| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Feb 2006 03:20:12 PM |
| Object: |
Free Energy |
I'm designing a free energy machine that uses totally renewable and
free sources of energy. How it works is your burn wood in a stove, and
boil water using the heat generated from the wood fire. The steam from
the water that is being boiled is used to power a steam turbine, which
generates electricity. The electricity is then stored in a battery,
which is used to power your home.
Can anyone give me some advice on how to build a prototype of this
design?
.
|
|
| User: "Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 11:45:23 PM |
|
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:CTJLf.124$8d1.55@read1.cgocable.net...
"Tom" wrote:
Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of
Wrong"?
Scott Nudds wrote:
Ya, when I was 12.
"Tom" wrote in message
Then even so simple and clear an explanation is lost on you. Ah, well.
That would be a pretty good response if it actually made sense. But
since
it doesn't, it isn't.
You are quite the moron.
Isnt he though? But be fair, by now he ought to be, he has been busy trying
to perfect it for quite a while...
An odd statement given that I have corrected you on your demand that
scientific proof be provided on a variety of issues.
You do like contradicting yourself now don't you Tom.
He does it all the time sir.
You have missed the point entirely... But that was your point now
wasn't
it?
"Tom" wrote:
Let's see... Your point was that the first law of thermodynamics is
wrong
and therefore perpetual motion machines are not only possible but are up
and
running now, wasn't it?
Nope, that's your ignorant assertion given the reality that the laws of
thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to
violation,
and 2. that the laws of thermodynamics need not apply to the quantum
world.
You see your problem is Tom... That you just aren't very smart.
Incisive, percetpive, insightful. True.
You are however, a perfectly good source of nutrients for flowering
plants...
Hopefully he will become an even better one. Eventually.
A
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 03:30:48 PM |
|
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:CTJLf.124$8d1.55@read1.cgocable.net...
"Tom" wrote:
Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of
Wrong"?
Scott Nudds wrote:
Ya, when I was 12.
"Tom" wrote in message
Then even so simple and clear an explanation is lost on you. Ah, well.
That would be a pretty good response if it actually made sense. But
since
it doesn't, it isn't.
Yes, I know. It just doesn't make sense to you.
"Tom" wrote:
Nothing at all is "scientifically proven". That was the point of the
Asimov
essay that you failed to comprehend.
An odd statement given that I have corrected you on your demand that
scientific proof be provided on a variety of issues.
Please cite any example of my writing in which I "demand proof". I bet you
can't find even one.
You do like contradicting yourself now don't you Tom.
Conundrums amuse me. However, since I don't ever demand proof from anyone,
there is no conundrum here.
"Tom" wrote:
Let's see... Your point was that the first law of thermodynamics is
wrong
and therefore perpetual motion machines are not only possible but are up
and
running now, wasn't it?
Nope, that's your ignorant assertion given the reality that the laws of
thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to
violation,
and 2. that the laws of thermodynamics need not apply to the quantum
world.
All quantification is statistical in nature. The suspected rules of the
quantum world are statistical in nature, too.
You see your problem is Tom... That you just aren't very smart.
Some people think "smart" means "agrees with me".
You are however, a perfectly good source of nutrients for flowering
plants...
As are we all, brother.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 04:31:52 PM |
|
|
"Tom" wrote
Yes, I know. It just doesn't make sense to you.
Little of what you say does, as it is so spectacularly stupid, or so
easily outed as a complete lie on your part.
"Tom" wrote
Conundrums amuse me.
Like all forms of spinning objects no doubt.
"Tom" wrote
All quantification is statistical in nature. The suspected rules of the
quantum world are statistical in nature, too.
Good for you Tom. You are finally learning something. Now your task is
to remember what you have just said so that unlike previous posts you don't
contradict youself in the very next sentence.
You see your problem is Tom... That you just aren't very smart.
"Tom" wrote
Some people think "smart" means "agrees with me".
Some stupid people think smart means agrees with Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 09:33:42 PM |
|
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:3KLLf.161$d9.46@read2.cgocable.net...
"Tom" wrote
Yes, I know. It just doesn't make sense to you.
Little of what you say does,
So it seems.
as it is so spectacularly stupid,
Heh. You'd think the stupid things would be the easiest to understand.
It's the very complex and subtle things that would be hardest. But I guess
that's not true for you.
"Tom" wrote
Conundrums amuse me.
Like all forms of spinning objects no doubt.
To some degree, yes.
"Do these balloons blow up into funny shapes?"
"No... Unless round is funny."
"Tom" wrote
Some people think "smart" means "agrees with me".
Some stupid people think smart means agrees with Bush.
Yep. And some stupid people don't. Agreement or disagreement with Bush is
not a definitive test of intelligence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
25 Feb 2006 12:02:51 AM |
|
|
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DZWdnQaQ2LOITWLenZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:3KLLf.161$d9.46@read2.cgocable.net...
"Tom" wrote
Yes, I know. It just doesn't make sense to you.
Little of what you say does,
So it seems.
it does indeed. Frequently.
as it is so spectacularly stupid,
Heh. You'd think the stupid things would be the easiest to understand.
It's the very complex and subtle things that would be hardest. But I
guess that's not true for you.
Stupid things are not easy to understand Tom. Because they are stupid.
Still, it is comforting to hear you say you understand stupid things easily,
it shows great promise. All you need to do nw is start to understand some
non-stupid things. Practice hard now...
"Tom" wrote
Conundrums amuse me.
Like all forms of spinning objects no doubt.
To some degree, yes.
They are bright and shiny and look pwetty.
"Do these balloons blow up into funny shapes?"
"No... Unless round is funny."
"Tom" wrote
Some people think "smart" means "agrees with me".
Some stupid people think smart means agrees with Bush.
Yep. And some stupid people don't. Agreement or disagreement with Bush
is not a definitive test of intelligence.
It seems you dont agree that smart means agreeing with Bush. So you use that
to prove that some stupid people dont believe it. OK. Well done.
HARHARHARHARHARHAR
A
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "QCD Apprentice" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 02:39:19 PM |
|
|
Scott Nudds wrote:
<>
Nope, that's your ignorant assertion given the reality that the laws of
thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to violation,
and 2. that the laws of thermodynamics need not apply to the quantum world.
Well, since you're arguing in a physics newsgroup, I'll
bite: how is statistical mechanics and thermodynamics
violated by qauntum mechanics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 04:20:37 PM |
|
|
Scott Nudds wrote:
Nope, that's your ignorant assertion given the reality that the laws
of
thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to
violation,
and 2. that the laws of thermodynamics need not apply to the quantum
world.
"QCD Apprentice" <qcd.apprentice@gmail.com> wrote
Well, since you're arguing in a physics newsgroup, I'll
bite: how is statistical mechanics and thermodynamics
violated by qauntum mechanics?
There is a distinction to be made between the subject of Thermodynamics
which deals with the statistical ensemble average character of large groups
of objects, and Statistical mechanics which includes Thermodynamics but also
is applicable to individual particles.
Quantum events do not deal with aggregates of particles and hence the so
called "laws" do not apply, although the concepts of temperature and entropy
are sometimes redefined in a manner that allows some application.
The only aggrigate quantum mechanical system that I know of are spin
sheets, superfluids, and Bose Einstein condensates. And in these systems
the wave function is a single function rather than an aggragate, and
therfore remain uncharacterized by Thermodynamic principles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Swain" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 02:40:49 PM |
|
|
Scott Nudds wrote:
<snip>
the laws of
thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to violation,
Then why don't I get an occasional rebate from the power company?
Howcome my gas tank doesn't randomly fill up? You're full of poo,
that's why. The laws of thermodyamics describe physical systems,
not statistical distributions.
You dude, are a well known troll.
http://tinyurl.com/h8t64
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 03:20:46 PM |
|
|
Scott Nudds wrote:
the laws of
thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to
violation,
"Martin Swain" wrote..
Then why don't I get an occasional rebate from the power company?
That is because you live in a neo-fascist state.
I on the other hand, received a rebate on my power bill just last week.
"Martin Swain" wrote..
Howcome my gas tank doesn't randomly fill up?
How do you know it hasn't?
"Martin Swain" wrote..
You're full of poo, that's why.
And you are ignorant of basic thermodynamics. If not then you can tell us
how to measure the "temperature" of a single atom, and what that
"temperature" means.
I await your failure with anticipatory Laughter.
Bahahahahahahahahahahaha
Bahahahahahahahahahahaha
Bahahahahahahahahahahaha
Bahahahahahahahahahahaha
You fucking ignorant moron.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 04:37:57 PM |
|
|
In article <dtnsei$367$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>, QCD Apprentice <qcd.apprentice@gmail.com> writes:
Martin Swain wrote:
Scott Nudds wrote:
<snip>
the laws of
thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to
violation,
Then why don't I get an occasional rebate from the power company?
Howcome my gas tank doesn't randomly fill up? You're full of poo,
that's why. The laws of thermodyamics describe physical systems,
not statistical distributions.
You dude, are a well known troll.
I don't know whether or not this man is a troll, but it is
true that thermo/stat mech deals with ensembles and isn't
necessarily true on small scales, either in number or time.
It would have been more exact to say "those results which are obtained
at the limit of infinite number of degrees of freedom are not
necessarily true".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "QCD Apprentice" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 03:05:23 PM |
|
|
Martin Swain wrote:
Scott Nudds wrote:
<snip>
the laws of
thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to
violation,
Then why don't I get an occasional rebate from the power company?
Howcome my gas tank doesn't randomly fill up? You're full of poo,
that's why. The laws of thermodyamics describe physical systems,
not statistical distributions.
You dude, are a well known troll.
I don't know whether or not this man is a troll, but it is
true that thermo/stat mech deals with ensembles and isn't
necessarily true on small scales, either in number or time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 11:47:14 PM |
|
|
"QCD Apprentice" <qcd.apprentice@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dtnsei$367$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Martin Swain wrote:
Scott Nudds wrote:
<snip>
the laws of
thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to
violation,
Then why don't I get an occasional rebate from the power company?
Howcome my gas tank doesn't randomly fill up? You're full of poo,
that's why. The laws of thermodyamics describe physical systems,
not statistical distributions.
You dude, are a well known troll.
I don't know whether or not this man is a troll, but it is true that
thermo/stat mech deals with ensembles and isn't necessarily true on small
scales, either in number or time.
But but but. Shouldn't Martin already know that? He *claims* to be a
physicist.
A
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
25 Feb 2006 09:01:08 AM |
|
|
"Archangel" <Archangel@nulldev.com> wrote in message
news:CbSLf.223516$6Q3.154921@fe07.news.easynews.com...
But but but. Shouldn't Martin already know that? He *claims* to be a
physicist.
What do you claim to be, Archie?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Swain" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 03:23:03 PM |
|
|
QCD Apprentice wrote:
Martin Swain wrote:
Scott Nudds wrote:
<snip>
the laws of
thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to
violation,
Then why don't I get an occasional rebate from the power company?
Howcome my gas tank doesn't randomly fill up? You're full of poo,
that's why. The laws of thermodyamics describe physical systems,
not statistical distributions.
You dude, are a well known troll.
I don't know whether or not this man is a troll, but it is true that
thermo/stat mech deals with ensembles and isn't necessarily true on
small scales, either in number or time.
Yes I know that's true, I understand something about the statistical
nature of thermodynamics, for instance what makes a glass of water
evaporate, however that isn't what he's driving at.
He is trying to assert that my gas tank *should* fill up by itself,
and expecting a bunch of other people to buy it because he's using
a lot of big words. Trolling, IOW.
Thanks though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 04:09:38 PM |
|
|
"Martin Swain" wrote
Yes I know that's true, I understand something about the statistical
nature of thermodynamics, for instance what makes a glass of water
evaporate, however that isn't what he's driving at.
It is highly doubtful if you know anything about science at all given the
nature of your posts.
Certainly you are operating at a grade 8 or lower level of comprehension.
"Martin Swain" wrote
He is trying to assert that my gas tank *should* fill up by itself,
and expecting a bunch of other people to buy it because he's using
a lot of big words. Trolling, IOW.
I wasn't aware that using big words was "trolling". You are equally
unaware I'm sure.
But I will repeat for your small little mind.
I shall repeat...
It's quite simple. Statistical mechanics is based on the idea of counting
the definitive states of aggregates of real world objects, assuming things
like the equality of any two energy states, and then drawing infrences and
conclusions from the statistical nature of these systems.
In quantum mechanics, a system can be in a multitude of states - perhaps
an infinite number at any given instant, and individual objects may or may
not exist at any particular time. Further there are confounding
relationships like the existance of vaccum energy, that can perterb the
system, as well as exclusionary rules like Pauli that in no way make it
clear that the concepts of thermodynamics apply to these systems.
In particular the orgin of the universe is a spectacular violation of the
laws of thermodynamics.
You are asked to provide a thermodynamic explanation for the origin of the
universe, and to provide a reason based on thermodynamics that energy can
not be extracted from the vacuum.
Now given that the universe exists, and that energy has already been
extracted from the vacuum, I suspect you are going to have a hard time of
it.
I await your response with laughter.
Relativity requires that gravity waves propagate in space as quadrapole
distortions in space and time. It is theoretically possible to use a large
mass and it's associated inertial momentum to extract energy from these
distortions as they pass through the mass, stretching and compacting it as
it passes.
Energy is thereby extracted from the vacuum of space.
Other arguments based on relativity and quantum mechanics require that
forces of action/reaction become uncoupled. Pushes can for example be
devoid of pulls. A particle A for example can be pulled toward particle B
without particle B feeling any force from particle A. This is a direct
result of the finite speed of propagation of force fields. This also
implies immediately that the vacuum of space holds a sea of energy and that
this energy from time to time is used to accelerate objects and hence is
extracted from this underlying free energy sea.
That's nice. And as such is wrong, and has been proven so experimentally.
In fact if it were not the case the PC you are using now would not be
capable of functioning since the transistors it uses to compute would not
work.
Vacuum energy my boy is very real, and most probably the reason for all
quantum mechanical wierdness, with the exception of quantization.
I would add, that it is also the origin of momentum, and most probably the
cosmological constant and the origin of the universe as you probably
misunderstand it.
The laws of thermodynamics are just generalizations of course that apply
to macroscopic objects. They are not as you think them, immutable laws that
apply to the quantum world.
In fact they are not "laws" in the real sense of the term at all. They
are just reasonable approximations with expected violations. A real "law"
is immutable.
I will repost my previous reply in the hope that you might have grown
smart enough to actually begin to understand it.
So sad. Pearls... Swine...
There is nothing controversial about zero point energy at all. It's an
integral part of quantum physics and is becoming more and more obvious that
it is the reason for everything from the expansion of the universe to the
property of momentum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Swain" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 04:27:03 PM |
|
|
Scott Nudds wrote:
Yes we are all very impressed by your vocabulary. Also enlightened
by your attitude. Now where is the documentation I requested?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 04:42:11 PM |
|
|
"Martin Swain" wrote
Yes we are all very impressed by your vocabulary. Also enlightened
by your attitude. Now where is the documentation I requested?
Since I have said nothing about perpetual motion, I do no feel anyway
obligated to respond to your request for information regarding perpetual
motion machines.
This should have been obvious to any thinking person.
What's your excuse?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 11:48:23 PM |
|
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:LTLLf.139$8d1.2@read1.cgocable.net...
"Martin Swain" wrote
Yes we are all very impressed by your vocabulary. Also enlightened
by your attitude. Now where is the documentation I requested?
Since I have said nothing about perpetual motion, I do no feel anyway
obligated to respond to your request for information regarding perpetual
motion machines.
This should have been obvious to any thinking person.
What's your excuse?
he has tattoos and climbs large rocks for amusement.
A
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Swain" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 04:49:01 PM |
|
|
Scott Nudds wrote:
"Martin Swain" wrote
Yes we are all very impressed by your vocabulary. Also enlightened
by your attitude. Now where is the documentation I requested?
Since I have said nothing about perpetual motion, I do no feel anyway
obligated to respond to your request for information regarding perpetual
motion machines.
You did say something about free energy. Furthermore you said it
had been demonstrated experimentally. Where is the documentation?
I have asked you for it repeatedly.
This should have been obvious to any thinking person.
What's your excuse?
I don't like you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 11:48:52 PM |
|
|
"Martin Swain" <martin_swain@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:x3MLf.2497$M52.2483@edtnps89...
Scott Nudds wrote:
"Martin Swain" wrote
Yes we are all very impressed by your vocabulary. Also enlightened
by your attitude. Now where is the documentation I requested?
Since I have said nothing about perpetual motion, I do no feel anyway
obligated to respond to your request for information regarding perpetual
motion machines.
You did say something about free energy. Furthermore you said it
had been demonstrated experimentally. Where is the documentation?
I have asked you for it repeatedly.
This should have been obvious to any thinking person.
What's your excuse?
I don't like you.
Wow. That's mature of you...
School must be out.
A
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 05:33:14 PM |
|
|
"Martin Swain" wrote
You did say something about free energy. Furthermore you said it
had been demonstrated experimentally. Where is the documentation?
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 08:59:19 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:33:14 -0500, "Scott Nudds"
<void@void.com> wrote:
"Martin Swain" wrote
You did say something about free energy. Furthermore you said it
had been demonstrated experimentally. Where is the documentation?
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).
Regards,
Bill Ward
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 09:25:43 PM |
|
|
"Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:43ffc743.26620481@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.
Zero point energy is quite real. The matter that surrounds us is simply a
froth that rides on top of an ocean of vacuum energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 10:00:57 PM |
|
|
In article <43ffd0d4.29070147@localhost>, (Bill Ward) writes:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:25:43 -0500, "Scott Nudds"
<void@void.com> wrote:
"Bill Ward" < > wrote in message
news:43ffc743.26620481@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@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 11:17:18 PM |
|
|
<mmeron@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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 09:33:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:25:43 -0500, "Scott Nudds"
<void@void.com> wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:43ffc743.26620481@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.
Zero point energy is quite real. The matter that surrounds us is simply a
froth that rides on top of an ocean of vacuum energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 10:18:41 PM |
|
|
"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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 10:30:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:18:41 -0500, "Scott Nudds"
<void@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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 11:11:29 PM |
|
|
"Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE@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@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@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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
25 Feb 2006 08:55:26 AM |
|
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:FARLf.1086$d9.106@read2.cgocable.net...
"Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE@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.
What you borrow has to be given back. So it's not free. You said free.
You didn't say borrowed.
Ultimately all the energy you generate degrades to unusable heat, so it's
borrowed in that sense.
That's the point of the first law of thermodynamics.
Looks like you believe in it after all. Only when it's convenient, of
course.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
