Free energy

40X40

Experienced
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Location
Kansas City area, MO
TDI
2013 Passat SEL Premium
I have stepped in better Bovine Excrement then this. But both were
BS.
What is the motive behind this disinformation? Who is sponsoring it?
Iran? Syria? The dictator Chavez? All of them? None of them? Some
group of practical jokers?

I wish we could have free energy! But the reality is we cannot. If and
when we can harness fusion/antimatter or some other
new technology energy may become cheap, but energy cannot be
created, only manipulated.

Bill
 

kpaske

Veteran Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Location
Seattle, WA
TDI
2006 Jetta TDI
40X40 said:
What is the motive behind this disinformation? Who is sponsoring it?
Iran? Syria? The dictator Chavez? All of them? None of them? Some group of practical jokers?
Obviously somebody with way too much time on their hands. But you're right to wonder why the heck someone would go through the trouble to write up an entire web page about a technology that doesn't exist. The most obvious motive points to those who stand to lose the most profit if the public is properly informed.
 

blacka5

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Location
Atlanta, GA
TDI
2006 Jetta 5M
Actually, there is such a thing as free energy: H - TS (-PV at constant volume). At least, that's what I thought on seeing the thread title, but not, I think, what Steorn means...

DieselDriver2003 said:
1. There is such a thing as the zero point field
2. The energy associated with it is undefineably huge
3. The energy associated with it is unuseable
4. When they say "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" they're not kidding!
 

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
blacka5 said:
Actually, there is such a thing as free energy: H - TS (-PV at constant volume). At least, that's what I thought on seeing the thread title, but not, I think, what Steorn means...



1. There is such a thing as the zero point field
2. The energy associated with it is undefineably huge
3. The energy associated with it is unuseable
4. When they say "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" they're not kidding!
No, it's called "Gibbs Free Energy" and its name is not to suggest that it is "free" as in "costs nothing" but to infer that it is stored chemical potential and enthalpic energy available for chemical or PV work.
 

daBooj

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
TDI
Jetta GLS, 2004, could only find silver
yea! references to Gibbs free energy make me happy.

I wish the website would explain how the thing worked. They don't give you a chance to point out the error in their thinking. It's just a black box to us (with a power cord going to it, I assume).
 

weedeater

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 17, 2001
Location
Reston, VA
TDI
Jetta, 2001, Baltic Green
From what I could glean, it has to do with magnetic fields. They claim they can get more energy out than they put in.

Heck, I could get free energy if I had a long-enough extension cord...
 

blacka5

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Location
Atlanta, GA
TDI
2006 Jetta 5M
nicklockard said:
No, it's called "Gibbs Free Energy" and its name is not to suggest that it is "free" as in "costs nothing" but to infer that it is stored chemical potential and enthalpic energy available for chemical or PV work.
Hey, someone's paying attention. (The constant volume case is of course the Helmholtz free energy, and who in his right mind thinks "free energy" means you get something for nothing?!?)

weedeater said:
From what I could glean, it has to do with magnetic fields. They claim they can get more energy out than they put in.
In a previous life I was a (non-VW) quantum mechanic, so let's see if I remember enough to make this make sense ... let's say you have something, could be a ball bouncing in rough terrain, a feather in an updraft, the economy. The behavior of that something depends on what controls it -- its boundary conditions.

Now if you just have boundary conditions you can solve for the energy states that can exist in those BCs (the "eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian" each with a discrete "eigenvalue"). It turns out that free space behaves like an electromagnetic harmonic oscillator with BCs being "walls" effectively infinitely far apart (actually, stars, galaxies, whatnot affect them), or equivalently an infinite number of harmonic oscillators with periodic BCs. The energy levels (eigenvalues) allowed for each oscillator is (n + 1/2)hv, where the frequency v is set by the spacing of the BCs (this will be key later) and n is the quantum number. Even for n = 0, the energy level is nonzero. There are an infinite number of these oscillators, so infinity times 1/2 hv = infinity, so even in the lowest possible energy state the energy level associated with this "zero point field" is infinity. This unfortunately causes much confusion with those would use the zero point field as an energy source. (In fact, we can't measure this infinity, but since all measurable energy levels are above this infinity we simply subtract off this infinity. Infinity + something - infinity is actually not defined -- it can take any value -- the way we deal with this is called "renormalization".) Anyway, because time and energy (scaled by action) have inverse units, they are related by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, so we can't know when or if the HOs are at n = 0 (or n = anything else, for that matter, we can only determine the "expectation value"), so the zero point field has fluctuations, random excitations into higher energy states. This is true even in total vacuum at 0 Kelvins (the zero point field is aka the vacuum field)

Since we're blithely subtracting off infinities when we measure anything, is this field observable or a purely theoretical construct? Actually, it can be observed. If you put 2 conducting plates very near each other (micron separation) in a vacuum they will v e r y slightly attract each other. This is called the Casimir effect, and is used by zero-pointers as justification that useful work can be done. Well, if you think about it, the mode density (resonances or eigenfunction solutions to the Hamiltonian which are set by the BCs and different between the plates compared to outside the plates) and therefore the energy density between the plates will be lower than outside the plates, so the plates will be forced together. Well, why not stack a whole bunch of plates together? In that case only the outermost plates see a difference in mode density so you'll get no more out than from a single pair of plates. (Where does the energy ultimately come from? The thermal or "blackbody" field, in the absence of anything else. You'll still have vacuum fluctuations at 0 K but you can't do any work)

If you didn't quite follow all of that completely, don't worry, you're doing better than those who would try to extract energy from the zero point field.
 

whitedog

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Location
Bend, Oregon
TDI
2004 Jetta that I fill by myself
He's a little late. John Galt came up with useing the static electricity from the air to power a motor.
 

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
blacka5 said:
Hey, someone's paying attention. (The constant volume case is of course the Helmholtz free energy, and who in his right mind thinks "free energy" means you get something for nothing?!?)
I cracked open my p-chem (Atkinson) text and reviewed the Claussius inequalities.



blacka5 said:
In a previous life I was a (non-VW) quantum mechanic, so let's see if I remember enough to make this make sense ... let's say you have something, could be a ball bouncing in rough terrain, a feather in an updraft, the economy. The behavior of that something depends on what controls it -- its boundary conditions.

Now if you just have boundary conditions you can solve for the energy states that can exist in those BCs (the "eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian" each with a discrete "eigenvalue"). It turns out that free space behaves like an electromagnetic harmonic oscillator with BCs being "walls" effectively infinitely far apart (actually, stars, galaxies, whatnot affect them), or equivalently an infinite number of harmonic oscillators with periodic BCs. The energy levels (eigenvalues) allowed for each oscillator is (n + 1/2)hv, where the frequency v is set by the spacing of the BCs (this will be key later) and n is the quantum number. Even for n = 0, the energy level is nonzero. There are an infinite number of these oscillators, so infinity times 1/2 hv = infinity, so even in the lowest possible energy state the energy level associated with this "zero point field" is infinity. This unfortunately causes much confusion with those would use the zero point field as an energy source. (In fact, we can't measure this infinity, but since all measurable energy levels are above this infinity we simply subtract off this infinity. Infinity + something - infinity is actually not defined -- it can take any value -- the way we deal with this is called "renormalization".) Anyway, because time and energy (scaled by action) have inverse units, they are related by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, so we can't know when or if the HOs are at n = 0 (or n = anything else, for that matter, we can only determine the "expectation value"), so the zero point field has fluctuations, random excitations into higher energy states. This is true even in total vacuum at 0 Kelvins (the zero point field is aka the vacuum field)

Since we're blithely subtracting off infinities when we measure anything, is this field observable or a purely theoretical construct? Actually, it can be observed. If you put 2 conducting plates very near each other (micron separation) in a vacuum they will v e r y slightly attract each other. This is called the Casimir effect, and is used by zero-pointers as justification that useful work can be done. Well, if you think about it, the mode density (resonances or eigenfunction solutions to the Hamiltonian which are set by the BCs and different between the plates compared to outside the plates) and therefore the energy density between the plates will be lower than outside the plates, so the plates will be forced together. Well, why not stack a whole bunch of plates together? In that case only the outermost plates see a difference in mode density so you'll get no more out than from a single pair of plates. (Where does the energy ultimately come from? The thermal or "blackbody" field, in the absence of anything else. You'll still have vacuum fluctuations at 0 K but you can't do any work)

If you didn't quite follow all of that completely, don't worry, you're doing better than those who would try to extract energy from the zero point field.
Ouch. Brain: hurt! That stuff hurt my brain the first time.

Another approach to tapping a "free" source of energy: temperature (we'll stick with the Kelvin scale since it's based on the triple point of water) is a measure of the average thermal motions (translations+ stretch and bend vibrations mostly) of a collection of atoms or molecules in a 'system.' But, like most averages, it is comprised of some molecules zipping along energetically while most dote along...let's take 0 degrees, where water freezes. Although the "average" thermal motion is basically fixed to no translations and vibrations are less energetic (fewer vibration modes are activated), a tiny fraction of the molecules will be zipping along at high speed. It's called the Boltzmann distribution.

So, if an inventor was clever enough to harvest only the high speed molecules and make them do work, he could get a heat engine from a block of ice (okay, I'm ignoring a cold sink here...I said he was clever, didn't I?)
 

blacka5

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Location
Atlanta, GA
TDI
2006 Jetta 5M
nicklockard said:
I cracked open my p-chem (Atkinson) text and reviewed the Claussius inequalities.
Atkinson's a classic!

Another approach to tapping a "free" source of energy: temperature (we'll stick with the Kelvin scale since it's based on the triple point of water) is a measure of the average thermal motions (translations+ stretch and bend vibrations mostly) of a collection of atoms or molecules in a 'system.' But, like most averages, it is comprised of some molecules zipping along energetically while most dote along...let's take 0 degrees, where water freezes. Although the "average" thermal motion is basically fixed to no translations and vibrations are less energetic (fewer vibration modes are activated), a tiny fraction of the molecules will be zipping along at high speed. It's called the Boltzmann distribution.

So, if an inventor was clever enough to harvest only the high speed molecules and make them do work, he could get a heat engine from a block of ice (okay, I'm ignoring a cold sink here...I said he was clever, didn't I?)
Hmm, Maxwell's Demon, eh?

Actually, this could happen spontaneously, it's just that the odds are a bit against you (about 10^very_large_number:1)
 

blacka5

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Location
Atlanta, GA
TDI
2006 Jetta 5M
Not to beat a dead horse, but here's another take. Note that this comes from a general relativity perspective (about which I know very little). I gave you answer 2 (and originally answer 3). As far as "getting something for nothing" the answer is still the same, though.
 

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
Ouch...my head hurts again. In reading Einsteins Universe (Calder), I was thinking (uh oh...)

We know how to measure mass, both directly by F=ma and indirectly by other means (ability to bend light, for example.) We know how to measure the many forms of energy (nearly all of them.) But we are very limited and can only make intellectually weak and fuzzy inductive reasoning arguments about 'enermass.' One major implication of E=mC^2 is that at or near (or a significant fraction of) the speed of light energy and mass are utterly indistinguishable from one another. This implication is one we are comfortable with, because it jives so well with experimental evidence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: we can not simultaneously know the velocity and position of a quantum particle--because it is going so damn fast it is 'enermass.' Is it a wave (energy?) Is it a particle?

Moot! It is neither; it is both; it is something entirely different; it is enermass; we don't know!

Unfortunately, accounting for this fact still doesn't clear up the zero point energy "dark energy" cosmological paradox. In order for it to account for it, the universe would have to have many orders of magnitude more total 'enermass' than it is believed to have...most of it (> 99.99999%) is believed to have been destroyed by matter/antimatter annihilation.

As for why gravity doesn't fit at all well into Quantum field theory...is because it has no direct action at sub atomic levels. But, if we instead view gravity as if it is a perfect catalyst (lowers the activation energy for other reactions to happen that could not normally happen on their own (makes it spontaneous)) without any direct participation, gravity has a role to play in quantum theories, at least as a very important adjunct. If it weren't for gravity, we would have no elements heavier than Iron (mass of 55.85 g*mol^-1)...because stars can not burn iron or anything heavier. All the elements heavier than that are an outcome of gravity, which enables supernovas and white dwarfs...which in turn probably formed the heavier elements and dispersed them about. So gravity enables exotic plasmas, extreme temperatures and pressures, and other means of getting weird quantum events ("reactions") to happen that otherwise simply won't. Gravity is not used up and can not be converted to some other form of energy, so far as we know...sounds like a catalyst to me.
 

whitedog

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Location
Bend, Oregon
TDI
2004 Jetta that I fill by myself
Fianl answer:

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed... unless it meets Chuck Norris.

I see no mention of Chuck Norris in this, therefore it must be false.
 

Powder Hound

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 25, 1999
Location
Under a Bridge, Crestview, FL, USA
TDI
'00 Golf 4dr White 5sp, '02 Jettachero 5sp, Wife's '03 NB Platinum Gray auto(!)
Something for nothing... oh, well, here we go again. More than 100% efficiency? And they won't say how it is done? Ha, by definition, you can't get more than 100% efficiency. Period. That's the same nonsensical junk as wanting a 110% effort from someone.

The closest thing I have heard of is for a hafnium powered engine. Even with that one though, you'd still expend the nuclear "fuel" to generate energy.

So, sorry, even though it was coined by an economist, it is also true in physics and thermodynamics: tanstaafl, or there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. These guys make secret claims and won't reveal anything because it is all a bunch of hooey. They're either running a weird practical joke are trying to scam money from the uneducated.
 
Top