Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Bill Ward on 24 Feb 2006 23:30 On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:18:41 -0500, "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote: > >"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. Oh. I thought from the subject line that you were claiming that free energy can be extracted from the vacuum. Borrowing is not the same as extracting. If you don't have to repeat the process, why not just allow two masses to attract each other, exerting a force over a distance? Why invoke the Casimir force? > > 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. I'm not sure why you'd say that, but it sounds impressive. > >Stable solutions must only be possible if the field bias is above a specific >threshold though to prevent the entire vacuum field from evaporating. Yeah, I hate when that happens.
From: Scott Nudds on 25 Feb 2006 00:11 "Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > Oh. I thought from the subject line that you were claiming > that free energy can be extracted from the vacuum. > > Borrowing is not the same as extracting. That depends on how long you borrow it for and how much you borrow. Ultimately all the energy you generate degrades to unusable heat, so it's borrowed in that sense. Yet we find it useful to do so. Also realizing that ZPE is real, and not some illusion or accounting gimmic, opens the question of weather it's possible with the right setup to just keep pulling energy out of free space. I am unhappy with the arguments behind the evaporation of black holes, where the arbitrary decision is made to subtract the energy of the infalling virtual particle from the mass of the hole because the total mass of the universe must be constant. I see no reason why the total mass must be constant, and I see no reason to arbitrarily assign as negative the mass of the infalling particle. The process - if it occurrs at all, probably causes the black hole mass to increas at the expense of lower ZPE density around the surface of the black hole. "Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > If you don't have to repeat the process, why not just allow > two masses to attract each other, exerting a force over a > distance? Why invoke the Casimir force? Because Casimir is not a field that originates from an elementary particle, but a force that originates from space itself. But yes, it is appreciated within the physics community that there is an energy associated with the gravitational field, and hence space, since gravitation is seen as a warpage in space/time. > > 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. "Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > I'm not sure why you'd say that, but it sounds impressive. Well, every stable state of an elementary particle or particle system corresponds to some stable solution to some as yet undiscovered field equations. An electron exists as an entity only because it is a stable solution. Other than that it is an extended wave function. In modern physics between emission and absorption events, elementary particles are considered not to have any real existance. They are characterized only by a wave function that propagates through space and does so as if it interacts with verious "virtual particles" along it's path, as well as any real particles that it may potentially experience. The probability of the particle being detected - at any point in it's path is the sum of all probabilities of it getting there by all paths possible. It is as if the wave function were a real wave, intereacting with the ZPE field, and any real objects in it's neighbourhood. Typically the wave function is considerd to be unreal and just an accounting gimmic. But this appears not to be so. As a real wave in the underlying ZPE field, makes much more sense. > >Stable solutions must only be possible if the field bias is above a specific > >threshold though to prevent the entire vacuum field from evaporating. > > Yeah, I hate when that happens. You shouldn't because without this the universe of matter wouldn't exist. For some reason the energy density of the early universe was above the evaporation threshold and real matter/energy was drawn out of the ZPE field as stable solutions to the field equations, and forming what is observed as real matter.
From: Scott Nudds on 25 Feb 2006 00:17 <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote > 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. Not much energy in a single atomic bond either. It was claimed that ZPE could not be extracted and implied that it was not real. Both claims are now seen to be false. Weather a practical energy source can be made from ZPE is a matter of question, but with the earlier claims against it unchallenged, it would seem impossible. Now with 2 of those claims seen as false, and the third shown to be assailable by the very existance of the matter universe, the claim that ZPE can not be an energy source is in no way clear. There might be some cleaver way of doing it, and until I see proof otherwise, I will keep an open mind, as should all thinking people.
From: Bill Ward on 25 Feb 2006 00:28 On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 00:11:29 -0500, "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote: <snip prior posts> > > For some reason the energy density of the early universe was above the >evaporation threshold and real matter/energy was drawn out of the ZPE field >as stable solutions to the field equations, and forming what is observed as >real matter. > Where do you think the ZPE field came from?
From: Archangel on 25 Feb 2006 00:42
"Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:ReqdnSOivdGp1WLeRVn-jg(a)comcast.com... > >>> Apparently you are not aware that Asimov wrote considerably more than >>> just science fiction. Of course, scientific illiteracy is probably not >>> surprising in a guy who claims uranium ore isn't radioactive. >>> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/3e7735df963ea111 >> >> Tom, you are such a liar. such an awesome liar. > > You're *still* claiming, even in the face of direct evidence to the > contrary, that you never wrote that? I never wrote that uranium ore isnt radioactive you mendacious lad. Show us all where I did. > > Your continued pretence that you haven't been thoroughly busted is just > appalling. Just who do you think you're fooling? I seem to be fooling you right now Tom. In the sense of making you look like one. Of course I had a natural advantage. You *are* a fool. A |