Hi  Omega_0,

Ok, I agree you can consider energy balance like you calculated above. 

Maybe some day someone can find a COP>1 setup with this conception.

Thanks,  Gyula

Yes, still worth a try.
No one knows what can extract free energy from the vacuum.

When anyone freeze something to absolute zero, 0 degrees Kelvin, all atomic movement is stopped, but there is still an energy called ZERO-POINT energy. The atomic particles in the absolute Zero, are quiet, but not the SUB-atomic particles (electrostatic scalar potential).

That's true, or at least conventional physics agrees. I don't recall the name of the effect off the top of my, but there's a well known effect/experiment that clearly shows the quantum foam, ZPE, prevents particles from being cooled below a certain point.

What I saying about your theory had *nothing* to do with doubt, and was only stating the fact that your theory has not reached to completed phase as my theory has. In my case, the entire process is shown in a verified and well-established mathematical software, FEMM.

I would consider ZPE as part of ambient thermal energy, *but* it is far far far far far more difficult to capture ZPE than the energy contained in moving molecules, atoms, and electrons. For example, if I place a cold piece of metal that is say -100C on the ground on a typical day, then the metal will quickly absorb ambient thermal energy by heating up. Now place that same piece of cold metal in a vacuum out in outerspace in a metal box where there's still ZPE and you'll be hard pressed to get ZPE to do squat.

Sorry, but I just don't get it. It's the weirdest thing why so many people are trying to capture ZPE when it's unimaginably easier to capture common ambient thermal energy. If you want to succeed in a legit "free energy" machine anytime in the next century, then try to capture common ambient thermal energy. It may not be as exciting and sci-fi'ish as working on ZPE, yippie, but it's realistic. Maybe that's the appeal for ZPE, it gives one the feel they are living the life of someone like Tesla. 

PL

In this thread I posted a link with some videos from a youtube guy showing that he was able to extract pure voltage in an easy way. I asked the guy but the guy doesn't connects in youtube for some months.
And I have seen more videos about energy without current. So, I think it won't be as difficult as you say.

Well we don't if it's a legit claim or not. Also, if it's legit, then you have no idea where the energy is coming from. For all you know the energy could be from common ambient thermal energy. 

And you? You say me that if I want to succed in a legit "free energy" machine anytime IN THE NEXT CENTURY?
You have repeated a lot of times that you have mathematically proven in software a "free energy" theory. But... when we will see a prototype? In the next millenium?

If it would take a millennium to make a machine that captures more ambient thermal energy than losses, then it may take a billion years to make the equivalent *ZPE* machine. Besides, I don't agree with you that it would take me millennium. I'm now down to the dirty details-- finding the materials, etc. The difference between me and other people at this forum is that I *refuse* to play guessing guess. My philosophy is to spend a lot longer thinking, and less time building. So when I build my machine, the odds are a lot higher that it will work.

PL

evidence of pure voltage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3soSDAJLaL8


I think Van der Graaf gen is another source of pure potential.

I have no idea what you mean by "pure voltage," but there *is* current. There is no way you're going to get sparks without current.

PL

Well we don't if it's a legit claim or not. Also, if it's legit, then you have no idea where the energy is coming from. For all you know the energy could be from common ambient thermal energy. 

The energy is for a PROVEN scientific fact coming from the virtual particle flux of the quantum vacuum. You would be ignorant to say it comes from anywhere else.

This was proven in 1957 for which there was a Nobel Prize awarded.

I have no idea what you mean by "pure voltage," but there *is* current. There is no way you're going to get sparks without current.

PL

You can indeed have sparks without current. This would of course rely on the fact that electrons are not what your using to generate the sparks. Of course you would know nothing about that.

Of course, there is a current. But that current is of neutrinos (?) instead a current of electrons.
When I say about pure voltage, I say about electrostatic scalar potential. We don't need to draw current from a battery to get energy. Maybe that pure potential is similar (or is the same) as Radiant Energy. I'm not sure about that.

if you remember the electrical relaxation time in a conductor, in the first period is flowing pure voltage in the circuit and after a very very little time, current starts to flow. If we're able to get that pure voltage from that period, we will be getting energy from the battery without discharging it (because we aren't drawing current).

The energy particle of voltage is SUB-atomic (maybe neutrinos¿?) and the energy particle of current are the electrons. We can get energy from both, voltage+current (electromagnetic, transverse) or pure voltage (electrostatic scalar potential, radiant?)

Like I said, you have no conclusive evidence that the device in that video is a legit perpetual motion machine. If it is, then you can't say it's not from ambient thermal energy.

PL

NRGFromTheVacuum,

You're a day dreamer. I used to day dream when I was in my twenties.

PL

Is that the most constructive argument you can come up with when someone uses real science to explain something.

I'm the dreamer even though I work in a field that imploys these technologys, and I actualy have devices instead of just a theory.

Your the ones who's dreaming guy.....