From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: Let's get a little more rational (was Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES)
Summary: But not too much - it's fun to speculate
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:38:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov5.203809.28975
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

[Notice the followup-to line above]


In article lizard@cats.ucsc.edu (Raul Essig) writes:
>In article mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

>>
>>                            FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
>>                                   Robert E. McElwaine

>All I can say is that the day I see a "FREE-ENERGY" machine working
>in front of me, and I am allowed to poke around inside it, I will
>believe it.  Unfortunately the vast majority of "free-energy" ideas
>I have seen have asked for too much money in the mail, and far too little 
>proof to be seen for them to be real claims.
>I don't want to shoot down new ideas, but making claims of free energy
>is not going to get anywhere, because there is no such thing!  It
>may be possible for there to be very-very cheap energy, but nothing
>is free!  If nothing else, you've got to build the machine, even
>if it did theoretically run on a trivial fuel ( i.e. air, water, the
>earth's magnetic field...)  Energy does not just perculate out of
>the void.

I agree with this.  Obtaining useful energy will never be free.  There
has to be a source, and there has to be the converter.  Obviously, it
will cost something to build the converter.  And obviously you need
some energy source, reservoir, or whatever you want to call it, that has
thermodynamically available energy.  And finally, no matter the energy
source, the converter has to be *demonstrated* beyond reasonable doubt
that it truly is converting the source energy to usable thermal and/or
mechanical energy.  It's not enough to just *say* that I have this neat
idea for an energy conversion device to tap this *wonderful* energy source;
you have to build it - the burden of proof is on the inventor/engineer.
All of these are so obvious as to almost be superfluous to even mention.

But it is alright to speculate about the possibility of new and unusual
energy sources, and then to speculate how it may be possible to build a
device to tap this speculated source to create useful energy.  Such
speculations should have their place in scientific discussion, and such
speculations may encourage inventors/engineers with the appropriate skills
to go out and attempt to build the conversion device if he/she feels the
evidence for this new energy source is compelling.  But again the burden of
final proof must be put on the shoulders of the conversion device builder.
You could call me a "very open-minded skeptic", which to some sounds like
an oxymoron, but to me, at least, it is not that.

Of course, many long-time readers of the newsgroups listed above, remember
me as the person who has posted the Puthoff/Bearden/etc. material (btw, it
is available via anonymous ftp from site lupulus.ssc.gov in subdirectory
/papers).  I'm sure that my "crackpot index" may have already been determined
to be a number >> 0, which I hold as a badge of honor in an admittedly strange
sort of way (oh well, enough musings about this, let's get back to the subject
at hand).

In these papers and documents, several scientists/engineers/"probable loonies"
have *speculated* that the so-called "vacuum energy" that quantum mechanics
predicts must exist (and experimental evidence indicates does exist), does
have thermodynamically available energy that could be tapped if we could come
up with a device to do so.  Puthoff, who has published quite a number of
papers in Phys. Review in the area of Stochastic Electrodynamics, has
*theorized* that the nature of this vacuum energy (estimated to be at about
10^97 ergs/cm^3 integrating up to the Planck constant) to be very highly
random electromagnetic radiation, and that the source of this vacuum energy
is due to the motion of all charge carriers in the universe.  Puthoff has
been careful in his published writings to not make any claims, but he does
state that he is keeping an open mind on the possibility that this energy
"source" may have a finite amount of available energy that we could tap if
we are clever enough to do so.

Some have argued that this vacuum energy has zero thermodynamic availability,
using classical thermodynamic terminology.  Perhaps - there is some aesthetic
appeal to the notion that there must be some perfect thermodynamic "sink" in
the universe for all energy to dissipate into, and why not the vacuum energy?
However, if Puthoff is correct in his theory that the source of the vacuum
energy is due to the motion of all the charge carriers in the universe, then
can't we speculate the following:  Since the distribution and motion of mass
in the universe is by observation not yet to be in the highest possible entropy
state, might we not be able to use the "vacuum energy" as a medium to convert
(or better yet, divert) the not yet totally random motion of the matter in the
universe for producing useful work?  Of course, thermodynamic laws would not
be violated, since the work we obtain will end up being dissipated as thermal
energy at low temperature, which is effectively random motion of matter, with
the final effect of not reducing the energy content of the vacuum (first law
not violated), and also with the final effect that the entropy of the universe
has increased because the aggregate motion of all matter in the universe is
more random (second law not violated).

One can half-jokingly think of it as converting some of the energy of the orbit
of the earth around the sun to more random thermal energy using the "vacuum
energy" as the medium.  Of course, how to "tap" the "vacuum" for this is the
next question, and Puthoff is working on something analogous to the Casimir
effect using Condensed Charge Technology, and early reports do indicate
anomalous energy production.  Puthoff and his company he's associated with,
Jupiter Technologies, do realize that the burden of proof is on them, and they
are quietly working towards an unambiguous demonstration of their device
(they have solicited several National Labs and independent laboratories who
have agreed to test their device once the bugs are out of it).  Fortunately,
they have very substantial patent protection on their technology, so it would
be possible for the testing labs to take the thing apart to satisfy to
themselves that there is no hocus-pocus going on.  If you don't see anything
in the next few years from Puthoff and company, assume that their device did
not work, either because the vacuum energy cannot be tapped (or used as a
medium for energy conveyance), or that their particular device would just not
work as hoped.

Oh well, enough speculation, or my crackpot index will go through the roof
and I'd have to be committed.  :^)

BTW, in the papers at site lupulus.ssc.gov, you will find a lot of references,
patent numbers, etc. to Puthoff's, Bearden's, and other papers of a related
vein.  I will only send this information to you on request if you do not
have anonymous ftp capability to that site (and if you do, and don't know 
about anonymous ftp, it's about time to learn - it's easy, just ask around.)

Jon Noring


-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.

------->   I VOTED FOR PEROT IN '92
------->   support UNITED WE STAND!