
> entirely (disconnecting the rotor). I'll try to contact him and ask.
>
> Scott []
> []
>
|
| |
|
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.
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Answering extracting vacuum energy question (Score: 1)
by vlad on Tuesday, December 08, 2009 @ 20:37:06 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Submitted by Anon: (anonymous reply to Tom Valone, please post)
Tom,
Don't belittle Scott. He is a well-respected researcher who, along with others, is making a sincere effort to help the free energy community. He is using well known and established theories and procedures to validate numerous claims and uncover false or misleading ones.
I consider myself to be a free energy researcher, and would welcome Scott's attention. One of my projects has already received some attention from one of his colleagues (although, not enough, in my opinion). I'd like nothing more than to hand something to Scott that would shake the foundations of his world. We really need more folks like him, willing to invest all that time, energy, and knowledge investigating fringe ideas.
The real problem with most free energy proposals is the inability to unambiguously demonstrate and reliably replicate the experiments. If you have something that achieves this, please present it in such a way that even Scott [] would be convinced and able to replicate it. If you can do that, the whole world will thank you. I'm still working towards that goal, but accept that my chances of success are very slim.
There are a lot of good ideas out there. The problem is substantiating them with convincing evidence. You talk a lot and you write a lot, but I have yet to see any smoking gun come out of your labs. If it has, why isn't it sitting on a shelf at Home Depot?
Put up or shut up!
Regards,
Overconfident
[Vlad] My proposed Xtreme Science Foundation (XSF) was supposed to accomplish exactly that, Overconfident. But, I must say, based on the level of support my XSF idea got from the people and scientists out there, not very many want the convincing evidence (the "smoking gun", as you call it) out of the closet yet. There is still money to be made out of pollution, economic under-development and generally poverty, pain & suffering in this world.
|
|
|
|
|
