Page 15 of 16

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postPosted: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 12:36:46
by Heineken
Two or three decades aren't nearly enough time to achieve this sea change toward sustainability, Omnitir. Two or three centuries might be closer to what's needed, if everyone suddenly started acting cooperatively and rationally right now and MQ's "to do" list was enacted. Even then we face a cliff.

The trends firmly in place now are for things to get worse. Amazon rain forest disappearing, global warming, death of the oceans, energy depletion, groundwater depletion, desertification and droughts---all these massive problems and many more aren't going away any time soon.

And the population keeps growing, which rapidly undermines any slight progress that might be made on some fronts.

Your mentality on the population issue in particular is utterly incomprehensible to me.

What we need is unlimited wisdom, not unlimited energy.

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postPosted: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 13:03:15
by dinopello
Heineken wrote:Two or three centuries might be closer to what's needed, if everyone suddenly started acting cooperatively and rationally right now and MQ's "to do" list was enacted. Even then we face a cliff..


I think think a cliff can be avoided if "everyone suddenly started acting cooperatively and rationally right now", but the chances of that now or ever is pretty low. I agree will Al Bartlett:

What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and the education of the billions who are its victims.


edit: Actually, he may have been quoting ML King here, not clear from transcript

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/645

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postPosted: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 15:27:20
by joewp
Omnitir wrote:And I agree, we haven’t yet reached sustainability.


On the contrary, we're way past a sustainable population and well into overshoot.

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postPosted: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 15:58:04
by GoIllini
MonteQuest wrote:New? Not hardly. You will find it many times in my writings on this site over the last two years.

It means we have been doing it this way for so long and have so much invvested in doing it this way, that it will not soon pass.


Again, this seems to be a word that only you like to use.

I'll admit that humans are greedy and ambitious. That's not inertia, that's just something that'll always be true (maybe more like a physical constant). But to say the market can't change on a dime is to suggest that the DJIA can't have a 250 pt. rally (Representing a roughly 2-3% rally across the entire $50 Trillion equities market) in a day when the Fed makes an announcement.

You can't change human nature by using economics. Most forms of communism failed miserably. Most of the ones that have worked involved religious communities.

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postPosted: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 17:18:39
by Aaron
So... nice ZPE thread...

:)

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postPosted: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 19:49:12
by Omnitir
Heineken wrote:Two or three decades aren't nearly enough time to achieve this sea change toward sustainability, Omnitir. Two or three centuries might be closer to what's needed

I totally accept that and understand that it’s a monumental task, though two or three centuries may be a bit extreme, more realistically I would guess about one full century to achieve what’s needed.

But here’s the massive flaw that almost everyone makes with future predictions: the rate of change is not linear, it’s exponential.

Yes, at todays rate of change it might take a full century or more to achieve the necessary change. But extrapolating the exponentially increasing rate of change into the future, over the next two to three decades we can realistically expect to experience the equivalent amount of change that the entire 20th century enjoyed. At today’s rate of change we can expect the entire 21st century to experience the equivalent of about two hundred centuries of progress.

*** Resistance is futile. We will all be assimilated into the sustainable collective ***

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postPosted: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 22:07:17
by MonteQuest
Omnitir wrote:
But here’s the massive flaw that almost everyone makes with future predictions: the rate of change is not linear, it’s exponential.



Not any credible people I know. You, however, seem to assume that this exponential change for the better will be more exponential than energy demand, population growth, and environmental degradation.

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postPosted: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 22:25:01
by Heineken
Omnitir wrote:
Heineken wrote:Two or three decades aren't nearly enough time to achieve this sea change toward sustainability, Omnitir. Two or three centuries might be closer to what's needed

I totally accept that and understand that it’s a monumental task, though two or three centuries may be a bit extreme, more realistically I would guess about one full century to achieve what’s needed.

But here’s the massive flaw that almost everyone makes with future predictions: the rate of change is not linear, it’s exponential.

Yes, at todays rate of change it might take a full century or more to achieve the necessary change. But extrapolating the exponentially increasing rate of change into the future, over the next two to three decades we can realistically expect to experience the equivalent amount of change that the entire 20th century enjoyed. At today’s rate of change we can expect the entire 21st century to experience the equivalent of about two hundred centuries of progress.

*** Resistance is futile. We will all be assimilated into the sustainable collective ***


You speak as though we have total control over the future, Omnitir. That's the "hubris" MQ and others refer to.

A lot of the "change" we're going to go through will be experienced passively. And it will be overwhelmingly negative change, the consequences of our actions.

It's already starting to happen.

We had our chance at "progress." We blew it, and the result is a wrecked, wasted, deathly ill Earth.

People can't put it together again. We will lick our wounds, crawl into a cave, and slowly and painfully die.

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postPosted: Thu 28 Sep 2006, 06:19:49
by Doly
Omnitir wrote:But here’s the massive flaw that almost everyone makes with future predictions: the rate of change is not linear, it’s exponential.


Past performance doesn't equal future performance, Omnitir. What made the rate of change exponential? Population growth? Well, it looks like that is slowing down and coming to a stable number (which is good). Energy consumption? Uh-oh, then we have a problem, don't we?

Heineken wrote:We had our chance at "progress." We blew it, and the result is a wrecked, wasted, deathly ill Earth.

People can't put it together again. We will lick our wounds, crawl into a cave, and slowly and painfully die.


Always the optimist, I see. Do you always believe you are dying every time you get ill?

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postPosted: Thu 28 Sep 2006, 07:50:20
by Heineken
Big difference between one person and the gigantic flywheel called Earth, doly.

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postPosted: Thu 28 Sep 2006, 08:22:34
by Omnitir
Doly wrote: What made the rate of change exponential? Population growth? Energy consumption?

No, and no.

Exponential progress occurs in biological life, technological progress, and computational power. It’s the result of a fundamental attribute of any evolutionary process (regardless of what drives that evolutionary process, be it random mutations, cheap oil, growing populations or investment dollars). As order increases advancements speed up.

Evolutionary processes accelerate because they build on past achievements. What made the rate of change exponential? What resources does exponential growth require? Not energy or growing populations, but simply increasing order and the chaos in the environment in which the evolutionary process occurs (providing increased diversity). These two resources upon which we can predict continued exponential progress – increasing order and a chaotic environment – are virtually limitless.

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postPosted: Thu 28 Sep 2006, 11:03:57
by Dezakin
Doly wrote:
Omnitir wrote:But here’s the massive flaw that almost everyone makes with future predictions: the rate of change is not linear, it’s exponential.


Past performance doesn't equal future performance, Omnitir. What made the rate of change exponential? Population growth? Well, it looks like that is slowing down and coming to a stable number (which is good). Energy consumption? Uh-oh, then we have a problem, don't we?

Eventually we run into limits.

Given our current energy consumption is less than .1% of the solar flux, we can go through a number of doublings of consumption before we're pressing any limits, and then we still have 10 more orders of magnitude of power being tossed out by the sun that isn't hitting earth.

We have room to grow.

Re: Zero Point Energy (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 09 May 2014, 06:38:28
by Subjectivist
Prof. Dr. Claus W. Turtur (University of Applied Sciences Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel - Germany) writes: Although I verified the practical utilization of free energy in the laboratory, I had to stop my research work completely. This is not very nice, because "Free and Clean Energy" would be important for mankind.
For all who want to see my former results: Please scroll down.

The zero-point oscillations of Quantum Electrodynamics do contain a huge amount of energy, which is known on the one hand from Cosmological measurements and on the other hand from measurements on the well known Casimir-effect.


The question is now, whether mankind can get benefit of this energy, which would be of serious practical importance, because this energy is understood without any connection to visible matter. Thus a conversion of this energy into a usable form of energy will be free from any pollution of our environment by principle.

The following links introduce into a theoretical understanding of this energy and furthermore they demonstrate a successful conversion of this energy into classical mechanical energy, as it was already performed in the Laboratory. Up to now, some knowledge of the fundamental principles of Physics is developed, but the technical maturity of this energy conversion is in far future, because in the experiment done up to now, only 150 NanoWatts of machine power had been gained.

More from source: http://www.ostfalia.de/cms/de/pws/turtur/FundE/English/


So if they can only produce 150 NanoWatt per unit they will need 6,000,000 units to produce one Watt. Even my hyper efficient LED bulbs need several Watts to produce a useful light level. How much is it going to cost me to just light up one room of my home with this "free" energy?!?

Re: Zero Point Energy (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 09 May 2014, 13:31:44
by KaiserJeep
In case anyone didn't know this, "Zero Point Energy" became a plot device on the Stargate: Atlantis TV show about one year before this thread started. The show's "Zero Point Energy Modules" were glowing crystals about the size of 3lb coffee cans that powered spaceships.

Don't you just hate it when a con artist isn't even original?

Re: Zero Point Energy (merged)

Unread postPosted: Fri 09 May 2014, 14:19:18
by Subjectivist
KaiserJeep wrote:In case anyone didn't know this, "Zero Point Energy" became a plot device on the Stargate: Atlantis TV show about one year before this thread started. The show's "Zero Point Energy Modules" were glowing crystals about the size of 3lb coffee cans that powered spaceships.

Don't you just hate it when a con artist isn't even original?


I never watched the Stargate TV show but I know for certain that Star Trek Deep Space Nine used ZPE powered mines during the Dominion War arc.

Re: Zero Point Energy (merged)

Unread postPosted: Tue 08 Jul 2014, 07:02:05
by Subjectivist
I just read a sci-fi novel by Edward M. Lerner and Larry Niven in which ZPE plays a prominent role. Dr. Lerner is a physicist and computer specialist and the story is a precautionary tale of sorts. In the fictional scenario the slightest imbalance in the ZPE power tap causes a test on a far distant planet something like Pluto to explode like Alderaan in Star Wars : A New Hope when the Death Star destroys it.

Maybe he posits this for dramatic effect, but perhaps the energies involved really are too large for humans to be mucking around with.

Re: Zero Point Energy (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 14 Feb 2015, 02:38:52
by Keith_McClary

Re: LENR, Rossi and the ECAT Thread pt 4 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Tue 08 Dec 2015, 21:04:51
by Keith_McClary
Free energy for sale: Steorn's impossible Orbo hits the market
What makes this episode different from each of Steorn's previous adventures is that for the first time they are making Orbo-powered products available to the public, to be put to long-term use, tested, and torn apart. Their first products are clunky, impractical and overpriced: the 1200 euros phone charger is to be followed in early 2016 by a 480 euros retro-style non-smart cell phone that never needs charging. Later offerings will include an e-cigarette and a wireless game controller. But the impracticality of this motley collection of devices is beside the point: Steorn wants to get Orbo into as many people's hands as possible, so they won't need the blessing of academic science. People will find out for themselves that Orbo works, and proclaim it over and over on the internet, until the rumble is loud enough that scientists have to take it seriously, and manufacturers want to license it. Then Steorn can leave product development to others, while they focus on lowering the cost and improving the energy density of their core technology. Eventually, Orbo will power every phone, every car, maybe even everything. That seems to be Steorn's hope, anyway.

To pull this off, they just have one final hurdle to prove they can overcome: the law of conservation of energy, one of the most basic building blocks of modern physics.