I suggest you carefully check exactly what the physicists are saying. People like Tom tend to misunderstand them through wishful thinking. Look beyond Tom - there are much more qualified people able to answer your questions.

Zero point energy is the lowest energy state of a system. By definition no further energy can be extracted from the system.

The closest we come to a theoretical use of zero-point energy involves systems for opposing the Casimir force. Theoretically you might convert zero-point energy from the Casimir force acting on charged plates to mechanical, heat or electrical energy. However, this theoretical conversion process requires more input energy than you get out through the need to mechanically or electrically return the charged plates to the zero-point.

Hence it is theoretically possible to convert the zero-point energy into something usable by applying even more energy from a source that is less usable. Maybe you have a case for increasing the efficiency of some machines but it will never be to the point of over-unity.

Doesnt E=mc^2 also makes sure burning coal delivers energy? Its been some time since I had this at school but arent the reactions in a nuclear reactor or a coal plant basically the same? The input is a high-energy substance and then you start a chain reaction which changes them into lower-energy substances.

No.

There is a loss of mass in fission; there is no loss of mass in the burning of coal (or anything else)

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

So the end products from burning coal dont weigh less than the coal itself (albeit an unmeasurable difference)? Are you absolutely sure of that?

No, the end products have the same mass as the beginning.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Absolutely! When we burn coal we do this:

Coal(mainly carbon and hydrogen) + oxygen -> water + carbon dioxides
That's called combustion. The mass is equal on both sides.

When we split the atom we do this:
U-235 + neutron-1 -> Kr-92 + Ba-141 + gamma rays
On the left the mass is 235+1=236 and the right is 92+141=233
We have lost three units of mass as the gamma rays and motion of the lighter elements. This is our energy. The process is called fission.

The proposed machine is NOT using zero point energy, it is supposed to use vacuum energy. These are not the same.
The site itself says so:
Vacuum energy is not a lowest energy state. It is the energy that manifests itself through vacuum fluctuations. And that's where Bearden's proposals lack credibility. How does one break the Planck scale symmetry to achieve a macroscopic difference in potential with current technology ? Can't be done as far as I'm concerned.
The fact sheet (http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/F...0Problem10.doc)
referred to on the site is simply wrong in claiming there is a violation of the 2nd law because since the energy source is the vacuum energy, the devices are not isolated systems and as such there can be no violation of the 2nd law.
Bearden has to make up his mind. Either it's based on zero-point energy and there may be a violation or it's based on vacuum energy and there can be no violation.

Such basic errors, combined with the extravagant conspiracy theories found on the site, and the non-convergence with the ideas of Tsung-Dao Lee lead me to reject all this as a load of bollocks.

Didn't waste much time reading Bearden (the real physics is far more interesting and fruitful) and took Mare's word for it.

Zero point energy is a component of the vacuum energy. But Bearden being Bearden obviously has no idea what he is measuring with his wonder machine!

You forgot the 3 neutrons that get emitted.
The mass loss is very small, but when multiplied by the speed of light squared the energy output is huge.

The energy output of burning coal is so low, that when you divide it by the speed of light squared, the mass loss is too small to notice.
But it is there.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

What neutrons?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

So i was right after all.

Indeed I did! How stupid of me - I knew they were there, but in my zeal to explain something I thought I understood - I forgot them. I have fallen victim to the same arguments I used to disprove Bearden.

I'm interested but not 100% convinced. I best go read some.

OK erikvv - I'm convinced! Full points to you.

The loss is theoretically there but we haven't measured it. I wonder if we will ever be able to?

Are you talking about the combustion or the fission?
Combustion is entirely enthalphic. If it weren't there would be beta-decay or gamma radiation which would make the oxidation process radioactive. It's a simpe exothermic redox reaction. Where do you get the idea there is loss of mass, theoretical or not ?