PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-26, 22:15:48
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Zero Point Energy  (Read 3755 times)
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
I thought I would start a thread to better explain Free Energy.

The scientific community does not recognize the terms "free energy" or "overunity" but instead use the term Zero Point Energy.

Here is a good explanation...http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
Introduction to Zero Point Energy

Here we can see what was once called the Aether became Dark Energy/Matter and then Zero Point Energy. So in fact the scientific community was never against the concept of "universal energy" but proved it beyond all shadow of doubt. In this respect the scientific community is light years ahead of most in the free energy community.

For example...
Quote
CASIMIR EFFECT
The cavity between such plates cannot sustain all modes of the electromagnetic field. In particular wavelengths comparable to the plate separation and longer are excluded from the region between the plates. This fact leads to the situation that there is a zero-point radiation overpressure outside the plates which acts to push the plates together. This can be considered analogous to radiation pressure (radiation pressure from the Sun pushes comet tails away from the comet nucleus), and the resulting effect is now called the Casimir force.

The Casimir force is widely cited as evidence that underlying the universe there must be a sea of real zero-point energy.

Here we have scientifically proven evidence that the universe must be a sea of real zero-point energy. Feynman/Wheeler also proved that a cup of supposedly empty space contains enough zero point energy to boil all the Earths oceans. So in fact it is only the people who don't understand the science that thought the notion of universal energy present everywhere was ever in question... it's not.

Therefore we should understand the fact that...
1)The scientific community was never against the notion of a "universal energy" present everywhere, they proved it.
2)They were never against extracting said energy, they are actively working to prove it can be extracted.
3)Certain elements in the FE community are being dishonest and trying to discredit science to serve there own interests.

In fact most of what everyone in the FE forums wants to understand about free energy can be found by researching Zero Point Energy.

Regards
AC

 


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
   I think that people deserve to know the truth, and we are being kept away from the real truth about free energy. The Aether, and such is not even taught in schools. Are we still that naive? Was Tesla and all his hundreds of patents and inventions nothing of importance?
   So, what are we going to do about it, besides post some article or video to look at, and speculate about? As that has not worked too well, so far.

   NickZ

   BTW: For a free energy forum to not even focus, discuss, develope, and research Tesla's FE ideas, is more than just pretty strange.
  Are we going to put up with that??? Missing the boat, are we?



   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
NickZ
Quote
I think that people deserve to know the truth, and we are being kept away from the real truth about free energy. The Aether, and such is not even taught in schools. Are we still that naive? Was Tesla and all his hundreds of patents and inventions nothing of importance?
   So, what are we going to do about it, besides post some article or video to look at, and speculate about? As that has not worked too well, so far.

It's debatable, the Aether was replaced with dark energy/matter which is taught in school. Here in Canada they also teach electron flow notation which is the correct form. An electron current always flows from (-) to (+) so things are looking up.

Quote
BTW: For a free energy forum to not even focus, discuss, develope, and research Tesla's FE ideas, is more than just pretty strange.
  Are we going to put up with that??? Missing the boat, are we?

I like to look at as many different sources and perspectives as possible. To look at the literature of countless electrical technologies from ancient cultures like the Sumarians, Egyptians and the late 1800's to date. After a while a person can learn to see how it all relates to one another and where it's going. I see ZPE and the electric universe theory as continuing part of Tesla's research and moving beyond it.

Here's an interesting fact, Tesla didn't know what the Aether was or wasn't saying but ZPE explains it pretty well. I like it because it stops all the naysayers claiming there is no energy present dead in there tracks. In fact Feynman/wheeler and many other scientists did what Tesla never could. They gave a coherent theory and proved by experiment that all space is literally seething with energy. At which point the argument that we need to get something from nothing or create energy is off the table. It's no longer a valid argument and we can move forward...

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 342
Isin't it just lightning ?
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Here's an interesting thought...

Many claim the Michelson-Morley experiment was proof there was no Aether/ZPE which is false. It didn't prove or disprove an Aether only that there experiment didn't detect it.

As strange as it may seem most didn't even understand what was proven. In fact the only thing the experiment did prove was that light was unaffected by the Aether hence it couldn't detect it.

However we have detected the presence of an Aether by experiment which many in science then chose to discard. You see when clocks, even atomic clocks, are accelerated to a high velocity the matter they are made of oscillates at a different rate. Many mistook this to mean time is variable which is completely absurd. Universal time is constant but when matter moves through the Aether at high velocity the rate of oscillation changes giving the false appearance that time has changed.

So we can see that the people involved were simply cherry picking facts to support there beliefs which isn't real science.

Logically if there was nothing in the vacuum of space the rate of oscillation of matter at high velocity would not change but it does... ergo something must be in that space.

Regards
AC





---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
   quote:
   "Here's an interesting fact, Tesla didn't know what the Aether was or wasn't saying but ZPE explains it pretty well. I like it because it stops all the naysayers claiming there is no energy present dead in there tracks. In fact Feynman/wheeler and many other scientists did what Tesla never could. They gave a coherent theory and proved by experiment that all space is literally seething with energy. At which point the argument that we need to get something from nothing or create energy is off the table. It's no longer a valid argument and we can move forward...
                                                                                                                                                                           end quote.



   AC:  You should first check to see what Tesla DID say about the Aether. As you don't seam to have any correct knowledge or information on that.
You can change the name, to dark matter, dark energy, or whatever, but not the contents.
   You should also mention that to Verpies, he is still under the false impression that there is no Aether, nor any energy at all in the vacume of space, nor in the Earth's ambient. ONLY in material objects, instead of non physical energy being the source of all. In other words, all energy come from matter, He thinks. Like Einstein said in his false formula. Most people also believe the same thing. As it is still being taught to your kids in school.
No wonder... they are trying to keep us in the dark for as long as they can.  So, don't buy it...Like Verpies does. It will keep you from building anything like a OU device, or a self running device. As it is running on ambient energies, instead.
   If science can't prove something, it does not exist (to them). Perhaps they should open their eyes, before we pollute ourselves to death, burning shit that does not need to be burnt, anymore.  More nuclear plants are in the works though, as we speak. Seams like more than 700 of them was not enough. Which one will blow next???  Even the old Russian reactor, it's coming back to life...after all these years, and they can't stop it. 

   NickZ
   
Group: Guest

Yeah I’ll go with that,

SL says has any one got or made a free energy generator,
well have you got a ant motor that has brushes in it well your generating FREE energy and using it against your self with the way it's wired internally, that’s why it gets hot
and uses so much energy.

Sil
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
NickZ
Quote
AC:  You should first check to see what Tesla DID say about the Aether. As you don't seam to have any correct knowledge or information on that.
You can change the name, to dark matter, dark energy, or whatever, but not the contents.

To my knowledge I have read all of Nikola Tesla's work which has been published to date. Which parts of his work are you referring to exactly?. 

Quote
You should also mention that to Verpies, he is still under the false impression that there is no Aether, nor any energy at all in the vacume of space, nor in the Earth's ambient. ONLY in material objects, instead of non physical energy being the source of all. In other words, all energy come from matter, He thinks. Like Einstein said in his false formula. Most people also believe the same thing.

I defer to the picture below...

I have my own theories and my own work which keeps me busy. I don't tend to buy into anyone's dogma and like to do my own thing. I would also point out most of what your referring to are theories ie. "general theory of relativity" and were never claimed as a fact... unlike many other false beliefs.

Regards
AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
A good video on ZPE showing proof that energy can be extracted from the vacuum.

Unlocking Zero-Point Energy
Garret Moddel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tGRhTXKh8A

I found it strange that most of the objections relate to the 2nd law of thermodynamics...
Quote
The second law of thermodynamics establishes the concept of entropy as a physical property of a thermodynamic system. Entropy predicts the direction of spontaneous processes, and determines whether they are irreversible or impossible despite obeying the requirement of conservation of energy as expressed in the first law of thermodynamics.

However it seems to me most people do not understand the 2nd law nor energy and take them out of context.

For example, most use reasoning which always devolves into circular reasoning or a logical fallacy. They believe all systems follow entropy moving from a high energy state to a lower energy state. Do you see the fallacy?, if this were true then no energy could ever be concentrated which would never allow entropy to take place... ergo circular reasoning.

In this respect we can disregard all the laws and rely on one irrefutable premise...
Entropy and the dissipation of energy cannot happen unless the energy was concentrated by something else in the first place, cause and effect.

So in effect those who hold strictly to the 2nd law are arguing we can get something from nothing and can violate the COE. All we have to do is ask a simple question... where did the energy come from in the first place?.

Regards
AC











---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
As per Admins suggestion posts trolling others have been removed.

No further comment...


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735

Quote
Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding zero-point energy; in particular, the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention.[4] Physicists Richard Feynman and John Wheeler calculated the zero-point radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy, with a single light bulb containing enough energy to boil all the world's oceans
Wikipedia

Zero point radiation found everywhere can be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy... that's interesting.

So the "radiation" in between the particles in atoms could contain as much energy as the kinetic energy of the particles themselves. We could even conclude as Tesla did that matter contains no energy not given to it by the Aether/ZPE. It would seem Tesla's Aether theories 100 years ago were very similar to the present theories in science.

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 71
For me, the ZPE is energy in its most raw primordial state. A disturbance to its dynamic balance causes an influx of this raw energy into an open system to re-establish equilibrium. As I understand it, this can be accomplished by any kind of rapid pulse, be it electrical transient or even an inertial pulse.

One thing that brings out a lot of discussion is the role resonance plays in this dynamic, particularly with coils. What is the relationship between resonant charge in a coil and its ability to access ZPE?

Bob
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
This is a truism. Energy recovery is always the transition from a high energy state to a lower energy state.
Since the ZPE is the minimum state of energy, lowering it is a challenge about which it is not the banal idea of the principle that is to be displayed, but the how.
A rapid electrical transition does not explain the supposed mechanism that could be at work, nor how the cost of this operation could be lower than the energy recovered.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 71
I have wrestled with Bearden's ideas for years. Doc Stiffler's work with resonant frequency seemed to open an avenue for approaching Bearden's idea for poking the aether with an electrical transient. Stiffler often referred to tapping into the temporal spatial lattice via transients in the resonant frequency of his coils. Tiny output, but I've always wondered if it could be scaled up.

I agree that a charge gradient is necessary, and yes the question is how to feasibly create or harness one. Do transient spikes with a sharp fall not constitute a (micro)momentary gradient?

I've often wondered if such transient response charge can be fed (hammered) into a very small (pF) sized capacitor, to discharge thru a coil with a secondary and pickup coil.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
F6FLT
Quote
This is a truism. Energy recovery is always the transition from a high energy state to a lower energy state.
Since the ZPE is the minimum state of energy, lowering it is a challenge about which it is not the banal idea of the principle that is to be displayed, but the how.

Is ZPE the minimum state of energy?, Physicists Richard Feynman and John Wheeler calculated the zero-point radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy, with a single light bulb containing enough energy to boil all the world's oceans. I mean, if that's the minimum then who needs the maximum, is boiling all the worlds oceans not enough?.

In fact, this could be seen as giving some credence to Tesla's theory that the vacuum of space contains more energy than matter. That all matter is given it's energy from the space it occupies and that around it. Imagine that, a cup of ZPE vacuum energy containing more energy than all the fossil fuels all of mankind has burned in the history of mankind many times over.

Who the hell needs science fiction when science fact is magnitudes stranger than the average person can even imagine?. Keep in mind this isn't even considered fringe but mainstream physicists telling us this is the case.

AC





---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
F6FLT
Is ZPE the minimum state of energy?, Physicists Richard Feynman and John Wheeler calculated the zero-point radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy...

There is no consensus on the level of vacuum energy, the ratio reaches 10 to the power of 120 (!), see the "vacuum catastrophe" :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem

Your subsequent question is therefore unfounded.

As for Tesla's theory, where is it? I have never seen any, only vague hypotheses never formalized, with legends all around spread by devotees who take Tesla for a god. Tesla was a remarkable inventor with exceptional engineering skills, but certainly not a theorist.




---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
F6FLT
Quote
There is no consensus on the level of vacuum energy, the ratio reaches 10 to the power of 120 (!), see the "vacuum catastrophe" :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem
Your subsequent question is therefore unfounded.

Not at all and having no consensus disqualifies nothing, it simply means most can't agree, no surprise there.

Here is an interesting blog
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/26/empty-space-has-more-energy-than-everything-in-the-universe-combined

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/26/empty-space-has-more-energy-than-everything-in-the-universe-combined

Quote
What we normally think of as the entire Universe, consisting of hundreds of billions of galaxies, with about 8,700 identified in the tiny patch of deep-sky shown above. Each one of those galaxies, itself, contains hundreds of billions of stars, just like our own Milky Way, and this is just counting the part of the Universe that's presently observable to us, which is by no means the entire thing!

And yet, if we map out everything known in the Universe, and trace out the cosmic structure, we find that the normal matter -- things made out of all the known elementary particles -- is less than 5% of the total energy density of the Universe. There's got to be about 20-25% of the Universe in the form of dark matter, a type of clumpy, collisionless matter that is made up of a yet-undiscovered particle, in order to get the type of clustering we see.

But perhaps most bizarrely, the remaining energy of the Universe, the stuff that's required to bring us up to 100%, is energy that appears to be intrinsic to empty space itself: dark energy.

As T.H.Moray said, were swimming in a "Sea of Energy". Moray who built a FE device with an output of some 10kW per cubic foot using a bunch of coils and some vacuum tubes as switches in the early 1900's.
http://www.rexresearch.com/moray2/morayrer.htm
Quote
I started my experiments with the taking of electricity from the ground, as I termed it, during the summer of 1909. By fall of 1910 I had sufficient power to operate a small electrical device, and I made a demonstration of my idea to two friends... This demonstration in the early stages consisted of operating a miniature arc light... It soon became evident that the energy was not static and that the static of the universe would be of no assistance to me in obtaining the power I was seeking...

To add a little perspective, I'm in my mid 50's but Moray and many others had all this FE technology figured out 50 years before I was even born.
Were talking about the early 1900's... let that sink in.


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
F6FLT
Not at all and having no consensus disqualifies nothing, it simply means most can't agree, no surprise there.

Here is an interesting blog
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/26/empty-space-has-more-energy-than-everything-in-the-universe-combined

AC

As already said, there is no consensus. So to take a particular opinion that would talk about a huge energy, when other scientists say the opposite, proves nothing. It is what is called a hasty generalization (a sophism).

All scientists are far from being of the same opinion on unanswered questions. Understand the difference between research and science. Research only becomes science when the evidence is such that the theory is adopted by everyone because of measurements and observations that leave no doubt. Only science is knowledge. Not research, which is hypothesis.
The enormous energy of the vacuum is a hypothesis, and the idea that it could be harnessed is science fiction without the slightest clue as to its feasibility.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
F6FLT
Quote
All scientists are far from being of the same opinion on unanswered questions. Understand the difference between research and science. Research only becomes science when the evidence is such that the theory is adopted by everyone because of measurements and observations that leave no doubt. Only science is knowledge. Not research, which is hypothesis.

Science is knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena but it's always incomplete and should be in doubt. For example, most believe objects are magically attracted to one another because of the law of gravity but nobody has a clue what gravity is. Think about that, they made up countless laws about phenomena without having a clue what it is or it's fundamental cause. Can someone claim to understand something but have no idea what caused it?, I find the reasoning mind numbing.

Quote
The enormous energy of the vacuum is a hypothesis, and the idea that it could be harnessed is science fiction without the slightest clue as to its feasibility.

I see it differently from a fact based perspective. We know the universe has over a billion trillion stars which have been radiating unimaginable amounts of energy into space for untold billions of years. Since we know energy is conserved and cannot be created or destroyed where did all the energy go?. The answer seems obvious and one cannot say the universe is full of energy always in translation but this part over here is empty for unknown reasons, it's absurd. Thus we must conclude we are swimming in a sea of energy otherwise were left with the "something from/to nothing" dilemma.

If there isn't an enormous amount of energy in the vacuum of space then where did all the energy radiated from a billion trillion stars in the universe go?. Here's a clue... it didn't just disappear into nothingness it was conserved.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
@AC:

Sure, everything in the universe has been radiating energy for countless eons.  But everything is also absorbing energy.  However, this is a different kind of energy than ZPE, which involves quantum fluctuations.  ZPE is what's left after all the other energy has been removed.

My theory is that the 'virtual' energy comes from momentary straightening of the space/time (sic) curavature, which immediately reverts back with recombination.  Energy inherent in the curvature can be shown by Einstein's equations.  The presence of energy will curve space, the same as the presence of mass.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Jerry
Quote
Sure, everything in the universe has been radiating energy for countless eons.  But everything is also absorbing energy.  However, this is a different kind of energy than ZPE, which involves quantum fluctuations.  ZPE is what's left after all the other energy has been removed.

Good points however the universe has very little matter to absorb any energy, less than a fraction of 1% by volume. As well what we call material is only 1% matter and 99% space which is full of energy. Thus all which we call material only accounts for a small fraction of any given space and the rest is energy. Even the most dense material we know of is more like a screen door at best and only 1% matter.

Look at the Casimir effect, we produce a gap between two plates concentrating certain wavelengths of EM energy found everywhere and the two plates are pushed together. Yet apparently nobody has been able to deduce that this is how gravity works. You see objects are not magically pulled together for reasons nobody can explain they are pushed together similar to Casimir plates. Ah but one would have to acknowledge that space is full of energy rather than some spooky action at a distance nobody has a rational explanation for.

Unless of course, you want to fudge reality and the math making constants like time and space variable. However if were going to jump headfirst down the rabbit hole why not just believe we can create or destroy something from nothing?. There is little difference between variable space/time and creation/destruction because in both cases they have produced a theory so far removed from reality it becomes pointless.

I suppose my problem is that I'm naturally disagreeable and don't tend to believe anyone. I'm just backwards and deduced what the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, Gravic and Inertial) are first then built all other phenomena on that premise. Versus supposing there could be some magical force which acts through nothing or creates something from the same... call me crazy if you will.

AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
We need to keep in mind that these virtual fluctuations are statistical.  The odds say that a given frequency/energy event at a specified point is probable during a given period of time. All frequencies at one point don't occur continuously and simultaneously.  However, when ZPE does appear, something doesn't get created from nothing, or return to nothing.  It has to involve something which momentary transforms, then is restored as the ZPE self annihilates.  Spooky action at a distance would require the energy to come from somewhere else in the universe - through subspace (defined as the universe minus at least one dimension, such as siderial distance).  Instead, the fluctuations involve pairs of particles, not just a bundle of energy.  And my position is that this is a local phenomenon.

When it comes to Casimir, I have a theory which doesn't involve ZPE.  Based on my observation that a molten drop at the end of a brasing rod will explode TOWARDS a nearby surface at a higher temperature.  I've never heard of Casimir producing anything other than a gentle push.  All particles radiate, and when energy from two particles meet out to the sides, at a ninety degree angle, that interaction produces a rotation which moves Aether outwards through the resulting ring.  At the same time, Aether is pulled inwards through the two nearby masses, entraining them to move towards each other.  The same mechanism might account for gravity.  But I'm not convinced that shielding gravity (with a two axis electrostatic roll) will have any effect on inertia within the field.
   
Group: Guest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6_KKXTbTyg

"Using a Casimir injection process, we have demonstrated continuous electrical power production in thousands of devices... "
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 212
I consider this to be a breakthrough.  The time may come when we can buy ZPE panels similar to solar panels, although thicker, depending on how many diode sheets need to be stacked for a desired output.  Replacing vacuum between the plates with the thin film dielectric is very innovative.  Successful operation would seem to be more important than understanding where the energy comes from.

Of course, it still has to be replicated, to ensure that there isn't an X-factor associated with the researcher's presence.  Or just test it while he's not present.  I've seen in the past that charisma (longitudinal force) can affect a transformer's output.  (That's how I charge my 'sparking condencer' HV supercap without a diode on the NST.)
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 22:15:48