|
There are currently, 198 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Energy from the vacuum?
Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 @ 00:57:55 GMT by vlad
|
|
On the Yahoo free_energy list there is an interesting discussion under the thread "PUTHOFF WEIGHS IN - Fw: Query regarding your paper". (See the paper "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum" in the Downloads section). Here is a letter from Hal Puthoff:
Ted's question: I'm not expert but thought you might try to clarify what your hypothesis is and if you think it could supply energy to the world. As you know "cold fusion" was investigated several years ago also, but no proof seems to be found.
Hal Puthoff's response to Ted,
With regard to the latter, indeed, all our investigations regarding cold fusion have come up with naught (see www.earthtech.org), though we don't rule it out absolutely.
With regard to the former (ZPE extraction), to date no viable technique has been found, though we do not absolutely rule it out either. True, if Casimir plates are allowed to collapse, some energy results, but it can't be recycled effectively as it takes just as much energy to pull the plates apart as was obtained during the collapse.
You can then consider that if someone continuously supplied you with Casimir plates, you let them collapse then trashed them instead of recycling them, you would come out ahead with the trashed Casimir plates being the "ash" from the "Casimir plate fuel."
Next step is to consider Casimir pinch effect in a non-neutral plasma where a non-neutral filament or ball is permitted to collapse, yield energy, then dissipate however it dissipates as you make new plasma, then in principle one could consider that, providing the energy used to ignite the plasma process was less than what was obtained, one would have the ZPE equivalent of a nuclear fission reactor.
The dissipated "plasma ash" components would presumably eventually be reconstituted by environmental thermal input, but there are some dicey thermodynamics here that are not yet certain.
One experiment we tried at the synchrotron at the Univ. of Wisconsin had the following logic. Suppose you had hot ball bearings in the sun that could roll thru a shaded pipe, give up some heat energy to a heat exchanger, then roll out the other side and get reheated by the sun. Then circulate around again. In the ZPE case (with ZPE playing the role of the sun in the above analogy), as a first step we circulated hydrogen molecules between Casimir plates to reduce the ZPE environment (i.e., shade ZPE), looking for evidence that the dissociation energy would be greater from the now (hypothesized ZPE-driven) reduced ground state energy level. (See www.earthtech.org for details.) The experiment gave some tantalizing results, but no real proof that the ground state energy had been reduced, but we had signal to noise problems that were not completely resolved, leaving the result in ambiguity.
So what is the bottom line? We do not rule out the possibility of ZPE conversion, but we do not guarantee it either, and in any case no engineering embodiment/scheme has yet come up a winner. But we continue looking. To quote the Russian science historian Podolni, "It would be just as presumptuous to deny the feasibility of useful application as it would be irresponsible to guarantee such application."
Best regards,
Hal Puthoff, PhD
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin
|
| |
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.
| |
Average Score: 5 Votes: 1
| |
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Energy from the vacuum? (Score: 1) by vlad on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 @ 01:21:14 GMT (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | The essence of the classical argument (from Phil):
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:56:57 -0700
From: Phil Karn
Subject: Re: Re: PUTHOFF WEIGHS IN - Fw: Query regarding your paper
Dave Narby wrote:
> What I don't understand is how you somehow think that by sufficient torture of logic and
> language you can somehow actually change the meaning of the words he used to describe his
> system.
I could ask you the same question.
> He clearly stated that the energy in this system comes from the vacuum.
No, he clearly stated that the energy released by the reaction comes
from the fuel (capacitors or plasma) being compressed by the Casimir
force, which in turn comes from the phenomenon called "vacuum energy".
You seem to think that Puthoff's use of the term "vacuum energy" is all
the proof you need to win the argument: that free energy exists. But it
just isn't that simple. Energy also exists all around us in the form of
ambient heat, but it isn't a source of free energy. Many people have
tried to tap it, and every single one has failed. The second law of
thermodynamics explains why. Most people have gotten its message by now,
but a few ignorant people still beat their heads against the wall.
The "vacuum energy" situation is very similar. I could probably even use
the radiation pressure from ambient heat to compress a material in much
the same way that Puthoff uses the Casimir force. But that doesn't mean
I've made a fuelless generator, or even a way around the second law. I'm
simply using a novel force to produce energy by consuming a fuel. And
once again, force and energy are two different things.
> He clearly stated that the "plasma ash" (not his term) would presumably be reconstituted by
> thermal input.
*Presumably*? In the context of his paper it's quite clear that he knows
he's making a real stretch with this presumption. Hence the reference to
"dicey thermodynamics".
> His reference to "dicey thermodynamics" doesn't indicate that he thinks it will not work, but in
> fact that he thinks the possibility of this method working is "dicey", which (according to the
> dictionary) means "uncertain". This is consistent with what he wrote in the original paper,
> that such a system is "highly speculative".
"Highly speculative" is an understatement. He clearly states in his
preceeding discussion of capacitors that the process is irreversible.
Even in theory, it can only work if it is continually fed fresh
uncollapsed capacitors. Why would plasma be any different?
He's clearly aware that he's handwaving on thin ice by presuming that
the plasma could be recycled with ambient thermal energy without
violating the Second Law. So "dicey" is also quite an understatement.
But that doesn't stop you from taking the man out of context. To you, he
firmly supports the wildest fantasies of the free energy crackpots. If
you'll recall, this is the practice that led to this whole argument.
> In fact nothing in this system violates any law of thermodynamics, as those laws deal solely
> with closed systems, and this is an open system.
In case you haven't heard, the universe is a closed system. But why do
you care about the laws of thermodynamics? To you, they're just the
personal opinions of some close-minded eggheads. All the thousands of
experimenters, experiments, widely replicated observations and carefully
constructed theories must fall in the face of your obviously vastly
superior intellect.
Yet you're calling us skeptics "arrogant". Amazing.
Phil
........
From: Puthoff@.com
To: dnarby@.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Query regarding your paper
D. Narby's question:
Regarding your theoretical method of energy production (on page 9 of the PDF) - Does the
energy from this method come from fusion or from the vacuum?
The vacuum. Conversion of ZPF mode energy into other forms.
Hal
.........
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:21:19 -0700
From: Phil Karn
Subject: Re: PUTHOFF WEIGHS IN - Fw: Query regarding your paper
Dave Narby wrote:
> So according to you, he actually didn't write this?
> The vacuum. Conversion of ZPF mode energy into other forms.
>
> Hal
>
>
> And he didn't actually write this either?
>
>
> > | The dissipated "plasma ash" components would presumably eventually be
> > | reconstituted by environmental thermal input, but there are some dicey
> > | thermodynamics here that are not yet certain.
>
> Hmmm?
Of course he wrote that. I never said he didn't. He also wrote a lot of
other stuff you didn't quote that makes it clear that you quoted him
selectively and out of context.
I tried to explain last night that you can't win this argument by just
pointing to Puthoff's use of the phrase "vacuum energy". Puthoff is well
aware that even if "vacuum energy" exists, the second law of
thermodynamics probably prohibits us from turning it into useful work
without also consuming a fuel.
I also gave one good example of how another form of ambient energy --
heat -- could not be directly turned into useful work, but that it could
be used in a process very similar to Puthoff's that converts a fuel into
useful work.
I have since thought of some more examples. One is that little dipping
bird toy you find in science museum gift shops. To the naive, it seems
to produce useful work from ambient heat energy. One person who believed
this even started a Yahoo discussion group (ambientenergy). The dipping
bird does indeed get its energy from ambient heat, but it also consumes
a "fuel", namely liquid water. When the liquid water has all been turned
into water vapor, the bird stops even though the supply of ambient heat
energy is essentially infinite.
The same is almost certainly true for "vacuum energy", and for the very
same fundamental reason: the second law of thermodynamics. Even if you
can find a way to extract energy from the vacuum, it can only be done by
consuming a fuel. Without a fuel, the "vacuum engine" would reduce the
total entropy of the universe and that's specifically prohibited by the
second law. Or in Puthoff's words, it's highly dicey.
Phil
|
|
|
Re: Energy from the vacuum? (Score: 1) by ElectroDynaCat on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 @ 22:32:20 GMT (User Info | Send a Message) | The thought experiment (Gedankin) with the collapsing Casimir Cavities brings up an interesting speculation. The force between the plates is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance between them. Given that it would be possible to make perfectly flat plates that could approach each other at zero distance, an infinite force should exist just before they touch, resulting in an infinte force working over a finite distance. Given that E=Fx(distance) an infinte amount of energy should be extracted thereby creating another big bang. Maybe thats how this Universe was started 15 billion years ago? Don't take this too seriously. |
|
|
|
|