Zero Point Energy doc
Download 0.97 Mb. View original pdf
|
| ZP OWER C ORPORATION PAGE OF 352 Z ERO P OINT E NERGY For an amiable Texan, Shoulders is remarkably closemouthed about the product he is said to be developing. But he is open about the advantages of condensed charge. Using beads of condensed charge, we have already made transistor-type switches with speeds of less than one trillionth of a second. That’s ten thousand times faster than you can buy, and I think we’re going to get a lot faster than that Shoulders says. In fact, engineers working with conventional chips a couple of inches long are having trouble figuring out how to speed the passage of electrons from one side to the next. With condensed charge technology, however, electrons move so rapidly that a single circuit could be afoot across. Long, compact circuits working at high speed would enable us to build machines with far less bulk than today’s technology. For instance, Shoulders says, we could build a hundred-horse-power motor no bigger than the shaft it takes to deliver the torque power, or a flat-screen TV with all the electronics built right into the display. You could use the screen for anything from hiqh- definition TV to computing. Simpler yet an X-ray machine that fits inside a hypodermic needle. You could put it into the patient’s body to irradiate a tumor, say, without exposing the other organs to X rays. We already have companies experimenting with these things Perhaps most incredible, CCT maybe available soon. Condensed charge devices are astonishingly easy to make, Shoulders says. We can get rid of the complicated photographic techniques I had to invent to make microchips and use simple etching and stamping. This is really low-tech. Any Third World country can do it Though Shoulders works closely with Puthoff, he is reluctant to admit that CCT derives from zero point energy for sure. There are at least four competing theories that might explain condensed charges he says, and though zero, point energy is a likely candidate, I can’t say which theory wIII turnout to be right Other scientists give Puthoff’s work on zero point energy mixed reviews. Timothy Boyer, whose papers inspired Puthoff in the first place, for instance, disagrees with Puthoff’s explanation of gravity. As far as I am concerned, the idea is fuzzy and the calculations ambiguous Boyer says. To think in terms of the curvature of space-time is a much more useful, extensive idea Physicist Alfonso Rueda of California State University at Long Beach, on the other hand, is sympathetic to Puthoff. Rueda studied vacuum fluctuations, using them to explain both the enormous power of cosmic rays and the dense concentration of stars at certain intersections of the universe. Rueda feels Puthoff has presented some powerful evidence for his idea that zero point energy holds atoms together. And he is impressed with Puthoff’s treatment of gravity. I think he is on the right path |