Re: starship-design: ZPE generators

[jimaclem@juno.com]

On Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:12:48 -0700 kyle <stk@sunherald.infi.net> writes:
>Steve VanDevender wrote:
>> 
>> jimaclem@juno.com writes:
>>  > Kyle,
>>  >
>>  >      What is a ZPE generator.  I'm just a poor engineer and have 
>never
>>  > heard of such a thing.
>>  >
>>  > Thanks,
>>  > jimaclem@juno.com
>
>A ZPE generator is a device (a REAL device) that draws energy from a
>vacuum. The vacuum is actually not empty, but, as steve says, a sea of
>energy fluctuations. The desity of this energy is thought to be
>negative, and studies seem to support this. The energy can be tapped 
>by
>two closely >.1nm placed conductive plates. Several people have built
>working devices to extract ZPE, one of which produces up to 100,000
>times the energy input. Its very expirimental, but more realistic than
>using antimatter, which doesn't pack nearly the same punch, and costs
>$100 Billion per milligram. Most scientist doubt that it exists, but
>this is simply because it would require revision of current theories,
>and humans like to think they know it all. Be warned, however, there 
>are
>scientists that are too far out, and will believe anything. I'm in
>between, a good standing point. ZPE may be replenished by special
>circumstances (theoretically).
>
>> There are some theories being floated around the physics community 
>about
>> vacuum not being really completely empty, but a sea of sub-particle
>> energy fluctuations calculated to have a rather surprisingly high 
>energy
>> density.  This energy is supposedly what virtual particle formation
>> draws from.  Kyle is subscribing to an even more radical belief that 
>if
>> this zero-point energy exists, it's possible to extract energy from 
>it
>> permanently, which I'm rather dubious about (as you might guess from 
>my
>> responses).  
>
>Sorry you feel this way, but ZPE has been tapped already. Heard of
>Hyde's machine? But most scientists don't listen to amatuers, since we
>don't have PhD degrees to show.
>
>> I'd rather work with plausibly exotic energy-generation
>> methods like antimatter.
>
>Antimatter is too expensive, where ZPE is cheap. Besides, antimatter 
>is
>only 100% conversion. O/U is better.
  Say WHAT!!!!!!!!!!????????  Even if ZPE is where matter and energy come
from, there are still going to be energy losses.  Send me a list of
references so I can study this myself.  I do agree about the price of
antimatter, though, I am an engineer, I get paid to solve production
problems.   :)