The Problem With Free Energy Ideas

[antigrav89]

1) Regarding negative mass, I think that what you are speaking of is, following the cosmologists, a region of space where the positive vacuum energy density would be lower than the normal positive energy density as derived from Quantum Electro-Dynamics Theory, thus leading to a negative effective vacuum energy density.
Here, note that we assume that the (positive) vacuum energy density can vary and thus, quantum vacuum medium would behave like a compressible fluid and the normal vacuum as we know it  would be a false vacuum.

What I am speaking is not effective but real negative mass matter as described in the presentation of G. A. Landis.
The negative mass matter concept is generally denied by physicists because the existence of this type of matter violates the
energy conditions for the Einstein's field equations that impose the stress-tensor energy density component to be positive or null.
However, there exist cosmological approaches based on bi-metric theories not violating these conditions but these theories prevent
positive mass matter and negative mass matter from interacting with each other.

The article cited in my post (in attached file) shows experimentally that a positive mass and a negative effective mass (simulated from a mass-spring oscillating system) can be self-accelerated in same direction.
This result is interesting because it supports the theoretical behaviour regarding the interaction of a positive mass and a negative mass as envisioned by H. Bondi in 1957 and proposed by Robert Forward for propulsion.

2) The zero mass pseudo-particle I spoke of for replacing the electron-positron virtual pair concept generally used for describing the quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field
is not a photon but a quantum entangled state consisting in a positive and a negative "particles" of equal and opposite masses having possibly equal and opposite electric charges.

The electron-positron virtual pairs creation and annihilation processes, allowed by the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, are rather puzzling.
We are only aware of the initial and final states of these processes through transition amplitudes but we know nothing about the interacting processes
explaining how an electron and a positron are created from the collision of photons and how electron and positron can be annihilated into photons
and some physicists think that a photon might be a composite state, whose internal structure would already contain charged states.
 
3) Quantum Theory tells us that a photon is a quanta of energy (a massless neutral quantum state) that can be absorbed or emitted by (positive mass) matter and behave like a wave or a particle. The zero mass pseudo-particle I suggest has nothing to do with a photon.

Regarding the laws of Thermodynamics, it has been shown that they are not limited to closed systems at equilibrium but can be extended to open non equilibrium non linear systems (see for example the following books by Ilia Prigogine: "Self-Organization in NonEquilibrium Systems", Wiley, 1977 and  "Modern Thermodynamics", Wiley, 2015).
Moray B. King also supports this approach for explaining how free-energy devices tap energy into the quantum vacuum.

[Floor]

Regarding the laws of Thermodynamics, it has been shown that they are not limited to closed systems at equilibrium but can be extended to open non equilibrium non linear systems (see for example the following books by Ilia Prigogine: "Self-Organization in NonEquilibrium Systems", Wiley, 1977 and  "Modern Thermodynamics", Wiley, 2015).

Moray B. King also supports this approach for explaining how free-energy devices tap energy into the quantum vacuum.

The day that the laws of Thermodynamics have been totally rewritten, is the day we can
waste the time to discuss that " it has been shown that they are not limited to closed
systems at equilibrium but can be extended to open non equilibrium non linear systems".

To begin with, there are no known closed systems, unless one defines a "closed system"
as not actually a closed system.  In which case any real discussion is already over.

At the time of the framing of the laws of conservation and as far as I am aware...
still it remains that...

there is no definition in physics for the word created.
there is no definition in physics for the word destroyed.

  Also

There is no such thing which can be demonstrated, which is "nothing" and
there is no such place in which it can be demonstrated that there is "nothing".

Thermodynamics laws are double speak from the start and broken.  Making up and /or
changing definitions after the fact is not going to fix that.

[antigrav89]

To begin with, there are no known closed systems, unless one defines a "closed system"
as not actually a closed system.  In which case any real discussion is already over.

By definition, a closed system exchanges energy but not matter with the exterior.
For example,  the Earth may be considered as a closed system, when one considers that the Earth absorbs solar energy and emits it back to space, but it is only an approximation, since the Earth also receives matter from space, such as neutrinos, meteorites...
In the Real World, all physical objects in the Universe are open systems constantly interacting with the all-pervading vacuum.
Think of a charged particle at rest in an inertial frame.
Physicists tell us that it creates a static electric field in all the space, but where does its electrostatic energy come from?
The only possible answer to this question is that the particle constantly exchanges energy with the vacuum. But the vacuum is supposed to only exchanges energy by radiation (photons). So the electric field emitted by the particle has to be a radiating field, not a static field. We had supposed that the particle was at rest, but we know that, due to the vacuum fluctuations, the particle randomly oscillates around its equilibrium position. But we also know that an accelerated charged particle radiates an electro-magnetic field. So now, we can have a better view of the interaction of a charged particle with the vacuum.
For mastering the development of free-energy devices we have to improve our knowledge of the nature of the quantum vacuum.

[Floor]

                                Excerpt from Wikipedia
                                      Closed system

"           In classical mechanics
In  classical mechanics non relativistic, a closed system is a physical system that doesn't
exchange any matter with its surroundings, and isn't subject to any net force whose
source is external to the system.

A closed system in classical mechanics would be equivalent to an isolated system in thermodynamics. Closed systems are often used to limit the factors that can affect the
results of specific problem or experiment.

                                   In thermodynamics
Main article: Thermodynamic system

Properties of Isolated, closed, and open systems in exchanging energy and matter.

In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter,
with its surroundings.

An isolated system cannot exchange any heat, work, or matter with the surroundings, while
an open system can exchange energy and matter.

(This scheme of definition of terms is not uniformly used, though it is convenient for some
purposes. In particular, some writers use 'closed system' where 'isolated system' is
used here. "
... ... ...                               
                    There is no such thing as an isolated system which can be demonstrated.
... ... ...

"In classical mechanics
In  classical mechanics non relativistic, a closed system is a physical system that doesn't
exchange any matter with its surroundings, and isn't subject to any net force whose
source is external to the system."
... ... ...
      Neither can this kind of closed system be demonstrated to actually exist, any where.
... ... ...

partial quote

For mastering the development of free-energy devices we have to improve our knowledge of the nature of the quantum vacuum.

Big assumption !
                  Maybe for you not for me.

[sm0ky2]

Let us consider a gas cloud in space cooling, condensing, collapsing upon its' own gravity over a duration of time, and becoming a solid mass.


The assumption is that entropy is at a maximum in the gas state,
and that as a condensed solid entropy is at its' lowest.


From chaos -> to order is what physically occurs.


If we think in terms of technologies like a solar concentrator or acoustic or optical resonance
where we condense small energies from a large area into great energies at a single point.
"input" can be as negligible as an influence or background noise.


a crystal radio can be powered by signals from the stars just as easily as from a nearby radio station.
with the right frequencies and amplification, can power limitless devices.


we see a world around us bright in color and for many this is all they know.
Walk around with infrared glasses for a day then again with ultraviolet
And you find two different worlds to explore.


Then we realize that these worlds exist in every spectrum, and with advanced optical devices we can explore each of them and discover, not only new things but new perspectives on how nature relates to each of these frequencies.


The same can be done with sounds both above and below our spectrum of hearing.
And again in the electromagnetic above and below our abilities to detect it.


Light itself most likely is a manifestation of a 5th dimensional force or constraint placed upon our portion of the local universe, of which we know very little.
It is this 5th dimensional link that bridges relativistic gravitation and dopler shift.


Ionization and lasing can be stimulated from plentiful renewable resources and energy harvested therefrom. An area that has lost interest, but never viability, over the last 200 years.


renewable and even organic battery systems as well as biological gas production could be easily industrialized, with little funding and political support.


A tunnel from one geographical region to the next can exploit tremendous differences in atmospheric pressure, to power arrays of wind turbines which generate more reliably and at a much greater efficiency and lower cost than traditional wind energy.


The oceans provide endless cyclical motion just waiting to be geared to our crankshafts.


Rivers and lakes providing unstoppable force, neglected and paved over.


We dont always need to understand to source of the energy, only how to use it.