RankingsPrimerArbiterPhysicistMathematicianContrarianQESites logClaimsSourcesResearch notes

2026-10-04 — MDPI Atoms (blocked) / CU Scholar (positive)

Access

  • https://www.mdpi.com/2218-2004/7/2/51 opened in Chrome, but reading the page gave "Permission denied for reading pages on this domain". WebFetch of the /htm version gave HTTP 403. mdpi.com is recorded as blocked (Chrome extension permission plus 403).
  • The same paper was found through Google at CU Scholar: https://scholar.colorado.edu/downloads/6395w823g. WebFetch gave 403, so it was fetched with curl and a browser user agent. Saved as files/Moddel-Dmitriyeva-2019-Atoms7-51.pdf.
  • arXiv:0910.5893 now serves the same 2019 text as its latest version: files/Moddel-Dmitriyeva-arXiv0910.5893-latest-version.pdf. The 2009 v1 was titled "Assessment of proposed electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy extraction methods" and was not separately retrieved.

Queries: Moddel Dmitriyeva "Extraction of zero-point energy from the vacuum" Atoms 2019 stochastic electrodynamics; Moddel Dmitriyeva 2019 atoms7020051 "Casimir cavity" gas "radiation" conclusion SED orbital not observed.

Paper

Moddel, G. and Dmitriyeva, O., "Extraction of Zero-Point Energy from the Vacuum: Assessment of Stochastic Electrodynamics-Based Approach as Compared to Other Methods", Atoms 7, 51 (2019), doi:10.3390/atoms7020051. Received 16 Feb 2019, published 23 May 2019. [web: https://scholar.colorado.edu/downloads/6395w823g]

Findings

  • Abstract (quote): "The first two approaches [nonlinear processing of the zero-point field; mechanical Casimir extraction] are shown to violate thermodynamics principles ... The third approach, based upon stochastic electrodynamics, does not appear to violate these principles, but may face other obstacles. Initial experimental results are tantalizing but, given the lower than expected power output, inconclusive." [web, p.1]
  • Origin of the idea: "based on unpublished suggestions by B. Haisch and H.E. Puthoff, the orbital energies of atoms inside Casimir cavities should be shifted ... However, under particular simplifying assumptions this shift is not predicted [46]." Ref. 46 is Cetto and de la Peña, "Environmental effects on spontaneous emission and Lamb shift, according to stochastic electrodynamics", Phys. Scr. T21, 27-32 (1988). An SED paper therefore exists that, under its assumptions, does not predict the shift. Lead for the reviewers. [web, p.9]
  • New data beyond 2012 (Fig. 9): He through 0.1, 0.2 and 0.4 µm uncoated filters. "The highest signal was registered from the 0.1 µm filter." The authors give two readings: a better ZPE mode match, or a higher pressure drop and so more frictional heating. [web, p.11]
  • Pumping-power argument: "the power required to pump gas through the Casimir cavities is more than three orders of magnitude lower than the expected power that could be harvested [8]". The authors also raise a "potential hill" objection (atoms would have to climb out of the lower-energy cavity state, paid for by the pump), argue against it, and conclude "we cannot totally rule out this potential hill argument." [web, p.14]
  • Detailed balance: "If the gas enters the Casimir cavity on a time scale that is much slower than the equilibration time, then the entire process occurs in quasi-equilibrium and detailed balance applies ... there would be no excess energy to shed." The authors conclude it "is not clear whether equilibrium considerations render it incapable of providing harvestable energy." [web, p.14-15]
  • Proposed improvements: uniform nanopores, imaging the radiation source, and measuring its spectrum to see whether it is thermal. [web, p.15]
  • Final conclusion: "Either fundamental constraints beyond what have been discussed here and the nature of ZPE preclude extraction, or it is feasible and we just need to find a suitable technology." [web, p.16]
  • Funding: "HUB Lab, Coolescence, and DARPA under SPAWAR Grant No. N66001-06-1-2026." Conflict of interest: "G.M. owns stock in a company founded to develop the gas-flow energy harvesting technology, Jovion Corporation, but plays no active role in the company." Haisch is thanked and also commented on the manuscript. [web, p.16]
  • Henriques (2014, Coimbra) is cited as an independent follow-up (see the estudogeral note).

Bearing on claims

  • Claim 2 (no thermodynamic violation): the co-inventor's own later analysis says the gas-flow scheme does not overtly violate the second law, but raises detailed balance and quasi-equilibrium as unresolved. This is the inventors' side stating its own open problem.
  • Claim 3 (SED basis): Cetto and de la Peña (1988), an SED analysis that does not predict the shift, is a primary lead.
  • Claims 1 and 4: the experiment status is unchanged from 2012 ("inconclusive"). No later gas-flow experiment by the group was found. The record goes quiet after 2012 for gas flow, and the group moved to MIM devices (2021). See sites.md, "Absence of evidence".