About Energy, the Quantum Vacuum and Orbo (Fernando Cobacho)

The following post has been submitted by Fernando Cobacho

When talking about energy, the first thing that we must realize is how little we know about it. We know so little, in fact, that we can only define it as the capacity to do work. But beyond that, we are unable to describe it in any meaningful terms.

We do know that energy can take many forms (kinetic, thermal, chemical, nuclear, electromagnetic, etc.). We also know that it is a quality of the Universe at least as fundamental as matter, if not more. And we know that energy and matter are closely related and interchangeable to a certain extent (as expressed by Einstein’s most famous equation E = mc^2).

We are also pretty sure that the Law of Conservation of Energy is true. In other words, energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is only transformed. Thus, all of our energy “generation” methods transform one form of energy into another form of energy that is more useful to us (mostly thermal, kinetic, or electric) that we then consume (i.e. dissipate).

For example, the majority of our energy “generation” systems transform into heat the inherent chemical energy of some fuel by means of a chemical reaction (combustion). In some cases, the goal of those systems is simply to produce heat. In other cases, the final goal is to produce kinetic energy (either for performing mechanical work or for electricity generation). This is achieved by further transforming the resultant thermal energy into kinetic energy with the use of an engine or turbine.

Nuclear energy “generation” works in a similar way, except that the fuel’s reaction isn’t chemical, but nuclear fusion or fission instead.

On the other hand, fuel cells transform chemical energy directly into electricity.

Wind, wave, tidal, and hydro transform the kinetic energy of some mass of air or water into electricity via an electric generator.

Geothermal and solar-thermal transform the Earth’s or the Sun’s heat into electricity via a heat exchanger, a working fluid, a turbine, and an electric generator (or a Stirling engine and an electric generator).

Thermoelectric devices transform heat from any source directly into electricity.

Photovoltaic panels and rectennas transform electromagnetic energy of different wavelengths into electricity.

And piezoelectric devices transform kinetic energy into material stress, and then, material stress into electricity.

I may have forgotten some other energy “generation” system. But I think that the ones that I have covered serve the purpose of showing that all energy “generation” is nothing but an energy transformation.

Now, we also know that the quantum vacuum contains an infinite amount of energy in a primordial state or pure form. This infinite amount of energy has been mathematically renormalized into a finite number commonly quoted as 10^113 joules per cubic meter. As Nobel laureate Richard Feynman used to say, “there is enough energy inside the space in this empty cup to boil all the oceans of the world.”

Before him, Nikola Tesla knew this as well, and went even further to say: “Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic – and this we know it is, for certain – then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.”

If we view the Universe as a closed system, energy is constantly circulating. First, it flows from the quantum vacuum into matter (endowing it with nuclear and chemical potentials, electromagnetic energy, kinetic energy, and thermal energy). Then, as material interactions occur, energy is transformed from one form to another. And finally, all energy is dissipated back into the quantum vacuum.

Therefore, the vacuum itself is acting like an unlimited energy reservoir that powers the Universe and collects all the energy once it is used, without any of it ever being lost. And we, humans, use some of that energy along the way by transforming it to fill our needs before it gets dissipated back into the vacuum.

Now, wouldn’t it be great if we could just transform vacuum energy, instead of some secondary form of energy, directly into heat or electricity (like atoms do)? Well, this is what Nikola Tesla foresaw that would happen some day. And this is what Orbo may be doing.


Note: If you like the ideas expressed in this post, you may also enjoy reading the work of Thomas Bearden, especially his monumental masterpiece Energy from the Vacuum. More information can be found at: cheniere.org

Fernando Cobacho
  • snowvoardphil

    I wonder if Frank could tell us what kind of shipping fee he paid and for what shipping service (some times it takes more then a month for me to receive something from china)? I read some people got a tracking number, it would be nice if they would be so inclined as to tell us when the parcels are planned to come in.

    • ecatworld

      Shipping fees were 60 euros, and Steorn shipped via DHL Express. They shipped last Thursday.

  • georgehants

    When one is trying to discover the Truth one must look at all the scientific Evidence without following any restrictive Dogma.
    Science Proves That Human Consciousness and Our Material World Are Intertwined: See For Yourself
    Nikola Tesla said it best, “the day science begins to study
    non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in
    all the previous centuries of its existence. To understand the true
    nature of the universe, one must think it terms of energy, frequency and
    “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real” – Niels Bohr

    • FC

      Thank you for your input. I totally agree.

  • FC

    That’s a fair point.
    But personally, I think it’s a matter of time before the controversy gets resolved. So I rather keep an open mind.

  • Roland

    My personal challenge is trying to separate my reaction to Bearden’s economic and social commentary, which seems seriously whacked, from whatever insights he may or may not have about physics.

    So far I’m failing other than having become more intrigued by magnets.

    • FC

      Fair enough.
      Personally, I don’t need to agree 100% with everything somebody says to recognize that some of his opinions carry a heavy load of common sense a verifiable truth in them.

  • Job001

    One theory is that space and time are zero, nothing, nada. Phony physics “renormalization” pretends otherwise. New evidence of black matter and energy specifics rather than speculation may support the nada theory,

    New discoveries are evidence that spacetime may have been previously misconstrued as being something rather than nothing with stuff dispersed in it.

    Einstein and perhaps Feynman were confused by the data abnormalities(Einstein waffeled over and regretted his necessary unexplained spacetime constant).

    Modern cognitive bias science may support the notion that esteemed theories or scientists do not get challenged, even when the data has changed. Such bias is not evidence of excellent science.

    IMO, Warped spacetime is unfalsifiable nonsense.

    One cannot warp zero, zero is zero, not warped zero.
    BTW, nada is just a theory guys, so one need not go warped ape on me.

    • Ophelia Rump

      How does that theory explain the Casimir effect?

      • Job001

        The stuff present, not spacetime, including fields, particles, black energy or mass, energy in detectable forms, photons, etc. This stuff is not the nothing of spacetime, IMO.

        • Zephir

          Nobody says, the spacetime is nothing. The space-time is considered void and empty in relativity theory only, but in another theories it’s full of virtual particles and similar stuffs. The variable density of these virtual particles (or rather the disbalance of their types) is what would make the space-time curved. The Casimir force is the result of such a disbalance too.

      • Dave Lawton

        I would rather call it the Heaviside effect.
        It was Oliver Heaviside in Elelectromagnet theory 1897 who pre-empted
        Casimir.“Thus two bodies which appear to appear to attract are pushed together. The case of two large parallel material planes exhibits this in a marked manner,for e is very small between them,and relatively large on their further sides” “It would
        appear that we must go to the ether to find the the source of all energy.” i.e. zero point energy.

    • FC


      Yes. There are many interesting theories around. 🙂

      Personally, I have my own problems accepting Relativity.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Where does that number 10^113 J come from? According to WolframAlpha, that would be “~~ 5×10^43 × estimated mass-energy equivalent of the universe (~~ 2×10^69 J)”.


    • FC

      From here:

      In any case, this number (or any other) is the result of a renormalization. The actual quantity is deemed to be infinite.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I hope the theorists are wrong this time, since otherwise everybody might be able destroy the universe from their kitchen 😉

        • Andreas Moraitis

          to destroy…

          • FC

            I totally agree. That is certainly a major concern. As a species, we are definitely not prepared yet to handle so much power.

            • Zephir

              On the contrary, the utilization of ZPE energy would remove the insintric problem with overheating of Earth, which would get relevant during massive utilization of cold/hot fusion – because the ZPE devices are perpetuum mobiles of 2nd kind, which cool itself. And the ZPE energy will be always relatively diluted, i.e. with no danger of malicious weaponization like at the case of fusion.

        • Zephir

          In dense aether model our situation is analogous to situation of waterstriders, who are living at the water surface and who decided to utilize the energy of Brownian noise in it. So that they arranged the pollen grains for to capture the (portion of) its energy. How the water surface could be destroyed with it? IMO it’s completely safe.

          • FC

            According to Tom Bearden, two Nobel prizes were awarded in 1957 to Lee and Yang for substantiating the process for extracting vacuum energy. It’s called broken symmetry.

            • Zephir

              Yes, this is another perspective how to look at it (not very intuitive at the case of Orbo Cube technology though). The trick is, the EM wave is propagating slowly inside of high permitivity material and when the density fluctuations are of comparable speed, then the symmetry of magnetic and electric component may get violated (compare my former remark here )


              Although these Nobelists weren’t definitely appraised for practical utilization of vacuum energy – only for finding, that the symmetry can be broken at all. These prizes were given in times, where the formal approach to mainstream physics culminated, the Internet didn’t exist yet and the censorship of free energy technologies was therefore quite consequential.

              • FC


                I agree that Nobel laureates Lee and Yang only provided a theory.

                But many reputable scientists have provided experimental proof. For example, Victor Klimov from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, whose overunity PV cell was successful replicated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

                • Zephir

                  I don’t understand the context of your remark: Mr. Klimov neither got Nobel prize, neither proved broken symmetry, utilized the less. Why are you talking just about him – and not about Britney Spears for example?

                • FC

                  The result of Klimov’s experiment is asymmetrical (1 photon in, 2 or more electrons out).

                • Zephir

                  And? Is it supposed to have something to do with symmetry breaking finding appraised by Nobel prize?

                • FC


                  It’s a matter of opinion. In my opinion, Klimov’s work proves asymmetrical operation and extraction of energy from the quantum vacuum.

                  But you may hold your own opinions. I won’t try to challenge them.

                • Zephir

                  The solar cells PN junction behaves like the angled roof collecting electrons which are jumping above it like the elastic balls. Most of electrons gets trapped, but many of them bounce from PN junction and they’re wasted for electricity production in this way (so called the hot electrons). Klimov has found an arrangement which is able to trap these hot electrons and force them into fall along the roof – you may think, he proposed to cover the roof with sparse net, which is trapping electrons bounced from solar cell junction and returns them back. I.e. his finding eliminates one type of loses in solar cells, but it can never bring overunity, symmetry violation the less.

                • FC


                  As far as I understand the workings of PV cells (and I may be wrong), normal PV cells produce one electron for every photon that hits them. But some PV cells are more efficient than others in capturing those electrons.

                  On the other hand, Klimov’s PV cell produces several electrons for every photon that hits it, regardless of its efficiency to capture them.

                  That looks very much like asymmetrical operation to me. But as I said, everyone is entitled to have their own opinion.

                • Zephir

                  Nope, it just traps the same electron multiple-times, thus eliminating loses…

                  Try to think about this: if Mr. Klimov would propose just a suspicion of true overunity, you can be sure, he wouldn’t be promoted with NewScientist, but ignored with no mercy in the same line like Nicola Tesla and others. The mainstream physicists is pretty sensitive to whatever overunity claim and they do consider it as an evidence of crackpotism.

                • FC


                  Klimov never claimed himself that his PV cell is overunity. In fact, he was very careful to state in all his papers that its maximum efficiency is 100%. He didn’t want to lose his job.

                  It was Herb Brody (former editor at MIT’s Technology Review magazine and who currently works for Nature) who suggested such a possibility in his New Scientist feature article and in his correspondence with Bearden that everyone can read:

                • Zephir

                  The “the superexcited electron” from Your link is just the “hot electron”, I talked above. These electrons represent common problem in solar cell development, as they waste energy of incomming photons in similar way, like the droplets splashed at the roof instead of absorbing and falling down. Klimov is not first, who solved this problem http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/dec/14/solar-cell-grabs-hot-electrons

                  IMO Tom Beardeen is way too optimistic, if he believes, that it can lead to overunity and that it has something to do with symmetry breaking.

    • Zephir

      The mass density of vacuum can be derived easily from its internal energy density using a gravity radius of the Planck energy density and E=mc^2 formula (it’s about 2.5E91 kg/cubic centimeter). I sometimes compare the vacuum to nearly mirror-like flat surface of molten iron inside the arc owen: despite the iron is so hot, for hypothetical creatures living at this surface like the waterstriders there is no apparent way, how to drain this energy, because their ability would depend on gradient of energy density, instead of just energy density content.

      But the situation is not so extreme for us anyway, as we can actually drain the energy of vacuum indirectly via various materials, where the density fluctuations are slowed down by their atoms in similar way, like the frequency of vibrations of pollen grain inside the water gets lower, than the frequency of water molecules by itself.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Is it correct that “m” means here the mass of all virtual particles that would fit into a certain volume? If so, how can we know that this maximum could be reached in the real world?

        • Zephir

          The GUT theory deals with this subject. But I don’t think, the GUT energy is the practical limit for energy density, which is way lower. According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly and according to formalism of general relativity theory, the effects of measurement/observation cannot propagate faster than with speed of
          light. Apparently some compromise will apply here..


  • Zephir

    This is a good intro into ZPE technologies, namely the link to Colonel Thomas Bearden site. But I think, that the Steorn Orbo could be explained even with semi-classical physics, especially in connection to recent research of direct converters (rectifiers) of light to electricity.


    The metallic contact of graphite or nanotubes behaves like the fast Schottky diode and when only tips of graphite or nanotube plates get in contact with metal, then it can rectify very fast voltage fluctuations – including these ones, which occur inside of polarized electrets naturally. What I think is, the Steorn Orbo Cube cells are formed with mixture of wax with graphite dust, placed between two electrodes in molten state and polarized with high voltage while cooled. This device therefore rectifies the thermal noise and it gets cooled, when we drain some current from it.

    For more details you may visit my former remarks here https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/3qyhml/new_video_reveals_that_steornt_orbo_powercube/

    • FC

      Until Steorn start delivering their products, allowing for third-party testing to rule out possible energy sources, your guess is as good as any other.

      • Zephir

        So far I’m the only who proposes connection of wax with graphite and particular physical mechanism behind it, so it can be experimentally tested. And my motivations for it are provided at the above link, I’m not cooking from water.

        • FC

          Absolutely. The depth and detail of your thoughts on the subject are way beyond the intended goal of this post. This post is more about some fundamental notions that anybody can understand than about a carefully developed hypothesis on the workings of Orbo.

          • Zephir

            OK, so you did provide a general framework and now the others may come with proposals of various particular methods, how it could be actually done, My explanation based on thermal fluctuations doesn’t doubt the ZPE framework of overunity technologies, because these thermal fluctuations originate from ZPE of vacuum in this way or another.

            But I don’t think, that the Steorn ORBO would actually work at the absolute zero temperature, which is also the way, in which my particular explanation can be tested. And I even don’t think, that we could use the Steorn Orbo for free heating of our homes: the energy of electricity, which would be drained from it would be replenished by its cooling bellow room temperature. This conclusion can be also experimentally tested.

            • FC

              Exactly. I won’t even try to pose a hypothesis myself. I rather wait for people more knowledgeable and prepared than me to test the OCube if and when it becomes available in order to determine the most probable source of energy it is drawing from.
              But you are definitely free to bring forth whatever ideas you may wish to share with the rest of us.