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

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· 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, 198 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

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

Events
  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    ECW E-Cat World

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    Panacea-BOCAF

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site

    USPTO

    Want to Know

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

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    Energy from the vacuum?
    Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 @ 00:57:55 GMT by vlad

    Science 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

     
    Login
    Nickname

    Password

    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:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "Energy from the vacuum?" | Login/Create an Account | 2 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: 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.



     

    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.