[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: ZPE pages
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 21:54:05 +0200 (MET DST) Zenon Kulpa
>I have looked at the URLs you gave, and here goes my opinion.
>> From: kyle <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> You wanted references? Here they are: And I have more.
>Should be: http://www.tyrian.com/IPS/MR/00000190.html
>Contains a bibliographic entry only:
>Puthoff, H. E.
> Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic Zero-Point Energy
> Vol. 44, N.5, p.4857-4862
> Physical Review A --Nov 1,1989
>>From the title it seems to be a speculation as to the possible
>physics behind ZPE. Certainly does not signify near possibility
>to construct and use ZPE generators.
>If I am mistaken, please scan and send us (the relevant fragments of)
>the text of that paper.
>Sorry, all these sites display very marked features of
>pseudoscience. Extraordinary claims of simple
>devices generating kilowatts of "free energy" but
>none of them repeatable by others than their designers.
>Although one cannot dismiss altogether that some
>of these ideas might one time prove to be viable
>(though I personally doubt it), one certainly cannot
>claim that we have already, or will have in near future,
>ready-to-use "free energy" devices.
>Show me either REPEATABLE experiments with sound
>physical/theoretical explanations why they work,
>or a company selling with profit the energy from
>their "free energy" plant.
>Then I will give the matter a second chance.
>As yet, I see there only unsubstantiated claims
>and a lot of outcry about "conspiracy" of scientists and
>governments to suppress the activity of "free energists"...
>> I'm no fool, I am a scientist, and I don't just accept any idea that
>> comes along. Perhaps "professional" scientists are to "good" to
>> to us amatuers? Amatuers flew first, built phones first, TV's, etc.
>> Listen to us more.
>I will listen when they deliver.
>Personally, I think you waste your time being too excited
>and preoccupied by unsubstantiated claims of pseudoscientists.
>You would made better use of your enthusiasm and intelligence
>learning some more hard science (though it is sometimes hard on
>gray matter, I know... ;-).
>It is for your decision, though.
>With best & friendly wishes
I fear I have to agree, though I don't automatically discount anything
new and unusual, the lack of repeatability appears to be a real problem.
Lets try to move on with known sources, and see where we go.
Also with best and friendly wishes