Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Scott Nudds on 24 Feb 2006 23:05 > "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message > > Whatcha gonna do, slap me silly? > "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote > Too late. You're already silly. What's the point of being serious with a liar like you?
From: mmeron on 24 Feb 2006 23:00 In article <43ffd0d4.29070147(a)localhost>, bwardREMOVE(a)ix.netcom.com (Bill Ward) writes: >On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:25:43 -0500, "Scott Nudds" ><void(a)void.com> wrote: > >> >>"Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message >>news:43ffc743.26620481(a)localhost... >>> > 1.. Casimir, H. G. B. "On the attraction between two perfectly >>conducting >>> >plates." Proc. Con. Ned. Akad. van Wetensch B51 (7): 793-796 (1948). >>> > 2.. Lamoreaux, S. K. "Demonstration of the Casimir force in the 0.6 to >>6 >>> >mm range." Physical review Letters 78 (1): 5-8 (1997). >>> > 3.. Schwinger, J. "Casimir light: The source." Proceedings of the >>National >>> >Academy of Science, 90: 2105-6 (1993). >>> > 4.. Scharnhorst, K. Physics Letters B236: 354 (1990). >>> >snicker. >>> >>> Perhaps you would be good enough to explain exactly how you >>> get any energy out of the vacuum using the Casimir force? >>> >>> It doesn't count as "free energy" unless you can extract it >>> (force != energy). >> >> You allow to force to operate over any distance you desire and you obtain >>energy in the process. >> >> Take two conductive plates, bring them into close proximity. Allow them >>to be pushed together by the casimir force, and vacuum energy is converted >>into "real" energy in the process. > >Ok, now how do you repeat the process without pulling them >apart, returning the energy to the vacuum? It looks more >like a spring than an energy source. >> Yes, pretty much so. One shot deal and the effort of getting the plates polished to the most exacting standards you get an absolutely miniscule amount of energy. Nothing much there. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Scott Nudds on 24 Feb 2006 23:18 "Bill Ward" wrote: > Ok, now how do you repeat the process without pulling them > apart, returning the energy to the vacuum? It looks more > like a spring than an energy source. I didn't say you could. But the existance of matter argues that it can be done. I would dare say that elementary particles vanish into the chaos of the vacuum energy sea between emission and absorption events, with the sea forming the medium of transmission. Once absorbed into the sea, a field bias must propagate from source, through the various pathways possible to the target, where if a stable solution of the wave equation consisting of the target and perturbed vacuum energy field is possible, the reabsorption of the elementary "particle" occurrs. Stable solutions must only be possible if the field bias is above a specific threshold though to prevent the entire vacuum field from evaporating.
From: Scott Nudds on 24 Feb 2006 23:19 You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom.
From: Scott Nudds on 24 Feb 2006 23:20
> "Tom" wrote > Ah, perhaps you're right but you don't know you're right. In that case, > you're wrong because you don't know you're right even though you're right. > Then, of course, you would be correct in saying you do not know if you are > right or wrong. More proof of your delusional mind I see. |