Can someone show me a design that has worked?

[Bessler007]

You actually never cited a patent that verifies over unity.  If you did cite it again.  Or do you mean the two patents of devices that might have verified zero point energy highlighted in blue below?

• In physics, the zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may possess and is the energy of the ground state of the system. The concept was first proposed by Albert Einstein and Otto Stern in 1913.

Don't you remember what you said?  Also do you realize there's a difference between OU (over unity) and ZPE (zero point enrgy)?  That's why there are two different words.  lol

The one thing I'm very skeptical about is your ability to find your arse with two hands, a map and a compass.


Bessler007
mib HQ

. . .
However I have already posted elsewhere that there is a patent verifying or acknowledging overunity only to have it dismissed as old technology! Then there is this letter from Tom Valone to NASA's chief scientist http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=2598 where he cites substantive experiments.

The significant part of this letter is

Substantive Experiments

I should also list the following US patents as the most significant in ZPE research: "Rectifying Thermal Electric Noise" by Charles Brown #3890161, and #4704622 by Capasso, which actually acknowledge ZPE for their functional nature. Capasso is an IBM engineer and indicates that his tunnelling device only works if ZPE is present, much like what Planck discovered and Koch recently detected in the lab. I tend to recommend metal-metal nanodiodes probably will be a popular brand for ZPE usage with millipore sheet assembly. I also cite the work of Yasamoto, et. Al. (2004, Science, 304:1944) covering peptide molecular photodiodes just 1 nm across -- another example of a molecular tool for studying this zero point energy that shows up on the molecular level.

*Now to answer your question:* YES, these diodes demonstrate substantive, greater than uncertainty generation of energy from ZPE. In fact, simple coils do as well! Don't believe me? Check out the frenzy of activity that I cite concerning Puthoff's right hand man, Dr. Eric Davis, as well as Prof. Christian Beck overseas.

However it looks as though no matter what you say to a sceptic they are stubbornly still going to believe what they want to be true rather than accept that what they have learned is a slightly different viewpoint. Even today it is as K. Popper said, "It is not so much that new ways of thinking become standard it is that the proponents of the old die out"

[PolyMatrix]

@Bessler007

Yes you are correct I never cited a Patent, Tom Valone cited the patent, I am repeating what Tom Valone said. The point about overunity is that the 'extra energy' comes from somewhere just as heat comes from friction, and one theoretical modal is ZPE is able to 'deliver' this energy. The alternative is that there is an unnamed energy that can be tapped at very specific harmonic frequency(ies). The difficulty is that each 'system' or device has at different moments in 'time' different harmonic frequencies according to the surrounding temperature, humidity, air pressure and who knows what else at this point.

For a moment I considered being a pedant and pointing out that OU is two words and ZPE is three, but then decided that it would be better if I showed that I understood your intention instead of deliberately teasing your desire to find inaccuracy in what I have said. Semantics is about meaning and communication is about getting that meaning from person to person and it is generally accepted that a person can say one word that is out of context but the meaning of what was intended is still clear or deducible.

So would you please point out where I have confused OU to mean ZPE. OU is about taking into account how a system can obtain energy from a source not normally considered in the standard ways of measuring energy. ZPE is as far as I understood the arguments is not part of the standard methods of considering energy input and output to date.

''Free Energy' is about obtaining energy from sources that cost little or no cost to obtain, it is not about OU, just to try and make that teminology understood too.

I cannot see anything to be gained from insulting people other than to motivate a response or action from them. The other purpose of insults is an attempt to inflict emotional pain. I accept that I may well be the things you perceive me to be. I would appreciate understanding as to what it is that I have said or done that gives you this perception.

However if you think these requests unreasonable that is Ok too, as I accept that you may have a busy life and might find the task distasteful.

[Bessler007]

• Yes you are correct I never cited a Patent, Tom Valone cited the patent, I am repeating what Tom Valone said.

Mr. Valone cited two patents, not one.  If you'd care to make a point about what he thinks about those patents as they relate to zpe then you'd first have to understand his point.  Parroting another's conclusion is simply deferring your thinking to them. 

Taking their conclusion:

• "I should also list the following US patents as the most significant in ZPE research: "Rectifying Thermal Electric Noise" by Charles Brown #3890161, and #4704622 by Capasso, which actually acknowledge ZPE for their functional nature."

and shifting to your assertion:

• "However I have already posted elsewhere that there is a patent verifying or acknowledging overunity"

is intellectually dishonest.  That's the point I'm making.

I seldom insult a person.  It's much easier to insult an idea.  A lot of times people can't distinguish between their idea and their person and hence take the insult personally.  Some ideas are very insulting and should have the favor returned.

Now if you're too busy to comprehend what Mr. Valone said about those two patents and present his case for him I'd understand that but you shouldn't restate his conclusion then attribute it back to him.  That's a misrepresentation.  You are not merely repeating what he said.


Bessler007
Cmdr, Black Helicopter Squadron
mib HQ


edit: replace "word" with "terms"; that should resolve the issue.

[Bessler007]

• So would you please point out where I have confused OU to mean ZPE.

When you take Mr. Valone's conclusion about two patents (not one) of support for zpe and restate it as being one patent that supports OU.


Bessler007
Cmdr, Black Helicopter Squadron
mib HQ

[Bessler007]

A precise definition of the the difference between overunity and zero point energy wouldn't hurt.  The difference is best seen in how the words came into the vocabulary and speaks to the source  of where the energy can come from to cause a motion or energy that never ceases.

Perpetual motion.

ZPE suggests the energy inherent in all matter (as Einstein postulated) can be used to cause the motion and overunity suggests ZPE could be that source or there could be other sources.

That's my understanding but it is the topic of another thread. 

The model I'm developing manages the geometry of space/time.  It should put to rest the idea that energy can't be created.  That's my goal.

In everyday communication, precision of terms isn't all that necessary but as some have pointed out (and have been thrashed for) when you're attempting to make a point to the scientific community you have to accept and understand their terms precisely and offer an explanation with an example in those terms.


Bessler007
Cmdr, Black Helicopter Squadron
mib HQ