Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: Eighthman on March 28, 2010, 03:30:19 AM

Title: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: Eighthman on March 28, 2010, 03:30:19 AM
I really, really want free energy to exist but I'm afraid there is a major problem with the idea:

If free energy/zero point energy exists, why do we exist at all?  If nature easily allowed for any net gain in energy here or there,  everything everywhere would glow like the surface of the sun. The law of the conservation of energy allows us to exist.

So, since we're here and often bothered with heating our living spaces - rather than fending off fierce incandescence - then zero point stuff must be a very tiny phenomenon like quantum fluctuations that end up with an extra electron or something.

The only other possible exception must involve something unusual ,that nature has great difficulty doing or sustaining , such that everything doesn't explode into a fireball.  Go figure.
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: raptor731 on May 25, 2010, 04:07:10 AM
Eighthman, let me try to answer your question.  :)

Science (the study of the observable universe) has indeed found that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies everywhere. Things tend towards disorder. Light energy is used up by motion and redshifted. Atoms create molecules only if together they can use less energy than alone. Everything is fine-tuned to run at maximum efficiency.

Everywhere we observe a loss of energy...BUT!

If we can locally disturb the natural order of the universe, we may be able to get it to do useful work for us. This can only be possible by transferring energy from a domain not recognized by mainstream science, into our observable world today.

Ask yourself, why are atoms seemingly eternal? Shouldn't they run out of energy? They constantly vibrate, why? Isn't an atom already a miniature overunity machine? An atom, continuously vibrating, should be an alarming concept to science....

Here's where I'm leading: I'm inclined to believe that spacetime is made up of an aetheric substance. In my theory, particles like electrons and protons are only geometrical wave-structures that exist in it, only sustained by many resonant incoming waves. So an electron would disintegrate and travel away as a 511 KeV gamma ray unless it was resonating to incoming waves of a particular frequency.

If we can somehow create a condition where we can use these incoming waves (most of which freely pass through matter like neutrinos), we have created a "free energy" device. But no we haven't. Traveling waves in aether + observable energy in universe = CONSTANT. So we are merely performing a transfer of energy, and nothing is created or destroyed.

Taking advantage of the fact that an electrostatic field will supply as much energy as you know how to get out of it is one application of this. Hope this stuff made sense.  ;)
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: nightlife on May 25, 2010, 07:36:03 AM
Free energy? There is no such thing, just as there is so such thing as a substance. A substance is thought of as a solid but yet there is nothing solid. Everything is energy and energy is anything. Energy is vibrant and the vibrance is what energy is.
 It takes work to create and therefore energy created is never free and that makes it impossible to find and or discover free energy.

 Our greed wants, which changes our preception of what we need. We need nothing more then the necessities needed to survive which is nothing more then food, water and shelter from the elements.
 Our greed to want for what we do not need has put us in the position we are now in. Big money thrives off our desire to want things we do not need. Today they make laws that require us to have and do certain things just so we can feel like we have some sort of freedom. We have no one to blame for this but ourselves.

 If I was to provide you with a design that would create all the energy you want without costing you anymore then what the materials cost to build it, what would you do with it? Would it give you more freedom? Think real hard about that before you answer.

 Here is some more food for thought. What do you think big money would do if we were to create something they charge us for and or takes their control away? They have already put themselves in postion that they can use to do away with all they don't like and or want around. The only reason they have not done this yet is because they thrive off our ignorance and that makes them feel more superior. If we take away their superiority, they will have no need for us which will then, most likely, put them in a position to do away with the majority so they can still have the control their greed desires.
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: sandor on May 25, 2010, 09:48:48 AM
Yes, Carl Sagan said that in science, one must abandon one's dearest illusions in the wake of facts. It would be nice if we had a benefactor (god) protecting us from oblivion as well. But there are no facts to support that hypothesis either. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, you may not think so badly of entropy if you learn its other name. Information. Entropy and information are the same thing. Now it doesn't seem so bad that it's never destroyed, does it? My understanding of this is vastly incomplete, however. Supposedly scientists claim that the rules of quantum physics say that information is never destroyed, that the future cannot be predicted, and that the laws do not suggest an arrow of time, e.g. they work just as well in the forward direction as back, and these 3 things together do not make any sense to me. If information can't be destroyed then the past can be reconstructed, and if the laws are the same in the reverse direction of time as in the forward direction and the past can be reconstructed, then the future can be predicted. So don't ask me. Ask someone who claims to know something about quantum mechanics.

The first law of thermodynamics, unfortunately, I understand has actually been proved mathematically, given that the constants of nature can't be made to change. The charge of an electron, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the mass of a proton, planck's constant, the Boltzmann constant, etcetera, in other words. And if you COULD violate it, the resulting shape of spacetime as described by the general theory of relativity would actually not make any sense. You'd actually be left with equations like 0=1 in your mathematical description of spacetime, as the shape of spacetime would be constrained to something like the art of MC Escher. So it's not just precluded, it's actually a non-sequitur. But then again, the equations of general relativity as they are known could merely be a special case of more general equations, given maybe that a certain parameter is assumed to be 0, and the actual nature of spacetime does not require that parameter to actually be 0, and maybe some places in the universe exist where that parameter is not 0, and at those places, the behavior described by the general theory of relativity do not describe physical reality any more precisely than does Newtonian physics. And if anyone should discover such a region of spacetime where the general theory of relativity does not apply, the theory would need to be modified, and that is what science is all about.

The only way left is the possibility of creating negative mass. That would solve everything. You see, if you could generate positive and negative mass, that would not violate the first or second laws. The net amount of mass in the universe would not change, and it would increase the amount of available work in the universe AND increase the entropy. Increasing entropy/information only goes hand in hand with decreasing available work under the assumption that all mass is positive. Isn't that weird? But the really odd thing is that there would be nothing to hold up the 2nd law of thermodynamics if there were negative matter. Its interactions with positive matter could involve things like a brick of hot negative matter and a brick of hot positive matter colliding, passing though each other, and resulting in two fast-moving cold bricks. Some other interesting things you might look up are non-orientable wormholes, which would destroy the law of conservation of charge as we know it, and make this universe into something called an Alice universe.
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: exnihiloest on May 26, 2010, 09:18:26 AM
I really, really want free energy to exist but I'm afraid there is a major problem with the idea:

If free energy/zero point energy exists, why do we exist at all?  If nature easily allowed for any net gain in energy here or there,  everything everywhere would glow like the surface of the sun.
...

Not false.
The universe is governed according to the principle of least action. Events and actions tend to minimize the energetic configuration of the world. Therefore gurus blabs like Bearden's on ZPE (minimal energetic state of vacuum) will not be enough for discovering the trick, they are even counterproductive. The only possible way is to find a hidden energetic source higher than the environment and to exploit the differential.

Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: lumen on May 26, 2010, 09:23:09 PM
Not false.
The universe is governed according to the principle of least action. Events and actions tend to minimize the energetic configuration of the world. Therefore gurus blabs like Bearden's on ZPE (minimal energetic state of vacuum) will not be enough for discovering the trick, they are even counterproductive. The only possible way is to find a hidden energetic source higher than the environment and to exploit the differential.

The only possible way is to find a hidden energetic source higher (or lower) than the environment
 and to exploit the differential.

Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: giantkiller on May 26, 2010, 09:26:53 PM
You can choose to drink out of the glass once or pour it down the well to prime it and get copious amounts.
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: z.monkey on May 26, 2010, 11:26:24 PM
We're not ready for Zero Point energy...

Regular energy exists all around you...

All you need to do is build a simple apparatus to harvest it, easy man!

Windmill, Waterwheel, Solar Cell, Voltaic Pile, Thermopile, Nuclear Resonance Coil...

See, Easy!
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: exnihiloest on May 27, 2010, 08:57:42 AM
We're not ready for Zero Point energy...

Regular energy exists all around you...

All you need to do is build a simple apparatus to harvest it, easy man!

Windmill, Waterwheel, Solar Cell, Voltaic Pile, Thermopile, Nuclear Resonance Coil...

See, Easy!

easy only to light leds, not to run aluminium factories or to flight planes.

Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: infringer on May 29, 2010, 08:07:41 AM
maybe we can approach things like this matter following a cryptographic scheme the larger the matter the longer it takes to decode the more gravity created from the extra overhead energy it takes to decrypt....

Find the master key... weather the cryptology is a key or something more simple like frequency hopping... I dunno it all is greek to me what you guys were thinking but it appears that everything is a constant see of energy in tune with something...

Resonance tells us even if something is constant so IDK that we are thinking correct maybe everything is locked into one tune and gets information from that one tune but the rest is encoded somehow so we need a middle man type attack to approach the problem... Maybe the key lies in something so tiny we will never be able to physically see it but in order to be something physical it takes much energy to remain a solid object. Where something get this energy to last so long like a solid metal pole answer the surrounding enviornment through many interactions we only under stand at a larger scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Pillar_of_Delhi This is over unity due to conditions this pillar has lasted for centuries long then it should have out in the open ....

PS DO NOT TAKE A WORD OF ANY OF THIS TO HEART!!!

I am half asleep rambling!

Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: Eighthman on June 07, 2010, 04:30:55 AM
I think you've made some excellent points.  I'm inclined to think that energy creation (if we want to call it that) might only exist in transients - otherwise, we end up the same way, everything blows up into incandescence. You get a little bit for a fraction of a second and our world continues in safety.

Of course,  with some iteration, that would be OK for our purposes.  Aspden once said something that made me think - if you really believe that the laws of thermodynamics act perfectly, then there is no new energy.  All of the energy we see originated in the Big Bang and that's all there is.

Beyond collecting transient energy,  it is tempting to think we could create some sort of "macro quantum object" - rather like a big atom that exchanged energy with the vacuum.  Such a thing could act like a mini black hole or electrical tornado that could create wreckage.  Perhaps that adds credibility to the Mark TPU or Sweet devices and their reports of getting out of control.



Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: Charlie_V on June 07, 2010, 05:48:47 AM
You know the problem with many in science is they ignore things that are staring right into their face.  There is definitely, without a doubt, a lot of disorder all over the universe, an undisputed fact. 

HOWEVER, I see at least an equal amount of order as well.  Without leaping onto fictional theories about spontaneous universe creations (which fall apart when time approaches zero) or complicated multi-universe hocus pocus, I would have to say that there DEFINITELY, without a doubt, is an effect in our universe that produces order.

If there was only disorder, we would not exist.  Since there would be nothing to produce the observed order and in effect "create" our existence - the universe would stay a nothingness void. But we can observe order all around us (all up in our face), so the only logical answer is that an ordering phenomenon must exist.  What it is, I don't know.  Could we harness it, maybe/maybe not.  Has science observed it, no. 

It could be something so complex we lack the ability to presently formulate it.  Maybe it is something that takes such a long time to observe that only in a 100 million earth years would you even start to notice it.  Or it could be something so simple that we just overlook it every day.

I think those posting that "energy creation would be like 0=1" are missing the big picture.  Stating that ONLY disorder makes 1=1 is very faulty math.  I think both order and disorder TOGETHER make 1=1.  Until you have both, our math will always be wrong - as will our complete picture of the universe we live.

Just my two cents,
Charlie
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: Eighthman on June 07, 2010, 02:30:28 PM
The maintenance of order in the universe moves us into theology, of a sort.  I greatly marvel that we see endless contentions about the ORIGIN of life but no one asks 'what maintains standards across the universe'? 

Another simple point that is vastly ignored: at some point or level in our universe, everything becomes arbitrary,  beyond reductionism, beyond causation.  Usually, if this topic is brought up at all, it gets brought up about the quantum level of reality. It pops up in the theory of decoherence, for example, or the idea that quanta act statistically.

Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: Charlie_V on June 08, 2010, 01:23:56 AM
Quote
The maintenance of order in the universe moves us into theology, of a sort.  I greatly marvel that we see endless contentions about the ORIGIN of life but no one asks 'what maintains standards across the universe'?

I think the same phenomenon that generates order also maintains it - might be a cyclical thing, who knows.  I'm not really sure I would classify what I'm saying as theology since we definitely observe order.  Just no one has observed an ordering phenomenon in real time yet.  But if its there, a phenomenon has to make it.
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: Eighthman on June 09, 2010, 03:06:43 PM
The Second Big Problem with Free Energy is the whole Zero Point Energy thing.  So, we're surrounded by enormous energy, right?  But where is the 'sink' for that energy? How does it 'run downhill'?  Do we need another dimension for it to flow into?

It's like being at the bottom of the ocean and being surrounded by tons of pressure per square inch. Exactly what good is it if you don't have an area of lesser pressure to flow into?  And where's that?
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: CuriousChris on September 14, 2010, 07:07:20 AM
The Second Big Problem with Free Energy is the whole Zero Point Energy thing.  So, we're surrounded by enormous energy, right?  But where is the 'sink' for that energy? How does it 'run downhill'?  Do we need another dimension for it to flow into?

It's like being at the bottom of the ocean and being surrounded by tons of pressure per square inch. Exactly what good is it if you don't have an area of lesser pressure to flow into?  And where's that?

Gravity perhaps?
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 14, 2010, 08:34:02 AM
Free energy? There is no such thing, just as there is so such thing as a substance. A substance is thought of as a solid but yet there is nothing solid. Everything is energy and energy is anything. Energy is vibrant and the vibrance is what energy is.
 It takes work to create and therefore energy created is never free and that makes it impossible to find and or discover free energy.

 Our greed wants, which changes our preception of what we need. We need nothing more then the necessities needed to survive which is nothing more then food, water and shelter from the elements.
 Our greed to want for what we do not need has put us in the position we are now in. Big money thrives off our desire to want things we do not need. Today they make laws that require us to have and do certain things just so we can feel like we have some sort of freedom. We have no one to blame for this but ourselves.

 If I was to provide you with a design that would create all the energy you want without costing you anymore then what the materials cost to build it, what would you do with it? Would it give you more freedom? Think real hard about that before you answer.

 Here is some more food for thought. What do you think big money would do if we were to create something they charge us for and or takes their control away? They have already put themselves in postion that they can use to do away with all they don't like and or want around. The only reason they have not done this yet is because they thrive off our ignorance and that makes them feel more superior. If we take away their superiority, they will have no need for us which will then, most likely, put them in a position to do away with the majority so they can still have the control their greed desires.

I respectfully disagree.  There is such a thing as free energy and I use it every day.  Both my earth battery (EER) and Joule Thief circuits give me free energy which I use on a daily basis.  Now if you meant Overunity, then, you may be correct.

All of my devices work no different than a solar cell or a windmill or water wheel.  I am just tapping into energy that we all know exists but, it costs me nothing so it is indeed free energy.

My Joule Thief circuits run off of "dead" AA batteries that other have tossed out.  I get them for free so I get a lot of free light for many, many hours off of each one.

Do you see my point?

I am not creating energy out of nothing here.  It is not overunity but, I will agree that frequency plays a large part in everything I am able to do.  Tesla knew this and we are now re-learning it today.

Bill
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: Tito L. Oracion on September 15, 2010, 03:45:59 AM
Energy is free all around us, as tesla said we just have to harnessed it and he is right!

we can amplify, squeeze it and so forth its up to you.

see the electric company? they made use a turbine to rotate by the falling water and that is free for them but we are paying because for what they've done right?
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 15, 2010, 04:46:35 AM
Tito:

That is exactly right.  Actually, if you think about it, the water turbines are really a form of solar energy.  The sun evaporates water and it rains and places the water back up on a higher plane so it can run downhill again.  pretty neat, except that we now are paying for this natural occurrence.

Of course, they did build the dams and the generators and ran all of the wires and such so, they do need to make money from that but, the point is that we can all pretty much do the same thing ourselves.

Bill
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: Cairun on September 21, 2010, 05:04:31 AM
energy and matter had to be created at the beginning.  or, how did we and everything come to be?
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: nightlife on November 15, 2010, 08:21:11 AM
"I respectfully disagree.  There is such a thing as free energy and I use it every day.  Both my earth battery (EER) and Joule Thief circuits give me free energy which I use on a daily basis.  Now if you meant Overunity, then, you may be correct."

 It may be free to you but something worked to produce it which means it wasn't free.

 "My Joule Thief circuits run off of "dead" AA batteries that other have tossed out.  I get them for free so I get a lot of free light for many, many hours off of each one.

Do you see my point?"

 The battery's are not actually dead and again, it may be free to you but it really isn't free energy at all.

"I am not creating energy out of nothing here.  It is not overunity but, I will agree that frequency plays a large part in everything I am able to do.  Tesla knew this and we are now re-learning it today."

 I agree.

 Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: WilbyInebriated on November 15, 2010, 11:34:59 AM
It may be free to you but something worked to produce it which means it wasn't free.
if it didn't cost a dime out of my pocket. it is free. that is the definition of free in this context.

The battery's are not actually dead and again, it may be free to you but it really isn't free energy at all.
so pay the electric company to light your lights and we will light ours with batteries we got for free that are "dead". and while your at it, waste half of the energy capacity you have paid money for and throw out your "not actually dead batteries" as per status quo... or better yet, donate them to someone who challenges the status quo and chooses not to be 'one man who wastes enough for thousands' and will use the remaining energy.

keep up the good work.
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: antigrav89 on July 03, 2021, 12:16:18 AM
Ilia Prigogine showed that non linear, far from equilibrium open systems can self-organize through fluctuations or dissipative processes by irreversibly
evolving from chaos to ordered states without violating any of the laws of Thermodynamics.
IMO, most of the free-energy devices use this approach by stressing the highly turbulent vacuum medium through shock-waves using,
for example, High-voltage input sources (Searl's SEG, Biefeld-Brown effect) or buckling fields (Sweet-Floyd's VTA)...

The second ingredient required for implementing free-energy solutions is based on the negative mass concept.

H. Bondi considers the three following cases, depending on the sign of the inertial mass, and the gravitational (active and passive)
masses (cf. H. Bondi, "Negative Mass In General Relativity" (1957). Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 423):

(i) Inertial mass negative, gravitational mass is
positive. A body consisting of matter of this kind will
respond perversely to all forces whether gravitational
or of other kinds, but will produce gravitational forces
just as a usual body does.

(ii) Inertial mass positive, gravitational masses
negative. In this case we would have normal behavior
relating to all nongravitational forces, but gravitational
behavior involving masses of this type and of type (i)
would be governed by a negative Coulomb law; i.e.,
like masses would attract and unlike masses would
repel.

(iii) All mass is negative. This would be a combination
of (i) and (ii). Matter of this kind responds
perversely to nongravitational forces, responds like
ordinary matter to gravitational forces [a negative mass does not fall upwards in the gravitational field of an active mass body, like the Earth] , but produces
repulsive gravitational fields.

Only the case (iii) is physically acceptable since it is consistent with the Einstein's Equivalence Principle (inertial mass equals to gravitational mass).
In this case, a negative mass repels both negative and positive masses and a positive mass attracts both negative and positive masses,
so  when a positive and a negative mass are present together, the negative mass repels the positive mass which attracts the negative mass (leading to the so-called runaway behavior where positive and negative mass bodies chase each other), and the two masses accelerate with the same rate and in the same direction (that of the positive mass), while keeping the same separation between each other, if the two masses are equal and opposite.
The runaway behavior, which does not violate the momentum and energy conservation laws (since the total momentum and the total kinetic energy are null but the interaction potential energy is not) is generally rejected as unphysical by most of the mainstream physicists who retain the case (ii).

Yet, it has been shown, both theoretically and experimentally, that the runaway behavior may be obtained by simulating negative masses
using mass-spring oscillating systems (cf. J. Zhou et al, "Experimental study on interaction between a positive mass and a negative effective mass through a mass–spring system", Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters 5 (2015) 196–199).

Quantum electromagnetic vacuum is often modelled by electron-positron virtual (positive mass) particles pairs associated to the quantum vacuum fluctuations.
IMO, the quantum vacuum fluctuations might be made of positive and negative quantum entangled mass pseudo-particles states viewed from the exterior a single zero-mass state that might be separated and self-organize by stressing the vacuum medium.
These positive and negative quantum vacuum mass states might also have electric equal and opposite charges (as to ensure electric neutrality).

Thus, what we have is two oppositely charged particles that accelerate with the same rate in the same direction and have zero total mass, that may create a current, but contrarily to the superconducting current created by Cooper (positive mass) electron pairs weakly-coupled with the positive ions of the conducting material, the negative-positive mass strongly coupled pairs have zero mass, so zero inertia and there are no heat dissipative processes and no energy losses and
no extreme cooling is required for the the conducting material.
As these supercurrents self-organize from turbulent vacuum medium, entropy decreases along with the temperature of the material leading to the cold 
currents phenomena usually observed in the free-energy experiments. Once such a free-energy device is started, it can also become self-running.

If positive and negative mass states can be isolated from each other, the runaway behavior makes possible to implement field propulsion propellant-less drives
such as the Alcubierre drive without requiring any hypothetical exotic matter since negative mass matter can be tapped into the quantum vacuum.

The document by G. A. Landis from NASA in the attached file gives a clear account of negative mass concept.
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: stivep on July 03, 2021, 09:55:01 PM

Thus, what we have is two oppositely charged particles that accelerate with the same rate in the same direction and have zero total mass, that may create a current,
The document by G. A. Landis from NASA in the attached file gives a clear account of negative mass concept.
Well there is some misunderstanding here.

 1. Negative mass is any region of space in which for some observers the mass density is measured to be negative.
    This could occur due to    a  region of space in which the stress component of the Einstein stress–energy tensor is larger in magnitude    than the mass density.
So in reality  there is no negative mass but  just  conditional negative  mass  and depends from position of an observer.

/Negative_mass#:~ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass#:~:text=Negative%20mass%20is%20any%20region%20of%20space%20in,is%20larger%20in%20magnitude%20than%20the%20mass%20density.)-negative mass is a type of exotic matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_matter) whose mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass) is of opposite sign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_number) to the mass of normal matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter), e.g. −1 kg.
-It is used in certain speculative (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/speculative) hypothetical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses) technologies,

2. If we  look for zero total mass, we see photon  having no mass and immune to gravitation.
   
however not photon but space-time around mass object is curved  so the photon fallows the lines  of that curvature.   
 
and that is why some sources says about  photon being  affected by gravitation
 
3. 
is photon a particle?
     
A photon is a tiny particle of light. It is the tiniest particle of light possible in nature.
     A photon can also be described as a type of quantum, that is, a tiny particle.
     
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2019/09/how-does-gravity-affect-photons-that-is-bend-light-if-photons- (https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2019/09/how-does-gravity-affect-photons-that-is-bend-light-if-photons-)   
     Photons have-no-mass and no charge
     

But you description of particle Dear  antigrav89 stays about no mass and charge
and here I  have problem.
quote:
"A photon is massless, has no electric charge,"
 Photon#:~:

 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#:~:text=A%20photon%20is%20massless%2C%20has%20no%20electric%20charge%2C,baryon%20number%2C%20and%20flavour%20quantum%20numbers%29%20are%20zero.)
So the problem I have  with your comment is that you specified  the net outcome ( total) of  particles  being  opposite  in charge as having no mass.

Question:
 If than  the charge is canceled and  total mass of the resulting  spice is  zero, than how that unnamed  by you  product  differs from photon?
and  if it doesn't  differ than  your statement about current being caused by  it   is false .
for your entertainment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS_rEzKdzBA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS_rEzKdzBA)

Wesley
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: sm0ky2 on July 03, 2021, 11:52:03 PM
The theory of thermodynamics is a psychological construct used to govern our thoughts. The laws of thermodynamics only apply to a theoretical closed system we humans are unable to create here or in the reachable space around our planet.


In a dynamic system, energy is transformed and transfered constantly from one state to the next.
Where there is chaos, there is potential energy.
Ordering is the consumption of that energy, which disperses back into chaos.


Things come into form and are destroyed only to become something else.
With or without what we perceive as ‘nature’.


“Energy out of nothing” is a phrase intended to mythologize new fields of energy research that extend beyond our perception. Rather that we should say Energy from a yet unknown source, in need of further investigation.


Matter itself has been observed to manifest out of nothing or disappear into nothing again.
At times we have the tools and knowledge to observe some of the energies involved, at other times we assume we know they must exist.


Even when we remove and filter out all energy we can manipulate, we still find energies entering our systems, perturbing the chaos into forming structure.
The echoes of destruction feed the mechanisms of structure.


We have little understanding of ‘what energy is’ nor where it comes from.
Our human definitions only allow us to imagine it under confined conditions.
The Free Energy movement is more about the freedom to discover new methods of generating and harvesting energy for our purposes, a freedom that threatens the only “law” that controls it.
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: antigrav89 on July 04, 2021, 12:59:19 AM
1) Regarding negative mass, I think that what you are speaking of is, following the cosmologists, a region of space where the positive vacuum energy density would be lower than the normal positive energy density as derived from Quantum Electro-Dynamics Theory, thus leading to a negative effective vacuum energy density.
Here, note that we assume that the (positive) vacuum energy density can vary and thus, quantum vacuum medium would behave like a compressible fluid and the normal vacuum as we know it  would be a false vacuum.

What I am speaking is not effective but real negative mass matter as described in the presentation of G. A. Landis.
The negative mass matter concept is generally denied by physicists because the existence of this type of matter violates the
energy conditions for the Einstein's field equations that impose the stress-tensor energy density component to be positive or null.
However, there exist cosmological approaches based on bi-metric theories not violating these conditions but these theories prevent
positive mass matter and negative mass matter from interacting with each other.

The article cited in my post (in attached file) shows experimentally that a positive mass and a negative effective mass (simulated from a mass-spring oscillating system) can be self-accelerated in same direction.
This result is interesting because it supports the theoretical behaviour regarding the interaction of a positive mass and a negative mass as envisioned by H. Bondi in 1957 and proposed by Robert Forward for propulsion.

2) The zero mass pseudo-particle I spoke of for replacing the electron-positron virtual pair concept generally used for describing the quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field
is not a photon but a quantum entangled state consisting in a positive and a negative "particles" of equal and opposite masses having possibly equal and opposite electric charges.

The electron-positron virtual pairs creation and annihilation processes, allowed by the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, are rather puzzling.
We are only aware of the initial and final states of these processes through transition amplitudes but we know nothing about the interacting processes
explaining how an electron and a positron are created from the collision of photons and how electron and positron can be annihilated into photons
and some physicists think that a photon might be a composite state, whose internal structure would already contain charged states.
 
3) Quantum Theory tells us that a photon is a quanta of energy (a massless neutral quantum state) that can be absorbed or emitted by (positive mass) matter and behave like a wave or a particle. The zero mass pseudo-particle I suggest has nothing to do with a photon.

Regarding the laws of Thermodynamics, it has been shown that they are not limited to closed systems at equilibrium but can be extended to open non equilibrium non linear systems (see for example the following books by Ilia Prigogine: "Self-Organization in NonEquilibrium Systems", Wiley, 1977 and  "Modern Thermodynamics", Wiley, 2015).
Moray B. King also supports this approach for explaining how free-energy devices tap energy into the quantum vacuum.
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: Floor on July 04, 2021, 02:03:58 AM

Regarding the laws of Thermodynamics, it has been shown that they are not limited to closed systems at equilibrium but can be extended to open non equilibrium non linear systems (see for example the following books by Ilia Prigogine: "Self-Organization in NonEquilibrium Systems", Wiley, 1977 and  "Modern Thermodynamics", Wiley, 2015).

Moray B. King also supports this approach for explaining how free-energy devices tap energy into the quantum vacuum.

The day that the laws of Thermodynamics have been totally rewritten, is the day we can
waste the time to discuss that " it has been shown that they are not limited to closed
systems at equilibrium but can be extended to open non equilibrium non linear systems".

To begin with, there are no known closed systems, unless one defines a "closed system"
as not actually a closed system.  In which case any real discussion is already over.

At the time of the framing of the laws of conservation and as far as I am aware...
still it remains that...

there is no definition in physics for the word created.
there is no definition in physics for the word destroyed.

  Also

There is no such thing which can be demonstrated, which is "nothing" and
there is no such place in which it can be demonstrated that there is "nothing".

Thermodynamics laws are double speak from the start and broken.  Making up and /or
changing definitions after the fact is not going to fix that.




Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: antigrav89 on July 04, 2021, 03:42:15 AM
To begin with, there are no known closed systems, unless one defines a "closed system"
as not actually a closed system.  In which case any real discussion is already over.
By definition, a closed system exchanges energy but not matter with the exterior.
For example,  the Earth may be considered as a closed system, when one considers that the Earth absorbs solar energy and emits it back to space, but it is only an approximation, since the Earth also receives matter from space, such as neutrinos, meteorites...
In the Real World, all physical objects in the Universe are open systems constantly interacting with the all-pervading vacuum.
Think of a charged particle at rest in an inertial frame.
Physicists tell us that it creates a static electric field in all the space, but where does its electrostatic energy come from?
The only possible answer to this question is that the particle constantly exchanges energy with the vacuum. But the vacuum is supposed to only exchanges energy by radiation (photons). So the electric field emitted by the particle has to be a radiating field, not a static field. We had supposed that the particle was at rest, but we know that, due to the vacuum fluctuations, the particle randomly oscillates around its equilibrium position. But we also know that an accelerated charged particle radiates an electro-magnetic field. So now, we can have a better view of the interaction of a charged particle with the vacuum.
For mastering the development of free-energy devices we have to improve our knowledge of the nature of the quantum vacuum.
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: Floor on July 04, 2021, 07:32:29 AM

                                Excerpt from Wikipedia
                                      Closed system

"           In classical mechanics
In  classical mechanics non relativistic, a closed system is a physical system that doesn't
exchange any matter with its surroundings, and isn't subject to any net force whose
source is external to the system.

 A closed system in classical mechanics would be equivalent to an isolated system in thermodynamics. Closed systems are often used to limit the factors that can affect the
results of specific problem or experiment.

                                   In thermodynamics
Main article: Thermodynamic system
 
Properties of Isolated, closed, and open systems in exchanging energy and matter.

In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter,
with its surroundings.

An isolated system cannot exchange any heat, work, or matter with the surroundings, while
an open system can exchange energy and matter.

(This scheme of definition of terms is not uniformly used, though it is convenient for some
purposes. In particular, some writers use 'closed system' where 'isolated system' is
used here. "
... ... ...                               
                    There is no such thing as an isolated system which can be demonstrated.
... ... ...

"In classical mechanics
In  classical mechanics non relativistic, a closed system is a physical system that doesn't
exchange any matter with its surroundings, and isn't subject to any net force whose
source is external to the system."
... ... ...
      Neither can this kind of closed system be demonstrated to actually exist, any where.
... ... ...

partial quote


For mastering the development of free-energy devices we have to improve our knowledge of the nature of the quantum vacuum.

                  Big assumption !
                  Maybe for you not for me.


Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: sm0ky2 on July 06, 2021, 12:57:40 AM
Let us consider a gas cloud in space cooling, condensing, collapsing upon its’ own gravity over a duration of time, and becoming a solid mass.


The assumption is that entropy is at a maximum in the gas state,
and that as a condensed solid entropy is at its’ lowest.


From chaos -> to order is what physically occurs.


If we think in terms of technologies like a solar concentrator or acoustic or optical resonance
where we condense small energies from a large area into great energies at a single point.
“input” can be as negligible as an influence or background noise.


a crystal radio can be powered by signals from the stars just as easily as from a nearby radio station.
with the right frequencies and amplification, can power limitless devices.


we see a world around us bright in color and for many this is all they know.
Walk around with infrared glasses for a day then again with ultraviolet
And you find two different worlds to explore.


Then we realize that these worlds exist in every spectrum, and with advanced optical devices we can explore each of them and discover, not only new things but new perspectives on how nature relates to each of these frequencies.


The same can be done with sounds both above and below our spectrum of hearing.
And again in the electromagnetic above and below our abilities to detect it.


Light itself most likely is a manifestation of a 5th dimensional force or constraint placed upon our portion of the local universe, of which we know very little.
It is this 5th dimensional link that bridges relativistic gravitation and dopler shift.


Ionization and lasing can be stimulated from plentiful renewable resources and energy harvested therefrom. An area that has lost interest, but never viability, over the last 200 years.


renewable and even organic battery systems as well as biological gas production could be easily industrialized, with little funding and political support.


A tunnel from one geographical region to the next can exploit tremendous differences in atmospheric pressure, to power arrays of wind turbines which generate more reliably and at a much greater efficiency and lower cost than traditional wind energy.


The oceans provide endless cyclical motion just waiting to be geared to our crankshafts.


Rivers and lakes providing unstoppable force, neglected and paved over.


We dont always need to understand to source of the energy, only how to use it.






Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: lancaIV on July 06, 2021, 01:36:28 PM
Hello,


        We dont always need to understand to source of the energy, only how to use it.  ::)


                                                               Such easy ?


The Nature knows that if I need for example an appliance  drive with rated 1500 RPM by 220 Volts and 5 Amperes by 50 Hz


and 3x rated inrush value how to deliver me this (here) electric energy ?   


                                               


The Nature knows my/the household different energy use per hour in a 24-hours-life-diagram,with hot(summer)/cold(winter) weather climate extra energy appliances consume  ?!


                        We are all the same,is it not ?!


                        And all of us have the same life kind and energy consume ?


                        National,continental,worldwide




https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=46&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19831208&CC=DE&NR=3221505A1&KC=A1 (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=46&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19831208&CC=DE&NR=3221505A1&KC=A1)


https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=10&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19950529&CC=ZA&NR=947569B&KC=B (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=10&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19950529&CC=ZA&NR=947569B&KC=B)


DC-AC appliances "smart grid" network
https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=9456 (https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=9456)




Here one ( commercial ) example how an off-grid household looks like :


https://web.archive.org/web/20070609222610/http://www.geolitesystems.com/ecosys.html (https://web.archive.org/web/20070609222610/http://www.geolitesystems.com/ecosys.html)


            There are many steps to become free from unecological and uneconomical Nature abuse treat !


                                                          But to begin with our being change is easy !








Sincere


OCWL


p.s.: artificial wind-generator https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=9318 (https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=9318)


       how to controle the fixed ?/variable ? output  compared a.inrush b. rated fixed ? variable ? consumer ratio ?








       artificial sun-PV-generator


      https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19980102&CC=DE&NR=29720160U1&KC=U1 (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19980102&CC=DE&NR=29720160U1&KC=U1)


      how to controle the fixed ?/variable ? PV-generator output compared fixed ? variable a.inrush b. rated consumer demand ?
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: antigrav89 on July 10, 2021, 05:45:41 PM
Let us consider a gas cloud in space cooling, condensing, collapsing upon its’ own gravity over a duration of time, and becoming a solid mass.


The assumption is that entropy is at a maximum in the gas state,
and that as a condensed solid entropy is at its’ lowest.


From chaos -> to order is what physically occurs.


Regarding the formation of a stellar system from a cloud of gas and dust, the current theory says:

(see https://www.fossilhunters.xyz/inner-solar-system/formation-of-the-solar-nebula.html (https://www.fossilhunters.xyz/inner-solar-system/formation-of-the-solar-nebula.html))

The favoured paradigm for the origin of the solar system begins with the gravitational collapse of part of an interstellar cloud of gas and dust having
an initial mass only 10 to 20 percent greater than the present mass of the Sun. This type of collapse could be initiated by random fluctuations of density
within the cloud, one or more of which might result in the accumulation of enough material to start the process, or by an extrinsic disturbance
such as the shock wave
from a supernova.
The collapsing cloud region quickly becomes roughly spherical in shape.
Because it is revolving around the centre of the Galaxy, the parts more distant from the centre are moving more slowly than the nearer parts.
Hence, as the cloud collapses, it starts to rotate, and, to conserve angular momentum,
its speed of rotation increases as it continues to contract.
With ongoing contraction, the cloud flattens, because it is easier for matter to follow the attraction of gravity perpendicular to the
plane of rotation than along it, where the opposing centrifugal force is greatest. The result at this stage, as in Laplace's model,
is a disk of material formed around a central condensation.

This configuration, commonly referred to as the solar nebula, resembles the shape of a typical spiral galaxy on a much reduced scale.
As gas and dust collapse toward the central condensation, their potential energy is converted to kinetic energy (energy of motion),
and the temperature of the material rises. Ultimately the temperature becomes great enough within the condensation for nuclear
reactions to begin, thereby giving birth to the Sun. Meanwhile, the material in the disk collides, coalesces, and gradually
forms larger and larger objects, as in Kant's theory. Because most of the grains of material have nearly identical orbits,
collisions between them are relatively mild, which allows the particles to stick and remain together.
Thus, larger agglomerations of particles are gradually built up
.



What are the properties the vacuum should have to be able to reduce its entropy?

Vacuum is supposed to be a highly turbulent medium consisting of non interacting quantum micro-states.
For reducing the number of these micro-states (so the entropy), we have to reduce the distance between them to allow them to interact.
This only can be realized if the vacuum is a compressible medium.
On the other hand, as all the processes occur at the absolute zero temperature, this medium has to be non dissipative.
It results from these properties that the vacuum must be behave like a non viscous compressible fluid and shock wave might be used for compressing this fluid and cause the medium to self-organize by creating matter and energy currents.

Regarding the existence of negative mass matter in the quantum vacuum, it is generally thought that the conservation of momentum requires that the reaction

Vacuum -> m(positive) + m(negative)

must be at least a three-particle reaction.

In fact, it is only true if one considers, for example, the collision between a moving positive mass with a negative mass at rest, since in this case the total momentum is not zero before the collision but zero after the collision where the bounded particles are chasing each other.
So, for complying to the consersation moment law, both the positive mass and negative mass particles have to be created together with non null and equal speed (like photons that can only travel to c-speed).
However, although this bound system has zero total mass, so zero inertia, the constituting particles have each mass, either positive or negative, whose speed cannot exceed the speed of light, so the bounded system cannot travel at FTL speed.
If the above reaction really occurs, the vacuum energy, contrarily to all other forms of energy, would have no mass.
If so, the vacuum energy would not be linked to Higg's field, which is supposed to give mass to half-spin (fermions) elementary particles such as quarks and electrons, since the Higg's boson iself has a mass.
If I am correct, negative mass, required for implementing warp drives such as Alcubierre's, is present in the vacuum but highly bound to positive mass, so no need to search it far away in the cosmic voids between the galaxies.
When amplified the combination of interacting negative and positive mass-states, eventually electrically charged, might be used to propel a starship at light-speed with field propulsion.

Now, imagine a volume of water initially at rest.
When the wind blows, waves are formed with above them a foam of moving droplets.
We are only aware of these tiny droplets which are the so-called quantum vacuum fluctuations but we have no idea of their origin and why they move at zero temperature.
One of the current hypotheses is that these fluctuations would be an emergent property originating from quantum fluctuations of the space-time at the Planck scale.
What if they only exist in the presence of matter?
The presence of matter might perturb the vacuum that would react by creating fluctuations around and inside the material body to contain spatially the perturbation, at the origin of mass and inertia and try to blow out the matter by transfering kinetic energy to the matter, which would react by coalescing (gravitational interaction) and radiating (non photonic, non thermal) energy in excess (gravitational field). From this eternal fight between matter and vacuum, it would result the required equilibrium to allow the Physical World to exist as we know it. 


Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: kolbacict on July 11, 2021, 12:29:41 PM
And the Western world so categorically does not accept immigrants from the former USSR, because they
mostly insane, illogical thinking, split personality?  :o
I communicate myself, I know so, unfortunately.
Sometimes, of course, as an exception, he accepts some of them, in the event that there is a benefit in this.
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: onepower on July 12, 2021, 06:08:52 AM
The problem with Free Energy ideas?... most have literally no idea what energy is.

Energy is the capacity/ability of "something" to perform "work".

Begging the question what is "work"?.

Work =(Force x Distance), when a "Force" acts on something causing it to move over a "Distance" it's motion changes. Thus all "ENERGY" relates to a change in motion or something already in motion we call kinetic energy. This is why all the most intelligent people like physicists simply say... the universe is energy.

Can anyone name anything anywhere in the know universe not in motion?. I mean we were taught in school all matter is in motion and space is full of EM waves and particles also in motion. Everyone should understand energy is everywhere in everything as motion. Thus if nobody can give an example of anything not in motion, which is energy, then they shouldn't be spreading bullshit that free energy is impossible.

Regards
AC




Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: kolbacict on July 12, 2021, 08:31:15 AM
And where to get such a rope to catch on to a star and receive energy from its movement relative to the earth? Or at least the moon?
Title: Re: The Problem With Free Energy Ideas
Post by: tysb3 on July 13, 2021, 10:17:52 PM
https://disk.yandex.ru/i/DxVDFC4t-48hKg