Zero point, over unity, free energy: Nonsense or the only way out of this mess

[Graviphoton]

No, zero point energy is energy that is there, but when you remove it it is removed. We do know how to extract it, and those of us who are sane know that the scammers who say it can be done easily or profitably are lying. For the vaccuum energy via the casimir effect, we can extract it by moving two plates close together in a vaccuum. But you can't move the plates appart again without inputing as much or more energy. Just like you can't use a water wheel to pump water up and spin the water wheel.

 

Perhaps an analogy will help you: the earth has gravitational potential energy. When you drop something, you gain energy from the gravitational potential. But the thing you drop doesn't just keep falling. When it hits the ground, you either have to expend energy to lift it again, or get something else to drop.

 

Now you could say that if we could only keep dropping things we would get infinite energy from it, but since you understand gravity you probably know that that can't be done.

 

Well you see, that's the point. It is found that zero-point energy in the vacuum should cause a cosmological value. But it doesn't. Physicists are still asking what exactly cancels this out.

 

But either way, what i said was true.

[swansont]

Perhaps an analogy will help you: the earth has gravitational potential energy. When you drop something, you gain energy from the gravitational potential. But the thing you drop doesn't just keep falling. When it hits the ground, you either have to expend energy to lift it again, or get something else to drop.

 

And the zero point of this is arbitrary — if you are using PE = mgh, you can choose any point to be your zero. I can say that a rock is 1000m above my zero point, but if the ground is at 999m above that point, I can still only recover (mg * 1m) of energy. The important amount is the energy difference between two states, not the value of any particular state. The infinity of the QM zero-point means nothing if you can't get to those states.

[Edtharan]

YOU need to experimentally verify it. Have you done that?

No. Because you haven't given us the diagrams needed so that we can make one to experimentally prove/disprove it.

 

You can't rely on what others tell you all the time.

So this also menas we can't rely on what you tell us either.

 

I never promised detailed diagrams ever.

No, but you keep telling us to build that machine, but without those detailed diagrams, we can't actually build it now can we...

 

What claim? I asked a question..

You can make claims in questions. These are claims about initial assuptions.

 

For example:

Why is the sky blue?

 

In that question there are 2 assuptions

1) That the sky exists (on an airless world there would be no "Sky" we could talk aobut in this way).

2) That the sky is blue.

 

Si in your opening post your question is:

"Why are we not using Zero Point energy?"

 

This also has two assuptions:

1) That ZPE actually exists.

2) That we are not using it.

 

Well assuption 2 is easy to prove. There are no known powerstations that use ZPE extractions systems to generate power. So this assuption is accepted.

 

However, people are questioning your first assuptions: That ZPE enxists.

 

If ZPE doesn't exist (in a useable form)then the answer to your quetions is very simple: The reason we aren't using ZPE is that it doesn't exist (in a useable form).

 

However, you clearly believe that ZPE exists in a useable form or you wouldn't beasking this quesiton in the first palce.

 

So just by asking that question in the way that you did, includes the claim that ZPE exists ina useable form. So even though all you have done is ask a question, for you to ask that question means that you also have to make the claim that ZPE exists in a useable form.

 

Someone making a claim has burden of proof about that claim.

 

Actually, in my post I ahve made several claims and have provided proof of them (since the burden of proof was on me). How about you return the favour.

[tvp45]

Get your facts right. He was 'framed' as a fruitcake. He was not one. Thats the difference. He sold his patents to Westinghouse in good faith and to some extent it was reciprocated. However, when more and more people (including heavyweights like J.P. Morgan) started kicking up a stink they simply bagged Tesla. What would you do? If you had all the money and the power and had everything to lose if Telsa got through to the world, what would you do? you'd call you cronies at the local daily newspaper and get them to print a story about this crazy loony mad scientists playing with lightening..

 

Let's suppose for the moment Tesla was framed. Why was Shallenberger not framed also? Why was Ferrari not framed? No one thinks the latter two insane; yet their work closely paralleled that of Tesla.

[Bignose]

[start sarcasm]

 

Vishal's right... just look at history. Don't you guys remember the violent gangs of Newtonites that repeatedly kidnapped Einstein and beat him with sacks of oranges to try to shut him and his general relativity up? I mean, the Newtonites tried and tried to keep the secret that Newtonian physics don't have all the answers quiet.

 

And, let's not forget the celestial orbists that tried to spread rumors about Kepler in the newspapers to discredit him and his idea that the planets move in ellipses. Remember how they tried to convince people that Kepler was boinking Emperor Rudolf's wife? And they told everybody that the comets Kepler saw weren't harmless, that they were the end of the world?

 

Finally, don't forget all the people who were jealous of Gauss. "No one can calculate logarithms in their head" they said -- they just knew he had them written on his arm up his sleeves. And, of course, those jealous of him had some success, that's why it's not just Gauss' Divergence Theorem. It's the Gauss-Ostrogradsky Divergence Theorem.

 

[/end sarcasm]

 

Ok, In all seriousness, Vishal, I think you seriously underestimate how much science would welcome discoveries of the kind you are talking about. Science is not about protecting the status quo, science is about expansion of the knowledge as fully as possible. If such over-unity devices could be shown to exist and work as promised, sure lots of science would have to be re-written, but almost every scientist I know wouldn't be angry about it -- they'd relish the opportunity to be part of the re-writing! That's what drives scientists as it is today! The ability to discover something that no one has ever discovered before!

 

If the new theories predicted phenomena better than the old one, they are replaced. Sure, a few individuals may be angry/upset/jealous of a new paradigm, but as a whole science is exceptionally open to new ideas and theories. All that is needed is evidence that backs up what people are saying. Period. Evidence that passes tests and demonstrates without question that what the claimant is claiming is true. To date, no devices have passed rigorous testing. (And, you do realize that several actual working scientists -- the "people in white lab coats" you wrote of -- do participate on this forum, don't you? You aren't just talking to a bunch of people unskilled in the practical workings of science and experimentation. You are speaking with a bunch of experts on the subject.)

 

You bring the claims here, all we want is some evidence of what you say. The members of this forum and the scientific community don't have to entertain every far-fetched notion until proven wrong. You don't have to entertain the notion that I have an invisible troll that lives in my attic and solves differential equations in his head until YOU prove it wrong. I have to prove that such a troll does exist before it has to be believed. And it is the same thing here. We don't have to believe that over unity or zero point energy devices exist and work until proven wrong -- you are claiming that they work, so you have to bring the evidence. It is as simple as that.

 

Bring the evidence and I personally guarantee I will publicly change my mind. I suspect most of the other regular members of this forum will make the same promise to change their mind if you bring us the evidence. But, without evidence, our skepticism is completely justified.

[iNow]

Well said, sir.

[mooeypoo]

The truth is that ZPE machines have been built. Discrediting it on the pretext of lacking scientific corroboration is weak.

 

Priceless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say, Vishal, if you think that scientific corroboration is unnecessary to do scientific stuff (interesting concept), uhm.. what.. exactly.. are you doing in a science forums network?

 

((And that wasn't a rude 'get lost' invitation, I appreciate a debate, I'm simply wondering))..

 

Second - since you are the one making the claim, you are the one with the need to prove it. I don't quite think anyone here said "it doesn't exist", we said that *what was published* --> FAILED... hence, all the ZPE machines out there are not doing ZPE at all.

 

Now, it is certainly possible we have either missed just that perfect one who's working, or that you have built one who's working. Either way, we will be thrilled to get information about this and test it out. ZPE, if it is utilized, is definitely great.

 

Give us some examples of the machines that do exist out there, with some proof they work, and we'll work with you.

 

Heck, I want a picture of your Nobel Prize after you win it --> I believe that would qualify for a definite win.

 

~moo

[Reaper]

Well, his last visit was on the 15th of May. I don't think Vishal be coming back to this thread to defend his claims