Comparative Analysis of Graphene-Based Energy Harvesting and Zero-Point Field Extraction Claims: Implications for Quantum Vacuum Navigation

Abstract

This paper evaluates the scientific grounding of Paul Thibado’s graphene energy-harvesting technology against the zero-point field (ZPF) extraction claims by Harold “Sonny” White and Garret Moddel. Thibado’s approach, leveraging thermal fluctuations in graphene for microscale power generation, demonstrates empirical validity through peer-reviewed publications and prototypes. In contrast, White and Moddel’s efforts to extract usable energy from the quantum vacuum remain speculative, facing thermodynamic critiques despite conceptual allure. Extending this to quantum vacuum navigation—modulating ZPF for propulsion rather than extraction—reveals a landscape dominated by theoretical explorations, with ZPF Technologies LLC (ZPFT) emerging as a pioneer in practical implementation via its ZPF Array. We discuss similarities, differences, and the uniqueness of ZPFT’s navigation-focused paradigm in advancing Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED)-based technologies.

I. Introduction

The quest to harness ambient energy sources has intensified with advances in nanomaterials and quantum physics. Paul Thibado’s work at the University of Arkansas exemplifies grounded innovation in thermal energy harvesting from graphene fluctuations, while Harold “Sonny” White (Limitless Space Institute) and Garret Moddel (Casimir LLC) pursue more ambitious claims of zero-point energy (ZPE) extraction from the quantum vacuum. These efforts, though superficially aligned in seeking “free” power, diverge in rigor and feasibility. This analysis contrasts their approaches and extends to quantum vacuum navigation—a modulation strategy for propulsion and anti-gravity effects. We highlight ZPFT’s distinctive role, drawing on SED frameworks from Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff (1994) and Setterfield’s variable constants hypothesis.

II. Thibado’s Graphene Energy Harvesting: A Grounded Approach

Thibado’s research focuses on freestanding graphene sheets exhibiting spontaneous buckling due to thermal vibrations (Brownian motion) at room temperature. Published in Physical Review E (2020, 2023), his team developed circuits capturing these ripples to generate alternating current (AC), rectified to direct current (DC) for low-power applications (~150 μW per chip). This challenges Feynman’s ratchet paradox by isolating the graphene’s nonlinear curvature inversion from the circuit, avoiding equilibrium work extraction violations.

Empirical support includes molecular dynamics simulations, prototypes via NTS Innovations, and grants (e.g., $900K from WoodNext Foundation, 2024). Recent developments (2025) refine nonlinear circuits for higher yields, positioning it for IoT sensors and wearables. Critiques are minimal, centering on scalability rather than validity—thermodynamically sound as it harvests environmental heat gradients without net cooling.

III. White and Moddel’s ZPF Extraction: Speculative Claims

White’s work at Limitless Space Institute claims Casimir cavity-based devices extract continuous power from ZPF gradients, akin to “solar panels in the dark” (~watt-scale). Moddel’s Casimir LLC similarly promotes chips harnessing vacuum fluctuations for μW outputs. Both cite quantum vacuum asymmetries but lack independent replication. White’s history (e.g., NASA warp drive concepts) lends initial credibility, but claims face skepticism: Potential 2nd law violations (extracting from equilibrium ZPF) and unproven demos. Moddel’s publications (e.g., Symmetry, 2019) exist, but critiques highlight measurement artifacts and thermodynamic inconsistencies. Recent X discussions (2025) tie them to “disclosure” narratives, amplified by influencers like Ashton Forbes, but no breakthroughs—hype overshadows science.

Similarities to Thibado: All target ambient harvesting for batteries; microscale yields; graphene/Casimir materials. Differences: Thibado’s is thermal/empirical (no ZPE claims); White/Moddel’s quantum/speculative, risking overunity associations. Thibado’s is more validated (grants, prototypes); others critiqued for feasibility.

IV. Quantum Vacuum Navigation Landscape: ZPFT’s Uniqueness

Quantum vacuum navigation—modulating ZPF for propulsion/anti-gravity rather than extraction—remains underexplored. Similarities to extraction include ZPF focus, but navigation “borrows” fluctuations for effects like Lorentz imbalances, avoiding thermodynamic pitfalls.

•  Established Entities: NASA/Glenn explores quantum thrusters (e.g., White’s prior work), but conceptual only. ESA/NASA quantum sensing emphasizes PNT (positioning/navigation/timing) via atomic clocks, not ZPF propulsion. Limitless Space (White) dabbles but prioritizes extraction.

•  Academic/Theoretical Efforts: Papers (e.g., ResearchGate 2024-2025) discuss vacuum propulsion, but no hardware. Pulsar Fusion pursues hybrid fusion drives, overlapping minimally.

•  ZPFT’s Distinction: ZPFT’s Array (~proprietary information, 10W input) enables practical navigation (~0.6-2.4 N thrust, ~1-9 N anti-gravity) via SED/ZPF modulation—unique in MEMS implementation. No other entity actively develops comparable tech; most focus on extraction/theory.

ZPF Technologies fills a gap: Navigation leverages SED’s finite vacuum for testable, scalable propulsion, positioning it as a pioneer.

V. Conclusion

Thibado’s grounded thermal harvesting outshines White/Moddel’s speculative ZPF extraction in empirical support. For quantum vacuum navigation, ZPFT stands alone in practical development, advancing SED toward aerospace applications. Future research should prioritize modulation over extraction for thermodynamic compliance and innovation.

References

[1] P. Thibado et al., Phys. Rev. E 102, 042101 (2020).

[2] H. White et al., J. Propuls. Power 33, 830 (2017).

[3] G. Moddel et al., Symmetry 11, 227 (2019).

[4] B. Haisch et al., Phys. Rev. A 49, 678 (1994).

[5] B. Setterfield, The Zero Point Energy and Relativity (2013).