[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: ZPE generators
On Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:12:48 -0700 kyle <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>Steve VanDevender wrote:
>> email@example.com writes:
>> > Kyle,
>> > What is a ZPE generator. I'm just a poor engineer and have
>> > heard of such a thing.
>> > Thanks,
>> > firstname.lastname@example.org
>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
>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
>scientists that are too far out, and will believe anything. I'm in
>between, a good standing point. ZPE may be replenished by special
>> There are some theories being floated around the physics community
>> vacuum not being really completely empty, but a sea of sub-particle
>> energy fluctuations calculated to have a rather surprisingly high
>> density. This energy is supposedly what virtual particle formation
>> draws from. Kyle is subscribing to an even more radical belief that
>> this zero-point energy exists, it's possible to extract energy from
>> permanently, which I'm rather dubious about (as you might guess from
>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
>only 100% conversion. O/U is better.
???????????????????? Say WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate to say it, but
how is it possible to get greater than 100% matter to energy conversion.
Even if ZPE is where matter and energy comes from, there are bound to be
entropy losses. I WOULD like to see a list of references that I can
study myself, but until then, this sounds like perpetual motion. Sorry.
P.S. I have to agree, though, that the present price of antimatter is
prohibitive, but I'm an engineer, I get paid to solve production