Disprove this method of extracting zero point energy

>Get off your high horse
you sound like my Grandpa

Their math on the atoms isn't sound.

An actual Casimir effect is a negative pressure formed between two parallel plates. The pressure arises because of interference of vacuum fluctuations.

What is described in the patent is just an electron stripper, very different from the casimir effect.

Even so, lowering the total energy of the atom, which is what they describe, won't do anything for a noble gas because there's no way for the electrons to excite or dexcite, except for exciting the outer shell, ionizing the atom.

There is no discussion about the ionization energy of the outer shell as it relates to the casimir effect.

What is possible however, is to take an atom with electrons already excited and pass them through the cavity, causing them to dexcite. However, the atoms will do this on their own anyways, so theres no real point to it.

Another possibility would be to pump the atoms with successive plates to "oversaturate" the electron shells, causing a cascade when it leaves the plates. This would require ionized atoms as well.

Tldr: they aren't using the casimir effect, and there's no way to gain energy by exciting the outer shell

There is no traditional exciting or dexciting going on here, the energy comes from the decaying ground state orbital.
So, you feed in a helium atom in ground state, the orbit decays somewhat in the cavity, heat is released. Atom exits the cavity, ZPE replenishes the orbital energy.

Could you post the link? I'm interested.

Just in case my explanation wasn't clear, here's a figure illustrating the process

>ZPF reenergises
Show that this is actually a thing and works as you advertise. Otherwise, you've got absolutely nothing.

From what I can gather the orbitals aren't actually degraded enough to change from one clear state to another. The equilibrium point of the orbital is just slightly lowered from the classical Bohr model, due to uncompensated Larmor radiation.

Predicted here: calphysics.org/articles/puthoff_Hyd87.pdf

Possibly verified here: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389212024959
And here:
estudogeral.sib.uc.pt/bitstream/10316/28082/1/ZPF_extraction_last.pdf

It's not a 100% thing yet, but there's no reason to just instantly dismiss it at this point.

That method will not be valid for forever, since that system will eventually be destroyed.

youtube.com/watch?v=ORS6tG2IBLo

While I don't believe in that free energy thing.

But you're acting like current physics are the bible right now and can't possibly be proven wrong.
If emperiments contradict it, it's wrong.

But I don't think OP has quite yet falsified any of it.

having a patent =/= it will work

Shifting the burden of proof
+
The argument from report
=
Take that, Internet!

The hero we deserve.

Why would it be destroyed?

Why the fuck do you want to play so much if there is not enought sun powered snowboard halls?

Want NSA kick your door again?

Question, what it does suck?

You still tested in only in suns sphere of works I think so...

Get the machine working, show us video....

The bohr model doesn't describe or allow for non quantized orbitals.
The only way to lower the ground state is to lower the vacuum energy, this doesn't happen from the casimir effect.
Any paper using classical mechanics i.e bohr orbitals to predict quantum motion should be dismissed as nonsense.

There's no such thing as partial decay, it completely breaks qm.

>no non-quantized orbitals

What about Lamb shift? Nonsense again?

Again, the bohr model and physical orbit of an electron are not what actually happens on the quantum scale.

Angular momentum of electrons does not cause them to lose energy as predicted by classical EM and is one of the reasons a new QM model was introduced.

This is true. Actually, this entire method is built up on stochastic electrodynamics, which compensates for Larmor radiation via ZPF.
SED is definitely the most crankish part of the whole thing, but it has had some successes. Plus, both experiments measured something, so that's interesting. Anything that rocks the pretty stagnant status quo is cool in my book.
I'm gonna bow out at this point, you've basically disproved it theoretically, going by QM model it won't work.
There's still this matter of experimental results though...

user here.
I believe the vacuum can be used to produce energy.
I believe that the experimental results could be meaningful, I just don't think what they measured is what they predicted. Interesting read anyways.

I submitted to do my senior research on measuring the casimir effect, but it was shot down by my advisor because we would have had to manufacture .6 micron diameter gold spheres.

This is the first time I've seen anyone actually concede an argument on Veeky Forums, it feels weird

I personally don't know enough about quantum mechanics to argue with you on this. I assume you've read the paper and aren't just responding to our summaries.

Might you be bothered to link me to some up to date literature on the subject?

I did read the paper, it is very well written, and interesting.

I admit I have not done any experiments to calculate energy levels of large atoms, molecules and compared them to bohr predictions.

I do know for a single electron, bohr's calculation was accurate. For large systems, even more than 2 electrons, the schrodinger calculations become unwieldy and must be solved numerically.

If you read bohr's original paper, he made the assumption that the orbitals are fixed distances from the nucleus. Had someone noticed this, the quantization of energy at small scales and the subsequent wave particle duality that results would have been found 40 years earlier!

What could be being measured by your experiment is the zeeman effect. But I don't know if your setup would have seen it or not.

I don't have any particular source to refer to you, but the semi classical model that is used in your theory is generally taught briefly, pointing out the failures of the bohr model to predict the statistical weight of spectral lines (related directly to orbitals) mainly because it assumes that both momentum and position can be known exactly. This is in direct conflict with the heisenberg uncertainty, which arises naturally from the schrodinger wave equations.

It is possible your argument is still valid, but it should be studied under qm and see if the same values are obtained.

I'd start by looking at the statistical change in probability density of a hydrogen electron when external forces are exerted (the negative pressure from the casimir cavity). Knowing what I know about qm, it will be difficult to calculate.