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, 159 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

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

Events

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

Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker?
Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 @ 23:00:05 UTC by vlad

General From www.gizmag.com : April 27, 2007 Steorn is publicly unveiling its “perpetual motion machine” this July, according to the latest video from CEO Sean McCarthy. The Irish company made international headlines after declaring news of its invention, which would theoretically violate the so called laws of thermodynamics, in a full page ad in The Economist in August 2006. However, because its “over 100% efficient” energy system still remains over 100% unverified, McCarthy is currently viewed by academia as about as scientific as an X-men sequel. An examination of the model by a panel of 22 scientists, (chosen out of a whopping 4500 applicants), is expected to complete its investigation into Steorn’s claims in the following two months. The result could simply be a punch line to what many scientists already regard as a bad joke...or it could revolutionize the world’s energy systems and utterly demolish our understanding of physics.


In science, the term efficiency is used to describe the discrepancy between the energy that goes into a system and the useful energy output of the system. The first law of thermodynamics states that, because energy cannot be created or destroyed, efficiency cannot exceed 100%. The second law states that, since matter and energy are constantly progressing towards a state of equilibrium with the environment, the efficiency of a system will inevitably deteriorate. Steorn, however, asserts that the “meticulous” placement of magnets can allow a magnetic object to progress indefinitely along a path in such a way that when it returns to its starting position, it has gained energy. McCarthy claims that such an arrangement can result in up to 400% efficiency. This system breaks the laws of thermodynamics with such blatant contempt that, in a Newtonian universe, all Steorn members would be thrown in physics prison. Indeed the devil-may-care attitude Steorn’s prototype has towards the universal constants is part of the reason the company had such trouble in their initial attempts to persuade scientists to test it. McCarthy claims that 90% of scientists they approached refused to even acknowledge the possibility. As for the 10% dared to witness it in action, McCarthy states that all were convinced...

More here: http://www.gizmag.com/go/7164/
----------

Another article with lots of interesting comments:

Steorn's free energy seems curiously expensive
by Rupert Goodwins ZDNet UK

In spring, a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love. In late summer, though, it's more a case around here of what on earth to write about. It is the journalistic silly season, when everyone's on holiday and nothing's really happening until September.

Canny people know how to fill that space. One lot who got the timing just right is Steorn, a company apparently composed of three people working from a business park in Dublin. Flicking through the seasonally adjusted pages of an anaemic edition of The Economist last week, I saw their full page advert claiming a "blasphemous" breakthrough in energy generation. Thence to their Web site, which is a creditable production saying the company has a small bundle of aluminium, motors, disks and wires that effectively produces power out of nowhere. Interested scientists are invited to apply to become part of a panel of 12, which will then be asked to test the device.

Coo. And Steorn is putting its money where its mouth is. A full-page advert in the Economist costs many tens of thousands of pounds. The Web site is very professional, and the London PR company involved is one that also handles ITV, Halifax, John Lewis and others of that stature. This is a substantial investment — and, since it doesn't seem aimed at selling anything, inviting investment or producing anything measurable, it's a huge chunk of their own money in what even the company will cheerfully admit is a PR stunt...

Full article: http://opinion.zdnet.co.uk/comment/

Some comments to this article:

Anonymous writes: Carlos Luna has been a leading researcher at Steorn and the related company Fraudhalt for several years. His name is on several Steorn patents from 2004.

Carlos Luna did PhD research at the Group of Magnetism and Magnetic Nanomaterials Institute for Materials Science of Madrid, CSIC

His PhD work is described as follows:

1) Laboratories for Bulk Magnetic Characterization

High-field temperature-dependent magnetic and magnetotransport characterizations are performed at the Laboratory of Magnetometry and Magnetotransport.Facilities include a Vibrating Sample Magnetometer, VSM, under maximum field of 1.5 T (low-temperature measurements in preparation), a superconducting coil (maximum field of 12T, function of temperature), lock-in, impedance bridge, and other equipments to determine high-frequency Giant Magneto-Impedance, GMI, and Magnetransport (Magnetoresistence, MR) properties. Prof. Francisco Batallán is responsible for this Laboratory, where Dr. Badini and Ph.D students Carlos Luna and David Navas are measurements responsible. General facilities of the Institute include a SQUID magnetometer, AC Susceptometer, and High-field Vibrating sample Magnetometer.

2) Laboratory of Technical Magnetism

General studies on magnetism, mainly on soft magnetic materials, are performed at the Laboratory of Technical Magnetism including techniques to measure low-field hysteresis loops, fluctuating and temperature dependent switching field studies, magnetostriction by Small Angle Magnetization Rotation, magnetoelastic properties and field-induced rotation of levitating magnetostrictive wires, etc... Prof. Manuel Vázquez is responsible for this laboratory where Dr. Kleber Pirota and Ph.D. students Karin García and Carlos Luna are also involved.

Citations:

"Temperature dependence of remagnetization process in bistable magnetic microwires", M. Vázquez, A. Zhukov, K. Pirota, R. Varga, K. García, C. Luna, M. Provencio, D. Navas, J.L. Martínez, M. Hernández-Vélez, J. Non-Crystalline solids 329 (2003) 123-130 (Invited, V Int. Workshop Non-crystalline Solids, Mexico. Feb. 2003)

" Induced rotation of magnetic wires by magnetic and mechanical excitations", M. Vázquez, V. Raposo and C. Luna, Electromagnetic Fields in Electrical Engineering. ed. A. Krawczyk and S. Wiak. IOS Press 2002. pp.525-530, (Invited, ICEM Conf. Krakow, Sept. 2001)

"Inducing rotation and levitation in magnetostrictive wires and rods: correlated amplitude and frequency of exciting ac axial magnetic field". V. Raposos, C. Luna and M. Vázquez, Sensors and Actuators A 106 (2003) 274-277

"Magnetic nanoparticles: synthesis, ordering and properties", M. Vázquez, C. Luna, P. Morales, R. Sanz, C. Serna and C. Mijangos, (Invited, At the Fontiers of the Condensed Matter Conf., Buenos Aires. Jun. 2004 ), Physica B 354 (2004) 71-79

"A magnetopolymeric nanocomposite: Co80Ni20 nanoparticles in a PVC matrix", R. Sanz, C. Luna, M. Hernandez-Velez, M. Vázquez, D. Lopez and C. Mijangos, Nanotechnology 16 (2005) S278-281

"Exchange anisotropy in Co80Ni20/oxide nanoparticles", C. Luna, P. Morales, C. Serna and M. Vázquez, Nanotechnology 15 (2004) 293-297

Effects of surfactants on the particle morphology and self-oragnization of Co nanocrystals, C. Luna, P. Morales, C. Serna and M. Vázquez, Mater. Sci. Engineer. C23 (2003) 1129-1132

- "Multidomain to single-domain transition for uniform Co80Ni20 nanoparticles", C. Luna, P. Morales, C. Serna and M. Vázquez, Nanotechnology 14 (2003)268-272.

A glass of water and a resistor?

The extra energy claimed by the invention is a miniscule amount, a gain that would be immeasurable with the crude equipment you suggest- likely they are hand-picking scientists from major universities who have sensitive testing devices. They have posted the patent information on their website which is being dissected by physics-background visitors. You have to want it to find it -- in the face of harsh criticism from all corners, I completely understand why they wouldn't hand it out to every hack wanting to test it with a resistor and a cup of water, and pronounce the whole thing as a fraud.

If they have stumbled upon the holy grail of physics their approach is the correct one -- choosing a number of reputable, well-financed physicists to draw accurate conclusions with cutting edge technology. If it is true, and may well not be, but if it is, then the next question would be whether a miniscule gain will traslate to a major energy gain if a large version of the device is built.

How many world-altering innovations have been discovered by accident? Just google "accidental discovery Nobel Prize"
..............

Rich Weber writes: Dark Matter, zero point energy etc, etc. aside, everyone seems to forget that there is a qualifier in the first and second laws of thermodynamics. They both refer to closed systems, and are born out of pure mathematics, unprovable in the real world.

Why? Because nobody can seem to find a closed system.

In fact, quantum theory, due to such principles as uncertainty, and entanglement to a lesser degree, would seem to indicate that it is impossible for a truly closed system to exist.

One may argue that the universe as a whole is a closed system. To them I say, if you can prove that, you deserve a nobel prize.

You would then have to prove that no other universes exist, or that if they do, entanglement cannot take place between particles in two separate universes, and that they cannot interact with each-other in any way (worm holes, black holes, etc). You would further have to prove that there is no causality taking place. That the very existence of one, does not cause anything in the other. Of course, then there would be no way to prove it..... would there? Because it would be completely and utterly undetectable.

Simply saying "It must be the case, because these rules seem to hold true" is not good enough. Any scientist familiar with experimentation knows that one time in a billion you may get a different result, and that one time can point out something very important.

Men like Hawking and Kaku do not rule things like this out, so why should we.

The more we learn, the less we know.

 
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 General
· News by vlad


Most read story about General:
Z machine melts diamond to puddle


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


"Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker?" | Login/Create an Account | 21 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: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Henry on Friday, April 27, 2007 @ 02:05:49 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
This is technically wrong --

Place your experiment in a sealed chamber inside a vacuum and you have a closed system...

Okay, if you assume other universes exist, then these universes as a collection are a closed system.

This is what thermodynam-icists?! mean by the universe being a closed system, the entire collection of everything that exists (not only in our universe) when analyzed together is a closed system.



Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Veryskeptical on Friday, April 27, 2007 @ 15:37:06 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
I am continually surprised by the depth of ignorance and the self congratulatory skepticism I find in so many comments on alternative energy. However there is one point the author makes I think very worthwhile. Someone should make book on Steorn and the other over unity efforts. At least the truly knowledgable would have a chance to make some money either way. Why anyone would want to scam the "public" with an over unity device in the current climate beats me. A con artist needs the willing complicity of his victims. But with all the committed naysayers around offering a phony device would seem to be a very dicey proposition.

As the first comment above claims there are some very knowledgable people involved in this effort and as Steorn is hardly the only one offering or displaying devices of this type (see youtube for example) and as many people for a number of years have been trying to break through the insane negativism of the established scientific community I am inclined to believe Steorn really has the goods.

As a last thought I will say it one more time though so many others have said it before. An experimental fact trumps a scientific theory. The theorists have said it will not work. That ends their contribution. The matter must be settled by experimentalists. After which they can either continue with business as usual or take the ruins of their theories and go mull over them in some corner. For now they should shut up and get out of the way. It is too bad they cannot be fined or jailed for their continuous harping.









Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Mar1 on Saturday, April 28, 2007 @ 05:04:03 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
First of all to say that the Steron’s claim is “blasphemous’ just because it apparently violates the first and second law of energy conservation without even giving them the proper time to set up and show credible experimental data using the rigors of the scientific method by extremely qualified individuals is just as narrow minded, arrogant and ignorant as what the catholic church did with Galileo and his claims of the earth being round. If their claim is correct, which I do view with a fair amount of skepticism, then time should help rectify our misunderstanding of nature and if not then the sacrosanct laws may remain unchanged for the time being, but consider the following argument; the first law of energy conservation states that energy cannot be destroyed or created only transformed. Now, one could argue that because of the way in which it is stated one could interpret it as follows, “Energy is infinitely cyclical, recyclable and therefore energy is infinite, the universe being an obvious example of this manifestation. Now regarding the second law of energy conservation, it states that you can never get more energy out of a system than what you put into it, but if this is true then why do electrons orbit around the nucleolus of an atom in a fixed, “perpetual path”, why do planets orbit around a sun in a “perpetual” path until the solar system is destroyed? If you separate two magnets of different polarity with a stick is there not a continues force of attraction, isn’t this not a form of constant energy being exerted against the stick? I am not saying that these observations disprove the second law of energy conservation, but can you argue against them, can you disprove these arguments experimentally?  




Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Henry on Saturday, April 28, 2007 @ 17:54:58 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
Okay

lets take your points here


1) electron rotating around a nucleus

you have a constant kinetic energy in the electron (1/2 mv^2, though you'd have to apply relativity formula, e.g. y mv^2)

The velocity of course is changing, hence the circular orbit, however the magnitude of the velocity, which is what we use for the formula, in the v^2, does not change.


Same thing applies to planets in orbit, except here we genuinely do have losses due to, say, asteroid impacts, etc.


The magnet.


No energy is being transfered, silly.

You have potential energies (look up magentic vector potentials), but there is no energy transfer in any form. There are forces involved, but, say... This is no different to you just standing there, there is a force of attraction between yourself and the earth, but no energy change.


I don't know how familiar you are with spectral lines, but that is a demonstration of this.


Heres another brief one.


_
  _
    _
      _

If you imagine that shape forms a 3-D cone, to walk along one of the lines causes no change in your potential energy (Gravitational form). In an ideal system (e.g. no dissipative losses) then you will have 0 energy change for 'walking along the contours'.

However, if you move up or down a level, kinetic energy is either being converted to or from gravitational potential.


--

People have spent decades chasing perpetual motion, and other similiar concepts. Simply put, there is a reason why the scientific community ridicules it. I'm not saying every case of ridicule is scientifically justified, however.

You are also ignorant, with your Gallileo point, that science uses something called the scientific method....

Present the evidence, present the experiment, let it be replicated in more/less controlled conditions, create a theory, model the theory, predict using the theory, test predictions, compare.

I understand that, as a laymen, you think you know everything, just lacking the maths to back it up. Unfortunately, you're wrong.

And sometimes it is the maths that you need to understand it completely.


]


Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Kadamose on Sunday, April 29, 2007 @ 17:46:08 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
You're spouting religious dogma; I don't like you already.

The fact of the matter is, the human race, as a whole, does not know how the universe truly operates...and it never will with this current paradigm. My advice to you would be to get rid of all of the 'knowledge' you have currently - that includes assumed knowledge - and once that's all discarded, true understanding will be available to you.

You will never understand the secrets of the universe by repeating the religious dogma of others - and you certainly will not understand these secrets by the crap they teach you in school. School only serves to indoctrinate a person -- and you're obviously a successful example of that.


]


Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Henry on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 @ 09:17:50 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
----

Of course we dont know how the universe truly operates, that's the point of physics, we model it, we design a theory, we test it to what we currently know, we predict, and we test predictions.


Einstein famously said that if there's anything that he would ever place his bets will ALWAYS hold true, it's the laws of thermodynamics.

And, considering he was quite 'at the boundary' of modern revolutions in science, with his breakthrough photoelectric paper, I consider that to be quite a.... foundation? statement, for someone who was so open minded to bring in concepts like duality.



]


Einstein was a FRAUD (Score: 1)
by Kadamose on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 @ 11:11:25 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
That's funny that you idolize Einstein - when he was probably the 20th century's biggest fraud. He literally stole the idea of general relativity from Lorentz and Poincare (which is really no big deal considering general relativity has been proven WRONG countless times - the only people who truly believe in general relativity, are those who use it as a base religion...which, unfortunately, most of the academic community fall into. Not surprisingly, it is this bunch of people who also exalt the conservation of energy - which is also wrong.)

You've been taught half-truth's and you don't even know it - for example, in today's text books, it still teaches everyone that the inventor of the lightbulb was Thomas Edison, when, in fact, it was a really Henry Woodward, a canadian - Thomas Edison simply bought the patent. It is also still taught in textbooks that Marconi invented the radio...when, in fact, the radio was invented by Nikola Tesla...and this was even recognized in the courts in 1943 -- yet we still are all being taught that Marconi (also a major plagiarist) invented something he obviously stole.

It's so sad that the greatest genius, to ever walk this earth, has been totally forgotten by history. You are totally unaware of Nikola Tesla, aren't you?



]


Re: Einstein was a FRAUD (Score: 1)
by Henry on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 @ 17:39:34 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
Of course I know Tesla, his name heralds the magnetic field flux.

Names of inventors and discoverers are entirely arbitary to me; it is the substance of what was discovered that counts.

I couldnt' care less who discovered the radio, or who discovered relativity.

I do not know much about general relativity but what I do know is that special relativity has been tested many times (using half-life decay times for various particles travelling through the atmosphere) and finding HIGHLY ACCURATE results...

I do not know how familiar you are with it, but I'll approach it from the basics;

You have a factor gamma, which is given by (1-(v/c)^2) ^ -1/2

And then governing different frames, Ro and R', t' = gamma (or y) to.

Measuring the velocity of a particle is no real problem, and thus, working out how far it has travelled from creation from a cosmic ray is no problem.

We can thus work out the time using simple non-relativistic formula, and then compare this to the theoretical result --- all of which have been highly accurate.

However, I am under the impression general relativity has been held rather true.

Perhaps there is a reason most of the academic community believe in it? And only the laymens who don't?

If conservation of energy is wrong, I'll gladly reanalyze everything I've ever held true.



]


Re: Einstein was a FRAUD (Score: 1)
by Henry on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 @ 17:44:06 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
Oh, just one more thing, I only refer to einstein because he's fairly commonly well held.

I know Lorentz did alot of relativity, possibly alot more than you do.

He did the lorenztian transformations, which, with combined with maxwell's equations, show that at the speed of light, maxwells equations are the same as v=0, as well as proving that the only two mathematically possible solutions for which maxwell's equation to remain constant at these velocities, are either v=c or v=infinity.

You can either keep arguing redundancy or some kind of infinite regression, or just smile at what I say and accept/disagree, but accept the fact that you disagree, and I disagree.


I also saw nothing in your post that addressed the actual issues, rather, just a generic bashing of random people


]


Henry, you failed... (Score: 1)
by vlad on Monday, April 30, 2007 @ 00:50:58 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
to properly explain the issues but also to do it in a civilized manner as it is expected from a "real" intellectual. You are insulting people not only with your arrogant style (which is annoying but tolerated because it is so common among pseudo-scientists) but by calling them names, for which, if you continue, you will be "rated" and eventually banned. Please note, be respectful to everybody on this site (yes, even to "pathetic laymen") and you're welcomed to show us your depth of knowledge (at the pre-masters in physics level) as long as you want, OK? I'm highlighting this to you because, people like you, after repeated insults that got them banned, go all over the net screaming that Vlad is censoring "skeptic" scientists on ZPEnergy. Even though I admit I find uninformed skeptics hardly useful for discussing the topic of ZPE, they are free to post like everybody else.

Now, before you will start to really understand the science of ZPE you will need to get your PhD level in physics (with the adequate math, of course). Then you will understand why ZPE is responsible for the stability of the ground state of the hydrogen atom from radiative collapse (your explanation made me laugh ...don't show it to your EM professor ;-). The vacuum energy has been linked to a number of other experimental observations such as the generation of short-range attractive forces (e.g., the Casimir force), Van der Waals forces, the Lamb-Retherford Shift, explanations of the Planck blackbody radiation spectrum, the effect of cavities to inhibit or enhance the spontaneous emission from excited atoms, and the possibility of accounting for sonoluminescence phenomena, cold fusion and even inertia. The amount of ZP (Vacuum) Energy in a given space is enormous, (even mind boggling as Feyman said), ranging from 10^36 to 10^70 Joules/m3.

If you really want to learn, go to our Downloads section and start reading man. With this attitude of yours that "I know all the right answers" you won't get far Henry. Here, I leave you with something to think about for your future development:

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN INTELLECTUALS AND PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALS by Sydney Harris, Detroit Free Press, (11/20/81)

*The intellectual is looking for the right questions to ask; the pseudo is giving what he claims to be the right answers.

*The intellectual is evidently motivated by a disinterested love of truth; the pseudo is interested in being right, or being thought to be right, whether he is or not.

*The intellectual is willing to admit that what he does not know is far greater than what he knows; the pseudo claims to know as much as can be known about the subject under consideration.

*The intellectual states as good a case for his adversary as can be made out; the pseudo sets up a straw man and beats it to death for the sake of seeming superior.

*The intellectual is deeply and constantly aware of the limitations of human reason; the pseudo makes a deity of reason and tries to force it into realms it cannot penetrate.

*The intellectual seeks light from whatever source, realizing that ideas are no respecters of persons and turn up in the most unexpected places from the most improbable people; the pseudo accepts ideas, when he does, only from experts and specialists and certified authorities.

*The intellectual advances an hypothesis that he hopes may be true; the pseudo propounds a dogma that he insists is true.

*The intellectual recognizes that opposites are not always contradictory, and may indeed reinforce each other; the pseudo paints a picture in black and white, right or wrong, leaving no room for a contrary viewpoint.

*The intellectual knows there are no final answers to human questions; the pseudo makes each tentative and provisional answer sound like a finality.

*The intellectual is courageous in opposing majority opinion, even when it jeopardizes his position; the pseudo slavishly follows "the most reliable authorities" in his field sneering at heresies.

*The intellectual never talks down to his audience, but tries to be as clear as possible; the pseudo talks above his audience to mystify and impress them.








]


Re: Henry, you failed... (Score: 1)
by Henry on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 @ 09:38:01 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
Just curious, Vlad, what are your qualifications in the field of ZPE?

Do you hold a PhD in it, or hold mathematical understanding?

It's ironic, I was revisiong my notes on ZPE just today, for my upcoming exam.


But, anyway

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, I regret doing it, and I only want to advance other people's understanding of science.

If you read my post below it covers alot of it too.

The physics that governs the rotation of the electron around the nucleus, as I quoted, is correct - ZPE dictates what that energy level is. I believe it was... Bohr? who derived it, a priori, at the turn of the last century. I'd have to check my old quantum notes to verify that though. However, you model it as a simple couloumb interaction, with the electron travelling at v around the nucleus.

I do not think, yet will further research, about vacuum energy's short range affects. Certainly, I fail to see at the moment how it can account for Van Der Waals, nor how it has any relation to black body emission, but I'll have a look around.

To my current understanding (which is not great, I haven't done much research into van der waals), its a temporary induced dipole in two neutral atoms/molecules, which creates a small force of attraction.



My main desire on here, is to help people understand that scientists approach this open-mindedly, and infact, would LOVE to find a breakthrough of efficiency >100% or, say, an energy generator which requires no mass loss or no energy input, as it would revolutionize the world.

Infact, I'm going to ask one of my profs about ZPE generators, see if I can come up with some definitive arguments from him against the possibility of it, or even for, because I am genuinely fascinated by the topic


]


Re: Henry, you failed... (Score: 1)
by Kadamose on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 @ 11:18:15 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
[*&^%] - universities serve the corporation, and the corporation serves itself.  These so-called professors you exalt and seek respect and advice from are simply priests spouting nonsense that they don't even understand themselves - their sole purpose is to indoctrinate the masses into believing in limitations and impossibilities.  

With that said, a true ZPE device will be created by someone in their own garage - and will not be created by a religious zealot with a Phd in a lab.  You can count on that.




]


Re: Henry, you failed... (Score: 1)
by Henry on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 @ 17:40:51 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
Hahahahaha

No offense, but did you read the no-insulting comment?


Furthermore


In my country, universities have nothing to do with the corporation -- its a reason why they are so damn broke here.


So, sorry, but no offense, back to square one.


Also, wouldnt a ZPE energy be the biggest economic breakthrough ever? I dont see how concealing it or destroying evidence for it would serve the corporation in any way


]


The Illuminati (Score: 1)
by Kadamose on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 @ 19:51:39 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
On the contrary, ZPE poses a big problem to the corporation - as J.P. Morgan bluntly told Tesla a hundred years ago: "where would I put the meter?" How does one go about charging for an infinite resource?

ZPE, coupled with Nanotechnology, will do several things, such as:

-it will destroy ALL forms of government.
-it will destroy the entire money system - permanently.
-it will destroy all forms of religion, virtually overnight.

So, yes, 'they' have every right to be scared, and this is why the technology has been suppressed for over a hundred years.

Also, the entire world is now ruled by the Illuminati and their fiat currency - and it's been that way for many thousands of years. There is no safe haven, regardless of what backwater country you come from.

In this game, it's all about power -- and these technologies give power to the masses and takes the power away from the few. That's definitely something no corporation would want to happen.











]


Re: The Illuminati (Score: 1)
by Henry on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 @ 03:34:53 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
I saw the entitlement on the post 'The Illuminati'.

I will no longer be responding to your comments, this is not physics and there's nothing I can do to argue with it.

I used to be heavily into my conspiracy theories too, but, damn, I don't even know what to say.

Either way, this is not a physics argument anymore - sorry.


]


Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Henry on Saturday, April 28, 2007 @ 17:56:45 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
side note


energy can be 'created' or 'destroyed', we convert photons all the time into mass, and mass into photons... Fusion, Fission, Anti-matter annihilation....

What Laymens call 'energy conservation' is actually 'energy mass conservation'.

e universe / m universe = c^2, sir!


]


Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Mar1 on Sunday, April 29, 2007 @ 05:02:30 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
Thank you your feed back Henry, first of all please clarify why my Galileo claim is ignorant, was he not persecuted by the catholic church for presenting ideas contrary to what was accepted as fact in those times? This is all that I am saying regarding this example, please don’t misinterpret or purposefully distort the point. If you read my passage carefully you’ll note that my point regarding Galileo and the scientific method are taken completely out of context by your response.

            Are you also saying that science no longer uses the scientific method to validate a theory before admitting it as fact? I am not a scientist but this would defiantly be news to me.    

             Now, you are right in qualifying me as a layman because I don’t posses a specialization in physics which is the subject in discussion here, but where I discern from your comment is my understanding of math. I did take Unified Calculus I in college and obtained a B+, so I am not completely ignorant in this area. I also have a background in electronics and automotive mechanics and I am currently a business student at Rutgers State University in New Jersey.

A math model is only a more precise description of a theory, what is more important than the math model is the fundamental principal it describes.

            Henry, please refrain from insults or diminishing comments, just because you happen to have views that may differ from mine does not give you the right to insult me or anybody, lets not allow our passions to undermine this free platform for the exchange of a views and ideas. If I made any comments that offended you or anybody else, I apologize, it was not my intent.    



]


Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Henry on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 @ 09:29:55 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
I'm sorry if I did offend you --

The main thing that irritates me is when people are happy to assume and do presume that physicist have a set concept of the universe in their mind, and would like to adapt the universe to their concept. It's quite the opposite.

I watched a film recently, about a ficitonal assassination of the president, and false forensics, etc, and one of the 'forensic scientists' interviewed, as such, said that the FBI had picked their criminal, and wanted to find the evidence to match to him, rather than find the evidence to pick the criminal.

I'm not saying science doesn't get it wrong, but modern theories are slowly but surely converging towards an absolute picture of correctness (i'm not saying this will ever be achievable, it may take literally an infinite amount of time, but if you compare our current knowledge to, say, 100 years ago, we paint a far more accurate description of the universe over a far wider... say, region?)

The important thing to remember is that scientists are open minded, things like a perpetual motion machine would be AMAZING, because it means we could, say, create energy at no mass loss, sit there all day and not have to run power plants to power homes, economically I'd imagine it'd be a massive financial breakthrough (being able to create something for nothing!)

However, it's been rigorously tested time and time again, and there always are dissipative losses.

Let's take the example of a fly wheel, you'll lose energy to air resistance, energy will be lost to spinning on the axis (e.g. friction on it), etc. There are always dissipative losses -- whilst a perpetual motion machine may be possible in theory, there are empricial reasons it will never happen.

With respect to the Gallilean claim, the methods used back then were of ill science - not comparing evidence to models, they held the core system so strongly that anything outside was blasphemous
-- Admittedly this could be a situation with science today, but considering some of the breakthroughs we've had, I'd like to think, and I imagine all scientists would, that we're open minded enough to see them and give it serious thought.



The main point I'm bringing this back to, I guess, is that in science we are in an age of new found openess, with stunning breakthroughs (Newton's work was amazing - he completely contradicted thousands of years of science [though, that science was not to the same degree of scientific method as we experience today]. The important thing, I guess, to remember, is that alot of physicists are receptive to things like this, hopefully all, I recently did a project + presentation on cold fusion, looking into the viability of it, and exploring criticisms of past results.

Just for reference, I am actually, despite being heavily cynical, wanting to go into a career of exploration down these routes, of ZPE and Vacuum energy, because they are interesting fields, but I do so knowing hundreds of scientists have gone before me, and not yet found anything as amazing as some of the claims made here (under rigorous scientific method and conditions).


Also, for reference, Cold fusion itself (generally cold fusion) is considered highly impossible, at the moment, the main reason for which is due to the lack of repeatability with the results, and the lack of consistency with the repeatability.



]


Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Henry on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 @ 09:41:49 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
while I'm here, since we're throwing quotes around,
Wikipedia (the extent of my research on van der waals and dark energy) has indicated there is some kind of relationship - I'll look into it a bit more later.

The Wikipedia article on Perpetual motion has a section which I think illustrates alot of the main complaints scientists have about perpetual motion machines.

Cheers, x



The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”--Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)


]


Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Mar1 on Saturday, May 05, 2007 @ 19:57:56 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
Your apology is accepted Henry, thank you.

 Now regarding the opinion you have concerning the opinion most people have about modern physicists, I believe you are absolutely right, that is the way most people think, but I don’t share that view particularly. In my opinion what may be holding science back is the professional unwillingness to admit openly that we might have to revisit some of the concepts we have built our understanding of the natural world on, but no formally accredited scientist will do this because it would be professional suicide. I believe that since most physicists agree that they don’t know it all and will never know it all, there should be some kind of a “professional haven” for those who seem to have committed an experimental blunder such as with Martin Fleichmann and Stanley Pons because even though their experimental set up may have been wrong does not mean that they did not stumble onto something significant. The fact that it has been confirmed in a laboratory setting  even just once should be more than suficient to motivate further investigation in order to unsderstand what is really going on here. I applaud your interest in this field Henry, don’t hesitate just go in with an open mind.

By the way, I know I may not sound it at times, but I am also skeptical of over – unity devices, but for the sake of open mindedness lets allow time to speak for itself, if Steorn doesn’t deliver then its business as usual. 

You are mostly right about my Galilean claim, the scientific situation then was a lot different than it is now, but there is some resemblance to our modern day dilemma in that those who speak out against what is established don’t get treated very nicely, so to say. Just remember the Wright brothers, they were ridiculed by physicists, up until they were able to make their machine the “airplane” fly, after many failed attempts of course, or take the case of Nicola Tesla, one of the greatest geniuses to ever walk the earth, he was ridiculed many times by others for concepts that ultimately worked, Newton is another case, just as you mentioned. All I am saying is that we should be extremely open minded and not be afraid of having the floor pulled out from under our feet, for this would ultimately catapult us forward.

p.s. regarding the first and second laws, well only time will tell I guess.



]


Re: Steorn’s “perpetual motion machine” – power broker or power joker? (Score: 1)
by Henry on Sunday, May 06, 2007 @ 11:14:50 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
Okay, everything in there I can agree with.

I dont know though, in my opinion its part of the game, that scientists go out there against old theories...
People spend, and still do, hundreds of hours and in reality, 80 years or so, trying to disprove Einstein's photo electric effect, and disprove the photon. None so far have succeeded but this hasnt stopped people.

Alot of the problem, I guess, with alot of new sciences these days (e.g. cold fusion, ZPE extraction) is that it does violate laws that we know that hold over every energy range we look at; e.g. thermodynamic's 2nd law, conservation of energy, things as simple as newton's first law...
Of course, I'm not advocating that for this reason alone they should be ignored; electromagnetic fields look completely continous until you go in close enough, as such, and realize the discrete nature of the particle.


Actually, I'd like to point out, every attempt since to replicate the Wright brother's flying machine has failed, curious :P I dont know why, just pointing it out, quite interesting.


Alot of scientists are prone to delusion; Newton spent 20 years looking in the bible for secret messages...

I dunno what else to say really, alot of the problem with new physics really is that the astonishing results  have never been consistently repeated in lab setups. Which is where the stumbling blocks occur


]


 

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.