From http://www.zpenergy.com

Tom Bearden's comments: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/082106.htm
Irish Company Challenges Scientists To Test Free Energy Technology (Steorn, CEO Sean McCarthy)

Long article concludes:

And as for the business of apparently “creating” energy: Many eminent scientists are aware that the universe is filled with both positive and negative energy. So long as the two sum to zero, one can dramatically increase both the positive and negative energy, without any increase of “net” energy at all. This of course is the ultimate regauging, guaranteed work-free under the gauge freedom axiom. So one can locally increase positive energy all one wishes, so long as one also creates (usually unwittingly) equal negative energy. And – unknown to electrical engineers – they “separate” and produce the two energies regularly in their circuits, which can and produce negative energy as well as positive energy. Bedini’s patented battery charging circuits, e.g., do separate energies and produce negative energy as well (which he very effectively uses in his circuits, but calls “radiant energy” after Nikola Tesla’s discovery and use of it). The so-called “vacuum” of empty space, is not empty at all in modern theory. E.g., in the Dirac theory of the electron, one has a vacuum of little “electron holes” normally filled with electrons. The hole is a negative mass-energy electron, having negative energy EM fields. The filling electron is a positive mass-energy electron, having positive energy EM fields. The empty holes comprise the “dark matter” that the astrophysicists are so avidly seeking through their telescopes, and the negative energy fields of those empty holes are the “dark energy” the same astrophysicists are seeking. A sharp gradient of energy density can lift out the electrons from a region of vacuum, leaving the holes. That is a production of equal and opposite energy. By choosing which way one captures and uses the energy, one can use either the positive energy, or the negative energy (or both if one switches things properly). Quoting the eminent scientist Stephen Hawking:

“There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. …now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. …"It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch." [Stephen D. Hawking, A Brief History of Time.].

We don’t have a world energy crisis per se, because the seething vacuum energy is easily available, inexhaustible, and ubiquitous – and clean!. Instead, we have an energy from fuel crisis, because we have a world fuel crisis and we insist on only going after energy from fuel. Obviously the answer is to get off the “energy from fuel” kick, and go for “fuel-free” energy from the vacuum!

I certainly hope that Sean McCarthy and his group will be able to force the scientific community’s hand, so it will have to correct the glaring errors in the CEM/EE model that it has been hiding for a century.

But it will be interesting to see what happens to Steorn and Sean McCarthy, and how the huge cartels, that do not wish this done and have been blocking such systems for that same 100 years, will quickly approach and deal with this new threat to their huge energy setup as they have established it so lucratively for themselves.

Best wishes,

Tom

http://www.zpenergy.com is worth a visit - it doesn't look like a flimsy fringe that will blow away - it looks like a mushrooming field of research with big money going into it.

Posted By: jonThe argument appears to be founded on the idea that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is wrong.

Another quote from the article:

We point out that violation of the old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics is simple and easy, particularly for smallest pieces of a macrosystem. Quoting Maxwell (who was also a thermodynamicist):

"The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body." [J. C. Maxwell, “Tait's Thermodynamics II,” Nature 17, 278–280 (7 February 1878)].

Tom:

Wait an see I suppose

Howdytom

If you subscribe to Einstein's theory then matter cannot travel at the speed of light but can approach that speed. An interesting observation is that, at a speed close to that of light, one's state is virtually identical to matter close to a horizon

Matter close to the speed of light at a vector away from the observer can still emit light albeit at an exceptionally low frequency: Although the observer in the travelling object would observe the frequency as normal (due to the time distortion as described by the Special Theory). This is how we can, using known emission frequencies for certain elements, observe the frequency dilation (the shift in the range of frequencies) to determine how fast other stellar objects are moving from us.

The object travelling at 2/3 relative to a fixed frame would be observed by us, also travelling at 2/3 relative to a fixed frame, as a very fast object approaching, but not exceeding, the speed of light: The object would emit light relative to the fixed frame and the light would travel in front of that object. We would observe the light as a high shift frequency before the object hit us!

All,

Where precisely do I get a boiler than runs on this stuff then...?

J

Agreed

The time dilation effect and space contraction are observed according to the lorenz formula. Thus any emitting object that existed at the start of creation, assuming creation started from a singularity, would have it's redshift path radiation visible to us today. Unless we totally flat earth it, or go with creationism, and say that relativity may not be a correct description of the universe (together with the 2nd law)

This was in all the news about 18 months ago - breakthrough science etc. etc. The company chose some very questionable means of verifying their claims (they hand picked reviewers from an open invite, effectively preventing peer review and allowing them to choose people who would be sympathetic, or uncritical towards their claims). As yet, even those hand picked reviewers have not to my knowledge produced favourable reports. There was a lot of talk about limitless power sources, and the company was inviting investors to hand over their cash. This last point may be significant.

Unfortunately their talk has not so far been backed up by hard proof that they have discovered anything unusual, other than the power of a good PR story.

Regarding this:

"The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body." [J. C. Maxwell, “Tait's Thermodynamics II,” Nature 17, 278–280 (7 February 1878)].

Yes, the second law is broken on a molecular scale, but the important point that this quote doesn't make explicit is that on the macroscopic level, it all sums to zero. It's like observing that people in the UK on the whole remain where they live, then recognising that when you look at individuals, some of them move house to live in Scotland. From that you can't conclude that everyone can be convinced to move to Scotland.

Zero energy is a pretty face on the perpetual motion machine, and a huge culture on the internet, alongside UFO sitings and claims of telepathy. Some sites look deeply scientific but are really just throwing jargon around. So far, none of these 'experts' have broken the current laws of physics despite all their efforts, so it's probably not worth getting drawn in.

As an aside, Dick Strawbridge, who presented the It's Not Easy Being Green tv programme, apparently gets a couple of dozen letters a month from people who have ideas for perpetual motion machines or their equivalent. Quite sensibly, he doesn't pay them much attention.

It's probably quite important that people who wish to be Green don't get sucked into pseudo science and fakery by crackpots. It's hard enough being taken seriously when you're proposing practical working solutions to energy and resource problems, without being associated with fringe science.

Posted By: jonThus any emitting object that existed at the start of creation, assuming creation started from a singularity, would have it's redshift path radiation visible to us today. Unless we totally flat earth it, or go with creationism, and say that relativity may not be a correct description of the universe (together with the 2nd law)

It's called the microwave background radiation.

As for using "quantum" energy, sure we can. Nuclear fusion is a good means to harness this as is fission - neither process works without quantum mechanics (as well as Einsteinian physics).

However, this doesn't address the finite resources we have on earth, nor say anything about climate change. The earth is not short of energy at all - the amount of solar radiation received each year is far and above what we use in fossil fuels. The problem is that we're running out of fossil fuels which are such a convenient high-energy-density medium that allows the sort of transport we have to work. If we switched to fusion, say, this wouldn't solve the problem of making planes fly since the energy storage density of batteries, capacitors etc. is too low [ at present ] to allow the sort of planes we all like to fly in to get away from all this depressing talk of peak oil and just lie on some beach in the sun somewhere :) I don't believe hydrogen has sufficient energy density to fuel, say, a 747 or A380.

So long as the sun still shines, we will never run out of energy - it just might not be in such a conveniently portable form as that provided by fossil fuels.

Paul in Montreal

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2952

Before giving Tom Bearden any credit read this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Bearden

Quote: "His ideas have received no noteworthy support in the scientific community."

Quote: "In 2001, Bearden predicted that the first commercial products based on the MEG would be "rolling off the production lines in about one year"[3]; however, to date there are no commercial products based on this device, nor have there been any public demonstrations of the technology. Bearden admits he has no working prototype.."

Quote: "..these theories offer no concrete testable predictions, and are generally dismissed by the physics community at large. None of these theories have been published in independent, peer-reviewed physics literature, and Bearden himself has little formal training in physics. One analysis of Bearden's theories describes them as "full of misconceptions and misunderstandings concerning the theory of the electromagnetic field"[8]."

Quote: "Bearden maintains that many of these advanced technologies are secretly known and used by a number of governments and clandestine organizations. This forms the basis for a broad range of views which many would regard as conspiracy theories. These theories are a central theme in many of his books..."

Quote: "Bearden has claimed that Russia used various other technologies in the 1980s to cause the destruction of the Challenger space shuttle and induce "several large earthquakes" [15]..."

Get the picture?

The difficulty as I see it Tom..

Is that the theory has no proof. So it may not be wrong. Einstein worked on something obscure but was able to demonstrate that it was correct (in the end and despite scientific outrage initially).

It is very worthwhile having individuals in any society working chaotically on presumed dead ends. Particularly individuals with high IQs

However, most of them will be proven wrong and may see their lives as incomplete as a result. OTOH, Some will be celebrated.

I regret, I see no merit to Bearden's claims.

Posted By: fostertom There's two equal and opposite picture galleries. You will view the one that makes you feel happy and secure, as I do.

I don't do happy and secure. I do evidence. If Tom were to produce any I'd buy tickets to his gallery.

It's appears to be true that the universe is seething with vacuum energy. Not everyone agrees but there is some reasonably good and repeatable scientific evidence for that - such as the Casimir effect (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect).

Tom says "We don’t have a world energy crisis per se, because the seething vacuum energy is easily available, inexhaustible, and ubiquitous – and clean!."

Well that's fine but I just wish he would tell the world how to exploit it. He hasn't done so far.

Back in 2006 Tom was very quick to claim that he understood what Steorn were doing but Steorn have never actually provided any technical details of their claim. I've been a member of their forum more or less from the date of their first announcement in 2006. A year ago they had a demo in london go spectacularly wrong and provided lame excuses blaming heat from the lights for why it didn't work. They promised a repeat showing that never happened and lately Steron appear to be very quiet. Not even a progress report. How is their famous jury getting on? Oh yes I forgot they are all under NDA aren't they. Anyone for a new conspiracy theory :-)

I agree.

Re the moon shots. My father worked at the BBC and was involved with many of the broadcasts. Far too many people were drectly involved for it to have been a hoax. For example the pictures shown on Australia TV did not go via Houston they were recieved direct by two different radio telescopes.

"For example the pictures shown on Australia TV did not go via Houston they were recieved direct by two different radio telescopes."

Good, point: If they were parabolics or spherical receivers, the only way the Americans could have faked it would have been to send a space flight to the moon in order to fake the signals vector (of them sending a manned flight top the moon).

Not much of a conspiracy theory.

I guess we are way OT here but there is quite a good analysis of all the hoax claims and evidence here..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax