# Re: "zero-point energy"

James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Sun, 01 Dec 1996 21:43:43 -0800

At 09:26 PM 12/1/96 -0500, you wrote:
>James Rogers wrote:
>>
>> >As I said on the page and preeviously, it has nothing whatsoever to do
>> >with so called "prepetual motion" "zero point energy" or any of that
>> >other crap.
>>
>> Be careful what you throw into the "crap" category. Despite being dirtied
>> by the blatant abuse of crackpots, "zero point energy" (or perhaps more
>> correctly, "Lorentz-invariant zero point fields") is a very real phenomenon
>> and has significant implications both in propulsion and physics in general.
>snip snip.....
>>
>> I mean, who *wouldn't* be interested in the ability to arbitrarily modify
>> inertial mass and gravitation? The applications would be endless.
>
>I would definitely. The problem with energy that is at such an entropy
>state is that its at the bottom of the potential barrel. Sure theres a
>LOT of it down there, but its still down there rather than up here.

The ZPF is not an energy source. What ZPF does (in the propulsion sense) is
that it generates resistance to acceleration. Every time an object
accelerates, it causes a distortion in the ZPF. This distortion generates a
counterforce opposite of and proportional to the force applied to the object
to make it accelerate. If there was a way to eliminate or attenuate this
distortion, you could modify and possibly eliminate the inertial mass of an
object. Consider the possibilities: You could travel a very long distance
on almost no fuel, and you could take a 90 degree corner at 10,000 miles per
hour and experience no significant gee forces.

>However, as you said, the biggest brains have no idea right now of how
>to use it, while crackpots run around claiming breakthroughs galore that
>they can never prove. The effect I am using in my device has been

The mathematical complexity of the theory involved would generally discount
most crackpots based on their education alone. And the physicists involved
have been making slow, but productive progress. Like most scientific
discoveries, it takes a lot of slow grinding away in the lab to get to the
end point. And assuming that your propulsion device works, there would
still be limits on the acceleration due to the problem of inertia (and our
capacities to handle inertia) when applied to space travel. A ZPF solution
would eliminate inertia as problem entirely (as well as providing a very
efficient propulsion system with no moving parts).

>demonstrated to work by others. I also have an expanded description on
>my http://www.tpk.net/~retroman/Lorreydr.htm of a vector analysis
>showing how it achieves its performance. It is rather simplified for
>anyone to understand. WHat did you think of the multiphasic x-axis
>output chart I put up here?

I checked out the site, and the chart, but this leads me to a couple
questions. First of all, what is the spike in the output? Just curious.
Also, the output shouldn't be a simple sine wave based on the description of
the operation. It would look more like a sine wave with a Doppler shift,
although the net results in a multiphase system may be the same. Also,
although it is possible to bleed and store energy from a system and return
it to the system at any point without any type of mechanical linkage (for
example via some type of electromagnetic induction/propulsion system), the
net force on the entire system (including the non-mechanically linked
electromagnetic devices and all involved components) is still zero, although
added. No matter which way you slice it, Newtonian physics does require an
equal and *opposite* reaction *anytime* there is an acceleration of any
type. Your design, from what I can see and extrapolate, appears to obey
conservation of energy however. The speed up and slow down on opposite
sides of the cylinder would force some object, mechanically linked or
otherwise, to have a net force in a direction opposite the cylinder apparatus.

Incidentally, there is a type of pump which operates on a principle very
similar to your drive. I don't remember the name, but as an engineer you
might be familiar with it...

>If you can show my stuff to some people at Lockeed that are willing to
>check it out, I would really appreciate it....
>
I would, but I don't work there anymore.

-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com