Free Energy? Critical examination?

[Sparky]

http://www.wanttoknow.info/newenergysources Please read a bit and comment.

In the late 1880's, trade journals in the electrical sciences were predicting "free electricity" in the near future. Incredible discoveries about the nature of electricity were becoming commonplace. Within 20 years, there would be automobiles, airplanes, movies, recorded music, telephones, radio, and practical cameras. For the first time in history, common people were encouraged to envision a utopian future filled with abundant modern transportation and communication, as well as jobs, housing and food for everyone. So what happened? Where did the new energy breakthroughs go? Was this excitement about free electricity all just wishful thinking that science eventually disproved?

Current State of Technology. The answer is no. Spectacular new energy technologies were developed right along with other breakthroughs. Since then, multiple methods for producing vast amounts of energy at extremely low cost have been developed. None of these technologies have made it to the open consumer market, however.

An example: Explanation vid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi7cmUpM ... ture=share

[Sparky]

Broken Symmetry

For the open-minded reader, let me explain what broken symmetrymeans, and what the broken symmetry of a dipole means with respect to powering any dipolar EM circuit.

The strong prediction of broken symmetry by Lee and Yang and its experimental proof by Wu et al. in 1957, initiated a great revolution across physics and won a nearly instant Nobel Prize in December 1957 for Lee and Yang.

One of the broken symmetries proven by Wu et al. and published in 1957 is the broken symmetry of opposite charges, as on the ends of a dipole.

That asymmetry is used by charges and dipoles for extracting and pouring out Electromagnetic energy from the vacuum, yet not one current Electrical Engineering or classical electromagnetics textbook mentions the energy implications of dipolar asymmetry. Nor do they mention that every charge and dipole freely pours out real observable EM energy continuously, with no observable energy input.

Thus the textbooks implicitly assume that all EM fields, potentials, and energy are freely created out of nothing at all by their associated source charges.

Either the conservation of energy law is falsified, or the source charge must be receiving the necessary energy input in virtual state form from the active vacuum.

Broken symmetry essentially means that something virtual (shadowy, but real in a special sense and widely used in physics; it has real physical consequences, since it creates all the forces of nature) has become observable (real in the ordinary everyday sense that it can be detected, measured, observed, and used.). The broken symmetry of the end charges of a dipole rigorously means that, once the charges are forcibly separated to form that dipole, the dipole (its end charges) continuously absorbs virtual (fleeting) photons from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates these "photon pieces" into real observable photons, and re-emits the resulting real EM energy in the form of real observable photons in all directions at the speed of light.

That is not this author's work; that is particle physics as justified by the award of two Nobel Prizes. It isn't even in the electrical engineering model, so no objection based on standard classical EM and electrical engineering concepts has any validity at all.

That's why a dipolar permanent magnet, with opposite magnetic charges on its ends locked in there by the material itself, continuously exhibits magnetic field in the space surrounding it (out to the ends of the universe, if the magnet has been around long enough). There is a continuous and steady stream of EM energy, extracted directly from the vacuum and integrated into observable magnetic field energy, pouring forth from the dipolarity of that magnet. At any external point in that stream, the steady flow will give a steady or "static" reading for the magnetic field and thus for the intensity of the flow at that point.

Actually there is no such thing as a "static" field or potential in the universe; simply check out Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the "electrostatic" scalar potential into bidirectional longitudinal EM waves, and his 1904 decomposition of any field and wave pattern into two such potentials comprised of bidirectional longitudinal EM waves. The 1904 paper founded what today is known as superpotential theory. The 1903 paper has been largely ignored by the academics, although it has been formidably weaponized by several nations, notably the Russians not long after WW II. Application of Whittaker's 1903 and 1904 papers is responsible for the weapons that then Secretary of Defense Cohen referred to in 1997.

[Sparky]

http://www.cheniere.org/megstatus.htm vacuum energy, over unity generator.

pdf of patent is available. Explanation of device is available.

[Sparky]

Over-unity device installed in Minuteman Missile - patented by Westinghouse
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/minuteman.htm

A frequency converter using 64 transistor stages and similar sophisticated feedforward and feedback mechanisms was placed in the original Minuteman missile, then deliberately modified to stop its demonstrated COP > 1.0 performance. Very quietly, Westinghouse engineers then obtained several patents surrounding the technology, but no further mention of it appears in the literature.
(Note: COP stands for Coefficient of Performance)

In the Westinghouse Minuteman converter, all the output side electronics (i.e., beyond the output of the transistor array frequency converter) started failing out there in the field, taking the missiles down. After much investigation, it was found that the units were putting out some 105% as much energy as they received. Some were exhibiting COP = 1.15. The receiving electronics on the other side of the converter could not accept that much. Corporate officials came down hard on the engineers to fix the problem, so they just put in limiting diodes, etc. and spoiled the feedback and the ping pong. That brought the thing down to about 95% efficient, and the electronics on the output side quit blowing out.

Everybody was happy, and everybody continued to use those "crippled overunity units" in the Minuteman missile. Westinghouse quietly filed five or six patents around such transistor arrays with sophisticated feedforward and feedback, and that was the end of that. Everybody "knows" that you cannot produce an EM system that puts out more than you yourself input! We have all been educated in the arbitrarily crippled Lorentz-regauged version of the Heaviside-Maxwellian equations that only deal with EM systems that have already been violently wrenched into local equilibrium with their vacuum energy exchange.

[Michael V]

Sparky,

Dude, you been reading Fortean Times again?.


Michael

[Sparky]

Michael! Good to hear from you! I'm still looking at everything. Now I need to confirm that QM has some validity, even though it doesn't make sense!
This Tom Beardin seems to be on to something. I don't know, but I hope he is right.

[MrAmsterdam]

Sparky! Empiricism! Peswiki.com !

[Sparky]

Sparky! Empiricism! Peswiki.com !

ummmmm, I don't read shorthand, sorry.

What are your thoughts on Empiricism and Peswiki, regarding the study of zpe?

[Solar]

Sparky:

Personally, I’m rather impressed with your efforts at ferreting out this particular topic as you’ve offered other references covering it before. The reason is because you’re demonstrating that the sources need to be compared and contrasted with one another. Traditionally the electrical energy budget supposedly works out fine only when a ‘system’ is imagined to be a ‘closed system’.

Other affects to watch out for which might be incorrectly interpreted as “free energy” are:

“Fly-back Voltage and/or Back EMF”

However, and not to get overly complicated, when the circuit, or system is imagined to be “closed” – meaning no external influences creep in – it really is just imagining that to be the case. One of the contributors to that thread above says it quite well:

First of all, We MUST realize, that Most of all ancient Laws related to everything we are ALL discussing here...are based on CLOSED CIRCUITS...From the Energy Conservation Laws, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, etc,etc all the way to the Kirchhoff Laws...ALL...Relate to closed loop circuits.

OPEN CIRCUITS...deliver a complete 180 degrees opposed, wide and vast Horizon of New Concepts that have been ignored, disregarded and therefore, disappeared from our Scope of Study...for many years that add more than a Century.

(…)

When we create an Electronic flow, based on just Two Ends, we are just setting an "Electron Transmitting Side", that is just an "Overpopulated Electronic Area" or a Negative side...and an "Electron Receiving Side", or "Lack of Electrons"...a Positive Side.
We have created our own laws and Parameters to Measure that Electronic Flow Network, based just on Potential and Intensity...just Two simple readings based on electronic population.

(…)

We all must realize that this Procedures, are not precise and accurate measurements at all, when it comes to complex forms of Electronic Signaling Protocols...like interrupted and reversed flows at very high frequencies in our State of the Art Electronic Circuits and Components...Therefore, it would be understood all this kind of "Confusion" in our readings, like sudden spikes, randomly developed increments and other we call "Parasitic behaviors" manifested in our systems... When all we have "available" to Calculate them...are those rudimentary Laws...made, more than a Century ago...when ANY of this electronic processing was able to be performed. – Energetic Forum: Post by user Ufopolitis

Imho, he’s absolutely correct. What if the system isn't "closed" like imagined? Was it just the imagination that neatly tidied things up in the equations making “closed systems” just a pipe-dream? When Oliver Heaviside had disagreements with Mr. Preece it was because Mr. Preece wasn’t really interested in the scope of external influences that could influence electrical systems. Up to that point, with Heaviside being one of the main developers that worked out much trying to understand the nature of “electricity” and its propagation, the electric industry was satisfied simply with the fact that stuff worked. Money, money, money – who needs the rest. So ‘everybody’ is happy and content with the ‘standards’ that have been set and the assessments that dispensed with other electrical features all those years ago.

Since then and on to today the response is like: ‘Who is that quirky person over yonder still wondering about the odd electrical “spikes” and “parasitic” electric behaviors that our neat equations have simply ignored in our to and fro electron population dance?’ I think Mr. Heaviside would be quite agreeable with your investigative efforts since he seems to have had had a similar inquisitive approach as yourself.

[Sparky]

solar:

Personally, I’m rather impressed with your efforts at ferreting out this particular topic as you’ve offered other references covering it before.

Thank you....As usual, I am stretched way beyond my ability, but that has been my "normal" for a long time. If I keep at it, maybe some of this stuff will soak in...

To find that there was an explanation for the force that I could see in a bar magnet, and that it was connected to the energy of the universe, was exciting.

Tom Beardin said that he examined a "free energy" device and concluded that the apparent over unity was from a shifting of a relative frame. Lost me on that one.

I am also lost on his contention that "time" is a huge source of energy. Maybe in the math, but how does one convert that to a mechanical device?

Thank you!

[Solar]

Thank you....As usual, I am stretched way beyond my ability, but that has been my "normal" for a long time. If I keep at it, maybe some of this stuff will soak in...

No further growth would occur if we didn't stretch the boundaries of what we've grown comfortable with considering ourselves as knowing.

To find that there was an explanation for the force that I could see in a bar magnet, and that it was connected to the energy of the universe, was exciting.

And well it should be exciting like that as all things are likewise connected.

Tom Beardin said that he examined a "free energy" device and concluded that the apparent over unity was from a shifting of a relative frame. Lost me on that one.

I would need to read that again.

I am also lost on his contention that "time" is a huge source of energy. Maybe in the math, but how does one convert that to a mechanical device?

The quanta are always pulsing, vibrating, and oscillating. Naturally occurring pulsations, or oscillations, can be used to apply our concept of "time" to these rhythms such as with atomic clock:

Since 1967, the International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as the duration of 9192631770cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the cesium-133 atom.[14]

This definition makes the caesium oscillator the primary standard for time and frequency measurements, called the caesium standard. - Atomic Clock

So, from those kinds of naturally occurring energetic oscillations, pulsations, and vibrations he is saying that this can be utilized to produce energy.

Bearden provides interesting aspects on the theoretical underpinnings of all of this by explaining the theoretic. So does Bedini and the Bedini Motor which they say isn’t “over unity” but that it is a “method of capturing radiant energy “. Peter Linderman also has some interesting work. This year’s Energy Conference had quite a few presentations from individuals who’ve delved into the ‘leftover’ or ‘neglected’ aspects of electricity (or energy) that don’t appear to fall within the framework of “closed systems”.

To me, there is no such thing as “free energy”. The problem with that term, is that, the systems were never “closed” in the first place. People’s minds were. *We* created the framework of "closed systems" by constantly renomalizing Infinity. Nature has neither use nor concept for such a limit as all Her 'systems' are "open" and receive input from the "vacuum" all of the time. The quanta are pulsating because they are about the business of transducing the "vacuum". Sure, there are a lot of great accomplishments from developing a framework around which to do work and we all enjoy the benefits. However, somewhere along the road to the modern era it appears that the framework was taken to be a complete understanding of “electricity”. It wasn’t.

Plenty of individuals are still probing the nature of electricity and in the least the accustomed framework might need some amending because those ‘stray’ overlooked electrical features didn’t really go anywhere. They’re still there. Which is maybe why Mr. Bearden characterizes “the arbitrarily crippled Lorentz-regauged version of the Heaviside-Maxwellian equations that only deal with EM systems that have already been violently wrenched into local equilibrium with their vacuum energy exchange.” So very many equations f state have been piled atop the physics that contributions from the "vacuum" have been all but smothered.

What “vacuum energy exchange” is he talking about anyways? How can physics posit a “vacuum” (which is not the best of terms obviously) that supposedly “cascades” into the multiplicity of energy manifestation in Nature and then turn around and say that there is no contribution from said “vacuum” in electrical systems?? The very same “vacuum” is powering all of Nature for goodness sake. Form it, Nature itself makes its very own “electricity”. The individuals prone to experimenting with those other aspects of “electricity” are simply saying overall ‘Yeah, it’s here; its influence is showing up in our electrical systems.’ The physicist stuck to the standardized electrical interpretations are saying ‘Pft! Not only is the system closed; so are our minds, and this topic.’ *clunk* (door closed).

But then, simultaneously over yonder it’s perfectly fine and okay for the very same ‘resistance’ to the idea - to attempt to do the exact same thing on ‘Their’ own terms:

Research in a Vacuum: DARPA Tries to Tap Elusive Casimir Effect for Breakthrough Technology

Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantum Physics

It’s official. What then makes some psychological preference for a quasi-official framework characterize as odd a Mr. Bearden, a Mr. Linderman, a Bedini, or N. Tesla when (despite all of these different naming conventions Aether, “dark energy”, “vacuum”, “radiant energy” etc ) the fundamental principle is the same? Talk about pulling a fast one!

“Space” is a formless form of “energy” regardless of what one chooses to call It and this has become recognized across several domains. Now, a multitude are trying to figure out a way to synthesize “electricity” from the raw “energy” that “space” actually is, the way Nature already does. It’s that Fundamental Principle that is important to understand, not all of the confusing naming conventions.

I'll have two other new examples of this for you to stretch and contrast momentarily.

[Solar]

Neither of the following examples are actually new. I used that term because I don’t know whether or not you’ve seen them before. If you have then that’s fine. For the record I’m not a big fan of the supposed Casimir Effect; it was just an example of how, in principle, the researcher is being convinced not to assess as potentially valid what is also theorized by those trying to convince. That is weird. Onward.

The first example is the story of Alexander Chernetski:

• *The Plasmatron
  
  *Also known as: Self-Generating Discharge Plasmatron or Self-Generating Discharge and/or Self-Generating Electrical Discharge. Other than the synopsis no further information is available.

The following second example is for those prone delving into detailed theory accompanying experimentation. On very rare occasion (and I do mean rare) when the activity is discovered by a competent and qualified individual a theory is developed and so; the naming convention changes. Whoever develops a theory refers to particles, fields, energy and such by whatever name they want and this can cause some confusion though again, the fundamental principle is always the same. As stated in another thread we are constantly tripping over the various naming conventions for the expression of a condition while the Primary Message gets lost. This is why I champion you efforts at contrasting and comparing the different expressions related to this topic. It allows for a better overall perspective and the knowledge gained most certainly can help to reveal charlatanry when it’s afoot. Without further ado meet:

• *Paramahamsa Tewari
  
  *Simply put he has all of the requirements to do exactly what he was asked. When success came he was then asked to stop. That’s all. He then developed the “Space-Vortex Theory” (SVT). Shall we get caught up in that name?? Of course not. Does the nature of the work have correspondences with Bearden, Tesla, Dollard, Linderman? Of course it does; by way of Fundamental Principle – not by the names, words, and expression Tewari chose to use for his theoretic.

Vortices, vortices, vortices – not the “closed” system called “particles”. Vortices are “open” and interconnected to the Infinite whereas the “particle” concept is an imagined “closed system” assumed to be and modeled as being little rigid spheres. As relates vortices the fantastic work of Akira Tonomura and Abrikosov lattices. Also see (here). Any current diagram of "orbitals" should have knocked the rigid sphere model off of its pedestal imho.

For the bonus round there is the work of:

• *Brian DePalma and The Primordial field
  
  *

  The detection of an isotropic field consists of distorting it and noting the force isotropys.
  
  (…)
  
  The primordial field has all known properties. We understand its force nature through experiments with charged capacitors, magnets, and gravity. In every case, a distortion of the primordial field results in an unbalanced force.
  The existence of the primordial field can be proved by the manifestation of unbalanced forces through distortion of its normally isotropic condition, i.e. by electricity, magnetism or gravity.
  
  That the primordial field has certain mechanical characteristics can be shown by the apparent propagation of waves and the existence of discrete particles.– ON THE NATURE OF THE PRIMORDIAL FIELD

What “unbalanced forces” is he talking about? “Unbalanced” is obviously another term for “asymmetry”. What “asymmetry” would that be? Might it be the very same ‘isotropic symmetry’ idealized as initially being everywhere the same and which, for reasons unknown, became 'spontaneously broken'? Yes of course, That One. He simply calls it The Primordial Field and sees the forces and various forms of "matter" as resulting from the 'asymmetric distortion' of said Primordial Field. A myriad of expression for One Primal Principle expressing the natural “energy” behind the whole of Nature. The very same “Wheelwork” Tesla spoke of.

So, there you have some examples that have somehow managed to survive the mindset that relegated Tesla into obscurity. Bearden’s assessments of this is obviously not for everyone but there are others working along this line but without inquiry into the various expression how is one to find the one that expresses things that are favorable to the researcher?? The reader is invited to independently research, investigate, contrast, compare and form their very own conclusions; there is working equipment involved for some of these after all and it’s not my job to convince anyone of anything. It’s out there. Its perfectly fine to dispense with the whole of it if one sees fit to do that; that is your call. My advice is to be like Sparky and ‘stretch’ the horizons of what we think we know. I’m more than a little certain that this is one of the reasons for which we’re are all gathered here. How exactly did you get out of that "gravity only" cosmology if not for that?

[Sparky]

Solar, thank you for your posts. I am digesting them as I can. I do hope that someone who is not familiar with this work will be able to shed their old beliefs and contribute to what is being found again. From one of your links: http://depalma.pair.com/Tewari/Chap7.html , I post a bit:

If heat produced in the electric circuit due to its resistance to current flow is not energy in a true sense, and EMF does not require energy for the current to flow, then a generator designed with new configurations of the magnetic field and the conductor will take much less energy in addition to constant magnetic excitation to produce EMF and output power. The experimental results from various models of space power generator (SPG) in which configurations of the magnetic field and conductor discussed earlier and different from the conventional generators have shown that in motor-SPG set, over and above the windage and frictional power, for each KW of mechanical power, about 2.5 KW of electrical power can be generated, thus providing support to the above theoretical considerations. It also gets evident that there exists the possibility for a highly efficient free power machine that will make perpetual system possible.

[Sparky]

Collective Phenomena, High-Energy Physics and Cosmology
http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/v ... 98/2874734
http://youtu.be/DfjOIoPwolg shorter explanation.

Collective phenomena such as the basis of the statistical thermodynamic relationships and superconductivity, the basic forces and structure of matter on the nuclear scale and the cosmological ramifications of CP such as the identity of absolute space that unifies all frames of reference, solves the nature of the gravitational and inertial masses and their equivalence, gives the derivation of Newton’s second law, and solves the origin of gravity, the families and masses of fundamental particles, and large-scale features and dynamics of the universe including the prediction of the current acceleration of the cosmic expansion and the absence of time dilation in redshifted quasars. The central enigmas of quantum mechanics mainly regarding the wave-particle duality are also resolved classically.

The work they are doing:

BlackLight’s Electricity-Generation Demonstration of Automated Ignition System of Vibratory Conveyor-Fed H2O-Based Solid Fuel Powder, BlackLight’s Demonstration of Automated Ignition System of Auger-Fed H2O-Based Solid Fuel Powder that was repeated with Photovoltaic Conversion of Light to Electricity, and question and answer sessions with participation by two validators including a defense company licensee.

http://youtu.be/zGTUd68hu5M Demo

[Sparky]

http://www.jovion.com/

Zero-point energy is a well established concept originally proposed by Planck and Einstein in 1913. Later it was shown to arise in quantum physics from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It has a number of well-known effects. For example, zero-point energy prevents helium from solidifying under normal pressure even at absolute zero temperature. It can also be detected as quantum noise in circuits. Although very real on the quantum level, it is not directly evident in the large-scale world. What we are proposing is to use a quantum process to indirectly tap zero-point energy by using Casimir cavities to temporarily modify electron orbitals in atoms as they pass through the cavities. Continuous gas flow through properly sized Casimir cavities should result in energy extraction. In effect this process would siphon energy from the Universe at large. The inert gas serves solely as a catalyst and is not depleted. It is technologically straightforward to manufacture structures the size of a car battery that would contain millions of Casimir cavities. The process requires the continuous cyclic flow of inert, harmless gases such as neon, argon, krypton or xenon in a closed system. Energy capture and conversion devices are also required, whose exact characteristics depend upon precisely how the zero-point energy is released. Reasonable estimates of the strength and efficiency of this process suggest that a structure of car-battery size could generate on the order of one kilowatt. There would be no harmful, hazardous or polluting byproducts.

http://www.jovion.com/

We propose to call the orbital energy difference between outside versus inside a Casimir cavity a "Casimir-Lamb shift" because it calls to mind the Lamb shift, for which Willis Lamb received a Nobel Prize in 1955: a small difference in energy between two electron orbitals in the hydrogen atom that results from perturbation of the Coulomb potential of the atomic nucleus by zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum field. We expect the Casimir-Lamb shift to be a much stronger effect.

The quantum vacuum zero-point field that exists everywhere is full of extremely short-lived electromagnetic fluctuations which pop into and out of existence thanks to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
The energy of this field is not in an absolute minimum state since a lower state can be achieved inside a Casimir cavity, in which some of the electromagnetic fluctuations are suppressed.
In atoms the electron orbitals are determined by discrete values of quantum numbers characterizing the energy, angular momentum and spin values. There is no further physical process or basis beyond these numbers.
It has been shown (in reputable papers, e.g. in Phys. Rev.) that the ground state of hydrogen could alternatively be explained in terms of a classical orbiting electron absorbing exactly as much zero-point energy as it emits due to Larmor emission. arxiv.org/abs/1201.6168 and arxiv.org/abs/1204.1952
It is hypothesized that a similar balance of absorption and emission might account for electron orbitals in atoms in general.
If that is the case, then it makes sense to consider the energies of electron orbitals as a secondary reservoir of zero-point energy.
If this connection between electron orbitals and quantum fluctuations is true, it affords an indirect way to access the energy of the zero-point field using Casimir cavities.
This suggests that Casimir cavities may be used to extract energy from this secondary reservoir by virtue of the suppression of zero-point fluctuations. This would result in shrinking of electron orbitals as atoms enter Casimir cavities, which should yield capturable energy.
Such a process is analogous to the Lamb shift, hence we suggest the name Casimir-Lamb shift.
Upon exiting the Casimir cavity the ambient quantum vacuum zero-point field will re-energize the shrunken electron orbitals to their normal state.
It can be shown that energy emitted on cavity entry and energy absorbed on cavity exit are separate processes, hence do not cancel each other out.
A cyclic flow of gas through Casimir cavities can therefore act as a catalyst for extracting energy from a universal sea of quantum zero-point energy. The universal quantum sea of energy is in principle diminished, but this is negligible.