Please prove Vacuum energy

Discuss how polywell fusion works; share theoretical questions and answers.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
henry[ger]
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:11 am

Please prove Vacuum energy

Post by henry[ger] »

I have found a white paper by a registered and teaching german professor about Vacuum energy. But there are no replicas that I found.
Is anyone interested in proving/diproving it scientifically.

Here is the link to the white paper:
http://www.ostfalia.de/export/sites/def ... glisch.pdf

Short video on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiC2IGLl90Q

thanks in advance to the couraged ones who try to replicate it!

Giorgio
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

PDF link is corrupted.

henry[ger]
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:11 am

Post by henry[ger] »

Thank you, i didnt notice!

ok heres the working link:
http://www.ostfalia.de/export/sites/def ... glisch.pdf

+ his main page:
http://www.ostfalia.de/cms/de/pws/turtu ... index.html

Nik
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:14 pm
Location: UK

Over-Unity...

Post by Nik »

I got as far as the chapter-heading about 'Over-Unity' and read no further. At least he sets his peg in the open !!

Uh, however you set your planes and magnets, my now-rudimentary math still shows you can't get 'owt from nowt'...

IMHO, this is tangentially related to that proposed 'reaction-less' drive that would use a high-energy-density standing wave inside a closed, resonant horn. IIRC, physicists are still arguing over the claimed non-linear effects that would, in the inventors' favoured interpretation, produce non-Newtonian thrust...

IIRC, there is a 'gotcha' in this bizarre field: As I understand it, 'Dark Matter' in several of its hypothesised forms is its own anti-matter. Collect such material, catalyse its combination, and you have a 'magic' PSU, good while the Dark-Matter flux lasts...

Difference, of course, is you are converting per E = Mc^2...

henry[ger]
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:11 am

Post by henry[ger] »

You only guessing around that does not help!
I need a PROOF or a DISPROOF! SCIENTIFICALLY!

I was being forwarded here, because someone told me that there would be scientists and experts here, I hope someone of them takes his/her time for looking deeper to it. I guess a possible solution for the energy crisis deserves a proper look and a proof/disproof.
Do only respond if you are willed to do that!

Sorry man but what you just did was simply being arrogant..
An arrogant scientist to me seems to be tired of learning.

Giorgio
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Come down Henry, no one here is paid to prove or disprove scientific theories. Even if the board is mainly composed by Engineers and scientists it does not mean that one is free or willing to look into the subject.

I read the first 10 pages till now, and if you want a quick scientifical disproof I can easily say that over unity goes against scientific knowledge of Entropy, hence his system is not feasible.
Now, give me (or anyone else) the time to finish to read that PDF and check his theories than we will see if/where there are fallacies in his thinking.

That said, if he is making an over unity machine (like many are doing lately), the proof of work is up to him, and not vice-versa.

Edited to fix spelling

henry[ger]
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:11 am

Post by henry[ger] »

You are right. I tend to overreact when people think they could decide when not nowing even the half.
I am organised within the EOS right now and I should give them a replica of that machine, when that technology should be considered worth investing in in the future.

Proving it right would mean a fully distributed sustainable energy system in the world - whereas even fusion will run out of fuel (lithium) in 1000 years, so it doesnt really solve the energy problem.

I mean that author is a physics professor, so maybe one should not immideately switch off when reading something unconventional..

So first I want to thank anyone, who will read it through and try to understand it before judging.
I am not a physicist, but even I went through wikipedia to translate that formulas for me to check out whether they are missing something.
I went through it with an open mind and could not find mistakes, anyhow like I said: I am not a physicist so I cannot be sure about my results.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

I took a quick look at this, and I found it to be an impenetrable text. If he wants people to read it, then there needs to be an encapsulation of the idea in a page (or less!).

Contrary to your rant, Mr Henry, it is for the proposer of an idea to make his point, not for the reader to take several hours trying to read that document and analyse every detail.

I picked up the general idea that this boils down to the following statement as per the summary [at least there is one! ;) ].
If the Theory of Relativity is taken serious, we have to accept that electrostatic same as magnetostatic DC-fields propagate not faster then with the speed of light, thus with finite speed.
Sorry, but I do not accept this argument, and I do not accept that the maths has been handled correctly. 'Energy' does not propagate in an electric field - the field is energy. At an instantaneous moment in time, it has a specific and finite energy. That is obviously intuitive. If there is a fluctuation in that field, then it is no longer an electrostatic field. So the argument that the effect of an electrostatic field acts no faster than the speed of light is, essentially, flawed. That looks wrong, or, as Pauli might've said, not even wrong.

I will look again at the experiment he has concocted, but my immediate impression is that it is working by coronal discharge reaction.

jarek
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 2:33 pm
Contact:

Post by jarek »

I've briefly looked at the 125 page paper on the rotor description - from page 49: "At the beginning a voltage of U = 7kV was applied, and the rotor began to rotate. After approximately half an hour, 6…8 revolutions have been fulfilled, and the data acquisition started at a moment at which the voltage was U = 6kV . During the following hour of data acquisition, the voltage further decreased to U = 4.5kV"
So my first look explanation would be that due to potential difference, there are some charge carriers flowing through the medium and hitting the rotor - transforming own momentum into angular momentum of the rotor because of its angle - equalizing gathered charge.
Anyway there is used energy to create the initial potential difference and it is transformed (with extremely low efficiency) through friction into mostly thermal energy.

The energy of vacuum concept is an artifact of understanding the tool of quantum mechanics too literally, for example Casimir energy isn't 'vacuum energy', but the energy of the potential well itself - of creating it atom configuration.
Vacuum is medium able to transmit interactions, mainly EM and gravity - have fields related to them and this is where the energy density comes from. If all fields are practically zero, this energy density (of vacuum) is minimal - we cannot 'drain' more energy from it.
Particle doesn't 'jump out of Dirac sea', but are nontrivial configurations of these fields, held by e.g. topological constrains like charge or spin. This energy can be released by annihilating opposite topological charges, like on nice animation here.

Anyway, Henry you write that it could save us when fuel for fusion will be depleted ... but there also asteroids, sources on other planets ... while even if this rotor could 'drain energy from vacuum', it would produce barely let say microwatts ...
If you would like to search for some physically exotic energy sources, better try to think not about breaking energy conservation law, but e.g. about ordering existing thermal energy against 2nd law of thermodynamics, like in this news: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-sou ... icity.html

henry[ger]
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:11 am

Post by henry[ger] »

Thank you for your investigation!

I have though still 2 questions:

1. How could it be driven by coronal discharge when there was nearly vacuum?

2. Didnt he calculated that the friction caused while turning could not be caused by the electrostatic field, cuz there would not be enough energy in the field to do so? (something like that)

But anyway:
There are experts here as I see :)

jarek
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 2:33 pm
Contact:

Post by jarek »

I'm not an expert, but intuition suggests that coronal discharge isn't required to transmit charge - it's enough that there are some ions in the medium and so they statistically travel accordingly to created potential gradient (diffusion) - equalizing the charge and using part of gathered energy to turn the rotor.
If it's not in vacuum, ions appear thermodynamically in medium and are produced by different kind of background radiations. In vacuum these ions could come from the material of rotor itself.
I've mentioned about friction because such rotation would finally stop - energy of rotation here was mainly transformed into thermal energy because of this nonzero friction.

Post Reply