> The point is, that it may indeed be possible that there is some form of > energy in the universe around us that we just don't understand (yet?). We > just might stumble onto a means to convert that energy into a useful form, > without really understanding where it is coming from. There is :-) Many physicists believe. The universe is not only stranger than we know, but also stranger than we can know ;-) Note that this is good hard science - although my description of it is somewhat shaky. (And the energy described may not be usable). Note that this effect has been measured and matches theory. It suggests the possibility of other versions of it which can be used to manipulate inertia and gravity. The zero point energy of "the vacuum" is at an unknown level. Some theories produce a figure of unbelievably high magnitude. (Megawatts per mm^3 type levels.) There are proposals to attempt to tap this energy, if it exists. The "Casimir effect" (firts proposed in 1948 afaik) is one such. Two plates are placed VERY close together. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that the gap cannot be empty as if it was we'd know there was nothing there and it wan't moving :-) so virtual particles are compelled to appear and annihilate continually. These have an effect on the plates. Only particles whose wavelength is an integral submultiple of the interplate spacing have any net effect. Energy density increases as spacing decreases. The plates are pulled together by a force which should be able to be utilised. Pulling them apart again may be difficult :-) The attractive Casimir force between two plates of area A separated by a distance L can be calculated to be, pi h c F = -------- A 480 L^4 where h is Planck's constant and c is the speed of light. To put a practical feel on it, you would get about 1.3 milli-Newton on two 1 m^2 plates separated by 1 micron (10-6 metre) (see 1st paper below) Excellent introduction http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html Good non-technical introduction http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html An alternative energy page named after this effect http://www.zpenergy.com/ > > I am *far* happier with the idea of converting energy from a heretofore > unknown type to something useful, rather than creating energy from > nothing. > The former doesn't break any rules. > > Of course, I am sure most, if not all, of the current crop of 'free > energy' > folk are kooks or quacks. > > Bob Ammerman > RAm Systems > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Russell McMahon" > To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 4:54 AM > Subject: Re: [OT] Lifter design > > >> > Inventing a device that produces more energy than it consumes may >> > contradict the laws of nature. If that is the case it is impossible and >> > nothing can make it work. >> >> A currently highly popular postulate is that the universe invented itself >> from utterly nothing creating its "laws" along with itself in the >> process. >> While I find that slightly unsatisfying intellectually, it does lend > weight >> to any number of kooky ideas that suggest that anything can happen :-). >> >> Of course "the laws of nature" are simply observations of what SEEM to be >> hard and fast rules about the reality of reality. At any stage that we >> observe something that violates the current rule set we simply realise > that >> we were wrong and adjust the rule set. Of course (again :-) ) some >> "rules" >> seem to be very useful and very inviolable. Examples are the 3 laws of >> thermodynamics. Most easily remembered fwiw by rephrasing and thinking > about >> a card game: >> >> You can't win >> You can't break even. >> You can't get out of the game >> :-) >> >> So far EVERYTHING seems to obey these "rules". >> >> Some fairly important rules suffer some grave indignities while we are >> looking the other way. >> One such is the "rule" of gravitational attraction. IF we had an > antigravity >> source on the surface of the earth it would APPEAR to violate the 1st law > of >> thermodynamics and may allow us to fly off into space without >> (apparently) >> expending energy. Clearly (!) antigravity is impossible. But observation > of >> large scale cosmological happenings reveals that gravity is not acting as > it >> ought on extremely large scales in some places in the universe. We >> explain >> this by saying that there are forces (dark energy) and matter (dark > matter) >> that we can't detect in any way so far EXCEPT that it is playing fast and >> loose with gravity. This COULD be seen as saying that the law of gravity > is >> broken (but not in our neighbourhood) and needs replacing but nobody is >> seriously suggesting that - they just look for new "laws" instead. >> >> In a universe where we can't find 90% odd of the matter that seems to be >> present and measurements indicate that the sun seems to have gone out (or >> not, depending on which neutrino colour theory you subscribe to) and >> Schroedinger STILL can't find his cat, then we could do with a few new > laws >> ;-) >> >> I very very seriously doubt that any of the many many 1st law violating >> claimants to perpetual motion and antigravity and the like are genuinely >> onto anything at all. But it is not inconceivable that one of these days > the >> US patent office is going to have to reverse its stand on the > patentabilityy >> of such devices. Of course, if the proponents of such something for > nothing >> devices are actually on the right track then such action by the USPO may > be >> rendered unnecessary by a very bright flash in the sky one day :-) >> >> >> RM >> >> _______________________________________________ >> http://www.piclist.com >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >> > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.piclist.com > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > _______________________________________________ http://www.piclist.com View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist