[Vo]:Re: Casimir Generator
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CasimirGenerator.pdf OBJECTIVE The purpose here is to provide a means of extracting energy upon demand from the zero point field (ZPF), by utilization of the Casimir force. FUNDAMENTAL METHOD The following method is intended to provide a means to build a nano- scale zero point field powered generator, a true free energy generator: (1) let two parallel thin plates attract in the axis normal to them, the x axis, gaining energy from the attraction of the plates due to the Casimir force. Use that movement, say mechanically or by heat generation or by conversion to electrical energy, to do useful work. (2) Slide the plates apart sideways, say in the y axis. This will cost some of the energy gained by the attraction, but should cost far less than just separating the plates while they move only on the x axis, because the opposition from the ZPF is based on the size of the Casimir force generated on the edges of the plates, which is nominal. (3) Move the now separated but still parallel plates back to the original position by a route that avoids a separation distance smaller than the original separation in the x axis. This should take nominal energy. (4) Repeat the cycle as fast as practical. EXAMPLE OF IMPLEMENTATION One means to implement this scheme at nano-scale is to make one plate, call it the oscillating plate, a plate free to move in the x axis, though with small angular (tilting) motion, be a long flexible plate located above a rotating plate. Near the oscillating plate, and parallel to it, provide a rotating wheel which brings into proximity to the oscillating plate a segment of the wheel which acts as the second plate for a Casimir attraction. A line normal to the plane of the oscillating plate is approximately parallel to the axis of motion of the wheel, i.e. to the plane of the rotating plate. The rotating plate could be in the form of a wheel with major portions of opposed quarters removed. By removing opposed quarters, or at least a symmetrical group of segments, the wheel remains balanced. The oscillating plate requires a blocking mechanism to prevent contact between the oscillating plate and the rotating plate due to a runaway attraction of the Casimir force. Energy from the motion of the oscillating plate can be extracted as electrical energy by various means. Since far less energy is required for the separation of the oscillating plate and the rotating plate than the energy produced by their attraction, some of the energy from the motion of the oscillating plate can be used to drive the generator. The oscillating plate returns to its starting position by spring action, and is at the point of maximum spring displacement when closest to the rotating plate. Multiple oscillating plates can be used with a single wheel, and if convenient, they can be located on opposed sides of the wheel. Either the flat side of the wheel or the cylindrical side of the wheel can be used for the rotating plate active surface. If the cylindrical side is used then the oscillating plate should be curved to fit its contour. Fig. 1 through Fig. 5 portray steps in the relative motion of the plates of the suggested device. The oscillating plate is represented by ooo's, the rotating plate by xxx's. For drawing convenience the x axis is vertical in all the figures, the y axis is horizontal. The direction of motion of the plates is shown by arrows. The proportions chosen were merely for ease and clarity of communicating the motions. Fig. 1 shows a starting configuration of the repeated steps. As the rotating plate moves into opposed parallel position the x axis Casimir force develops between the two plates. The Casimir force begins to move the oscillating plate toward the rotating plate, as shown in Fig. 2, and increases as both the exposed area increases and the x axis separation distance decreases. The point of maximum approach is shown in Fig. 3. A motion blocking structure (not shown) stops the x axis motion of the oscillating plate. The wheel must be rigid in comparison to the oscillating plate. When the rotating plate moves laterally away from the oscillating plate, as shown in Fig. 4, the area exposed to the Casimir force is reduced and thus the Casimir force is reduced and the oscillating plate begins to return to its original position due to the spring action associated with that plate. The increase in the x axis separation further decreases the Casimir force. Finally the configuration reaches that shown in Fig. 5, which is identical to Fig. 1, and thus the cycle is closed. A possibly much easier design to implement consists of two pendulums. The rotating plate is replaced by a plate on the side of a pendulum that can vibrate only in the y direction. This y direction moving plate is the driver plate,
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic radiation from ionized air - electrostatic cooling
I realize now that the process can be reversed and used for heating. Can anyone help me to understand how. To what degree would the radiation be absorbed? David -- David Jonsson Sweden phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir Generator
By analogy, if one had two magnetic plates (opposite poles facing) they will attract strongly but afterwards they cannot easily be slid apart sideways because of the flux/field which resists this. Does this spoiler truly not apply to the Casimir force? Nick
Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir Generator
From Nick palmer, By analogy, if one had two magnetic plates (opposite poles facing) they will attract strongly but afterwards they cannot easily be slid apart sideways because of the flux/field which resists this. Does this spoiler truly not apply to the Casimir force? Nick Horace, Following up on Nick's comments... Using your rotating wheel configuration how is the net energy gain/loss any different than working with two permanent magnet plates of opposite poles swing past each other on a macro scale? One will not get any energy gain from the equivalent macro-scale magnetic configuration. IOW, I question the premise that in the process of sliding the Casmir plates apart sideways, less energy is consumed. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir Generator
You know, it takes a lot less energy to slide two magnets apart perpendicular to their poles than parallel to the poles. Paul got two of the 2 N50's stuck and it took a special tool with a 3 ft lever to break them sidewise. I consider this similar to stopping flowing water with a butterfly valve verses a vertical sluice gate. The force to close a sluice gate perpendicular to the water flow is much less than the force to close a butterfly valve which moves into the water flow in a somewhat parallel manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluice I have always believed that this is the basis for Steorn's claims; however, as today is the anniversary of their failed demonstration in London, I am losing hope that we will ever see anything from them. Ah, well, they do make damned good whiskey and a lot less expensive than their neighbors in Scotland. Terry On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:50 AM, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From Nick palmer, By analogy, if one had two magnetic plates (opposite poles facing) they will attract strongly but afterwards they cannot easily be slid apart sideways because of the flux/field which resists this. Does this spoiler truly not apply to the Casimir force? Nick Horace, Following up on Nick's comments... Using your rotating wheel configuration how is the net energy gain/loss any different than working with two permanent magnet plates of opposite poles swing past each other on a macro scale? One will not get any energy gain from the equivalent macro-scale magnetic configuration. IOW, I question the premise that in the process of sliding the Casmir plates apart sideways, less energy is consumed. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir Generator
On Jul 4, 2008, at 3:13 AM, Nick Palmer wrote: By analogy, if one had two magnetic plates (opposite poles facing) they will attract strongly but afterwards they cannot easily be slid apart sideways because of the flux/field which resists this. Does this spoiler truly not apply to the Casimir force? Nick I don't think this is an accurate analogy. The presence of a cavity surrounded by conductors creates the Casimir force. The cavity excludes zero point field wavelengths larger than the cavity dimensions. The force results from zero point radiation having less flux from the direction of the cavity. A closer analogy is a suction cup stuck to a piece of glass, but not a passive cup, one with an active vacuum pump connected to it. Once the vacuum is created between the cup and the glass the air pressure on the outside holds the cup and glass together fiercely, even though there is some air leakage on the sides, which has no net force due to symmetry around the cup. However, if the cup is free to slide sideways, say due to a lubricant, then the vacuum is easily broken. It is well known that the energy in the Casimir case is provided by the vacuum. The ZPF is analogous to the vacuum pump in this case. Actual incremental work dE is performed moving the plates a small increment dx, and that work is of the form: dE = F dx dE = A [h * c * Pi^2 / (240 x^4) ] dx There is no such work performed by plates sliding past each other in a vacuum unless they are close enough that friction occurs. However, if there were such work, even due to fringe effects, then excellent use could be made of this fact, but that is another story. Magnets differ in that their fields extend large distances and produce torque as well as attraction. There is indeed a comparatively large lateral restoring force when two large magnets are slid apart sideways. However, practical experience with magnets makes one wonder if even magnets conserve energy in this case, assuming no friction between the magnets. I have magnets which are almost impossible to pull apart directly, but which are fairly easily pulled apart by sliding them sideways. I think the reason for this is the force is less but the distance is further going the sideways route, so the work turns out to be the same going in either route. The energy at any point can be determined by integrating the energy in the overlapped fields. This energy change is not analogous to the energy supplied by the zero point field when Casimir plates attract. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir Generator
On Jul 4, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: You know, it takes a lot less energy to slide two magnets apart perpendicular to their poles than parallel to the poles. Paul got two of the 2 N50's stuck and it took a special tool with a 3 ft lever to break them sidewise. I consider this similar to stopping flowing water with a butterfly valve verses a vertical sluice gate. The force to close a sluice gate perpendicular to the water flow is much less than the force to close a butterfly valve which moves into the water flow in a somewhat parallel manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluice You are describing closed systems here. All the energy in either case can be described in a fully closed system in which energy can be proven to be conserved. When the Casimir force is involved the system is not closed. The Casimir force is due to momentum transfer from a flux of virtual photons, and that flux flows throughout the universe. Any system utilizing that flux can not be described as a closed system and is thus free to obtain energy from the flux provided a means is found to break the force symmetry. It appears to me the suggested motion of parallel plates breaks this symmetry. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir Generator
A side comment: As Horace has already eluded, anyone who has performed FEMM simulations will have noticed, the force of like-pole repelling PMs is less than the forces measured from the same two attractive opposite-pole PMs positioned at the same distance. This observation has unfortunately caused wild speculation among certain believers who proclaim this proves a blatant asymmetry exists. Apparently, they chose to ignore the fact that the seemingly lesser measured repulsive force is actually spread out over a greater 3-D volumetric area. If they were to sum up the areas of both the attractive and repulsive forces together the equation appears to balance out. Perhaps it's another way of describing the closed system recently mentioned by Horace. As for my own wild speculation I wonder if the alleged OU might be due to a weird unknown characteristic in manipulating magnetic viscosity when the rotor PM configuration rotates at certain RPM speeds past an array of stator PMs. I wonder if the dynamic interaction might cause the effects of magnetic viscosity, specifically the migratory patterns, to oscillate at certain frequencies that possibly ferrets out a tiny bit of OU. For such a premise to work, however, I think magnetic viscosity would have to somehow avoid the effects generated by inertia (specifically counter inertia) as individual atoms flip their poles. But here I really show my ignorance: I dunno if any kind of inertia is involved in the flipping of atomic magnetic poles. If there is no inertia, then who knows. Maybe it IS possible to eek out a tad of OU. But all of this is just idle July 4 speculation on my part. I think I'll mosey over to my neighbor's back yard and down propane grilled burnt meat with the assistance of a few brews. Happy 4th to all, regardless of one's nationality, with a nod to our foreign correspondent, Michel. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Casimir Generator
Horace, I don't know if this would have any bearing on, or be any help with this thought experiment you are working on, but there is a paper describing the theorized energy density within various cavities, authored by the late Dr. Robert Forward. I have it in PDF format if it would be helpful to you. The title is Apparent Method for Extraction of Propulsion Energy from the Vacuum, AIAA 98-3140. The idea is that the zero point energy (whatever that actually is) within an enclosed metal box of some dimensions has a certain energy density. For a box of some dimensions, as given in the paper, you can have negative energy density of a some value, as between two parallel metal plates. Here's where it starts to get odd, in my opinion: The paper concludes that for a box of dimensions 1x1x1 units, there is a net positive energy density, and the Casimir force is now repulsive. For a box of 1x1x3.3, the net energy density is zero, and there is no Casimir force. It seems therefore that if the box walls could be manipulated in a certain way.you get the drift. I don't know if the paper is available online any more. If you want a copy, I'll send it to you, or I can post it online. I hope this helps in some way. Of course, as most everything else I post is ignored, it might be prudent just to turn this into recycled electrons. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir Generator
On Jul 4, 2008, at 9:59 AM, OrionWorks wrote: A side comment: As Horace has already eluded, anyone who has performed FEMM simulations will have noticed, the force of like-pole repelling PMs is less than the forces measured from the same two attractive opposite-pole PMs positioned at the same distance. This observation has unfortunately caused wild speculation among certain believers who proclaim this proves a blatant asymmetry exists. Claims of free energy on this basis are false. A thought experiment that demonstrates this is to imagine a magnet to be a dipole, just like a coulomb charge dipole. It is then possible to analyze the pole motions individually. It doesn't really matter that poles of a given magnet remain a fixed distance apart. It only matters that the forces between any two poles approaching at a given distance is the same, except for sign, as the force of departure of two poles at that distance, and the only thing necessary to prove this is the superposition principle. This in fact even ignores the nature of the force formula itself. In other words, to create a magnetic free energy device you have to either (a) disprove the long held and substantiated principle of superposition, or (b) apply some principle that involves more than just the magnetic fields simulated in finite element simulations, i.e. involve magnetostriction, magnetic cooling, etc. I think schemes along these lines typically ignore the energy available from rotation, i.e. from torque, which is just the combined effect of the movement of two poles. It is the availability of this rotational energy that demands the forces between two magnets *not* be the same for both pole orientations. Apparently, they chose to ignore the fact that the seemingly lesser measured repulsive force is actually spread out over a greater 3-D volumetric area. If they were to sum up the areas of both the attractive and repulsive forces together the equation appears to balance out. Perhaps it's another way of describing the closed system recently mentioned by Horace. As for my own wild speculation I wonder if the alleged OU might be due to a weird unknown characteristic in manipulating magnetic viscosity when the rotor PM configuration rotates at certain RPM speeds past an array of stator PMs. I don't know what might be alleged with regard to various magnetic ou devices. My Casimir based scheme does not involve magnets. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Casimir Generator
On Jul 4, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: Horace, I don't know if this would have any bearing on, or be any help with this thought experiment you are working on, but there is a paper describing the theorized energy density within various cavities, authored by the late Dr. Robert Forward. I have it in PDF format if it would be helpful to you. The title is Apparent Method for Extraction of Propulsion Energy from the Vacuum, AIAA 98-3140. The idea is that the zero point energy (whatever that actually is) within an enclosed metal box of some dimensions has a certain energy density. For a box of some dimensions, as given in the paper, you can have negative energy density of a some value, as between two parallel metal plates. Here's where it starts to get odd, in my opinion: The paper concludes that for a box of dimensions 1x1x1 units, there is a net positive energy density, and the Casimir force is now repulsive. For a box of 1x1x3.3, the net energy density is zero, and there is no Casimir force. It seems therefore that if the box walls could be manipulated in a certain way.you get the drift. I don't know if the paper is available online any more. If you want a copy, I'll send it to you, or I can post it online. I hope this helps in some way. Of course, as most everything else I post is ignored, it might be prudent just to turn this into recycled electrons. --Kyle Thanks, I'd appreciate a copy. Say, that was a handy reference title. A brief search on it leads to many things, and led me to http://tinyurl.com/66j5jb http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser? Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO% 2Fsrchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=6477028.PN.OS=PN/6477028RS=PN/6477028 US Patent 6,477,028, by Fabrizio Pinto. The patent doesn't appear at first look to provide a practical design, but it covers a lot of the same bases. Other interesting refs that turned up: http://keelynet.com/gravity/putnasa.htm http://users.rcn.com/zap.dnai/ning_li.htm Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Casimir Generator
--- On Fri, 7/4/08, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, I'd appreciate a copy. Alrighty. I'll put it online in a bit and send you the URL. Probably be better that way, as it is a bit large, at 1.2 megs. I don't want to be rude and direct email something that big. Say, that was a handy reference title. A brief search on it leads to many things, and led me to snip Interesting. I will look over these in a few minutes. Alright, here's waxing ridiculous. But hey, it is the 4th, everyone around here is getting drunk and such, so why can't a mad scientist like me go out on a limb for a short period of time? Thinking on the 1x1x1 cube (the same is rumored true of a hollow sphere)...if there is supposed to be positive energy density inside it, and it has a repulsive Casimir effect... What if one of Bill Beatty's energy sucking resonant antennas was placed inside this thing, and made to sing at some frequency contained therein by the cube. Should it be an integral value of standing wave that 'fits' inside the thing? Put the ground reference somewhere outside the cube. Or better yet, put it between two parallel plates, spaced the same wavelength apart. Energy sucking antenna is in the positive energy space... Ground (low side) is in the zero (or negative) energy space... Can we take some of the 'space stuff' that everyone calls ZPE? Just some brain droppings to amuse. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:Casimir Generator
Horace, File uploaded. http://www.fdscience.org/1/aiaa983140.pdf --Kyle
