 |
|
 |
   |
 |
|
           |
|
 |
|
       |
|
 |
|
    |
|
 |
|
|
 LENR and "Cold Fusion" Excess
Heat:
Richard P. Feynman, in April 1963 lectures at the University of Washington (Seattle) published in The Meaning of It All (1998)
Albert Michelson, 1894
Common folk saying
Abstract 1. www.infinite-energy.com and www.lenr-canr.org 2. www.blacklightpower.com 3. Infinite Energy, No.7, March/April 1996 4. www.aetherometry.com and www.aethera.org
Introduction On the surface, all seems calm—at least to the so-called Scientific Establishment, in other words the mainstream scientific media. The latter includes prominently Science, Nature, Physical Review, Scientific American, American Scientist, The New York Times “Science Times,” and a host of other publications, which alternately ignore, mock, or misrepresent those scientific findings hard-won in laboratory experiments, such as are represented in the better papers that are presented at Cold Fusion/LENR conferences such as ICCF10. And, the major peer-reviewed publications in this Establishment do not accept papers on low-energy nuclear reactions and “cold fusion” phenomena—these are not even given entrance (since the 1989-90 period) into the vaunted peer review process. This fact is neither admitted publicly by the obstructing publications, nor noted by the community of science journalists, who should be among the first to investigate and expose this blatantly anti-scientific publication practice.
To the Scientific Establishment all is calm because there are no phenomena from table-top experiments that are allowed to challenge the basic foundational physics paradigms, which have been laid down to become what can only be described as a church-like “holy writ.” It is almost as though we are back in 1894 when the sentiment expressed in the above quote of Albert Michelson prevailed—all is well with Physical Science and “further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice.” That is essentially the dogma of mainstream physics circa 2003. Moreover, most scientists in the cold fusion/LENR field, whose experimental work is rejected by the mainstream, do not wish to challenge the foundations of physics either; they believe that cold fusion/LENR does not challenge those foundations at all and that their observations can be or will be explained by prevailing quantum mechanics and relativity theory.
Let us examine some fundamental assumptions. What are the paradigms that we have come to learn cannot be questioned, and who is saying that we cannot question them? Let me summarize the sacrosanct fundamental paradigms:
•Paradigm 1: It is impossible to transmute elements with ease in experiments performed without the presence of extremely high temperatures (millions of degrees K) or large acceleration voltages. (Natural radioactivity and natural or artificial fission are the only exceptions.) •Paradigm 2: It is impossible to obtain significant unexplained excess energy in experiments with an input energy: All energetic balances in all experiments must be explained by conventionally understood chemical reactions, conventionally understood nuclear fission, natural radioactivity, or conventionally understood nuclear fusion. If there is any other reported significant excess energy in an experiment that would suggest a new, unknown source of energy, these alleged experiments and claimed processes are prima facie to be regarded as mistakes, or worse. •Paradigm 3: The validity of Special Relativity cannot be questioned legitimately. It is such a well-checked theory that it has achieved the status of Fact, not Theory. Space and time cannot exist separately. They are entwined forever as “space-time.” (Witness this from Caltech Prof. David Goodstein, who has also disparaged cold fusion: “…there are theories in science which are so well verified by experience that they become promoted to the status of fact. One example is the Special Theory of Relativity—it’s still called a theory for historical reasons, but it is in reality a simple, engineering fact…” —from a video-taped lecture, “Atoms to Quarks” in The Mechanical Universe series. •Paradigm 4: The validity of the fundamental structure of Quantum Mechanics cannot be questioned legitimately. QM is open to many interpretations—The Copenhagen interpretation, the Multi-Worlds hypothesis, etc., but QM’s fundamental structure, as already revealed, is not open to revision at its foundations. •Paradigm 5: The so-called vacuum—a region of space-time, a plenum, that is devoid of atoms and molecules and is seemingly “empty”—may be pervaded by “Dark Matter,” “Dark Energy,” “electromagnetic radiation” and “quantum fluctuations,” i.e. zero-point energy (ZPE). However, no table-top experiment that has ever been performed can tap this vacuum and obtain technologically useful energies. Remarkably, it is now asserted in mainstream publications, e.g. Ref. 1, that Dark Matter comprises 30% of the substance of the universe and Dark Energy comprises 65% of the universe! Though the nature of these two cosmic constituents is entirely unknown—of course, theories multiply about what they are—the Establishment has the chutzpah to claim that a “Theory of Everything” is not far away and that that theory will most likely be found in terra-electron volt particle accelerators costing billions of dollars—and most certainly never in cold fusion/LENR experiments. •Paradigm 6: Gravitation is to be understood by General Relativity or its derivatives—i.e. by the curvature of 4-dimensional space-time. No other fundamental mode of understanding gravity can be allowed (such as “pushing gravity” theories2), and certainly no theory of gravity that would allow anti-gravity to be demonstrated easily in table-top experiments. This is most ironic because Establishment physicists freely admit that two major foundation paradigms to which they subscribe—Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity—have not yet been shown to be compatible and have not been unified in an acceptable manner to them. •Paradigm 7: The Second Law of Thermodynamics can never be violated in macroscopic systems. One cannot make a “Perpetual Motion Machine of the Second Kind” that would convert ambient thermal energy to useful work, with no heat rejection into a lower-temperature reservoir.
The foregoing is a highly restrictive set of dogmas within which scientists are expected to conduct their work. There can be no doubt that these are the intellectual walls that the Scientific Establishment has erected. True enough, a huge amount has been learned about Nature within the confines of these paradigm restrictions, and much technological progress has occurred too—but there is so, so much more to the universe and to what human beings surely will be able to do and become if they could be liberated from those restrictions! There are other restrictive dogmas in modern science, particularly in the areas of biology and medicine, but these seven enumerated paradigms are the fundamental constraints as they affect physics and chemistry and the topic of ICCF10—“cold fusion” and LENR. Those reporting nuclear phenomena and excess heat phenomena at this meeting are among those who challenge Paradigms 1 and 2 above, and I fully accept that this CF/LENR community has demolished those paradigms very effectively.3
The community of those who accept this general body of evidence, as they well know, are already heretical outcasts from the Scientific Establishment. Nonetheless, most in this community are very uncomfortable with discussing challenges to Paradigms 3, 4, and 5. They have accepted de facto the constraints of these three paradigms. It is the object of this paper to suggest that there is substantial evidence that negates those three paradigms, evidence which may be essential to understanding “cold fusion”/LENR. I will not discuss Paradigms 6 and 7, because opening the door to discrediting Paradigms 3, 4, and 5, is quite enough for one paper!—but I will suggest that these two latter paradigms, 6 and 7, are not valid either. In particular as regards Paradigm 7, there has been published an entire Conference Proceedings4 (from the AIP no less!), reviewed in Infinite Energy,5 which examines the extremely shaky foundations of Paradigm 7. This work should be of great interest to those looking ahead to employing excess heat from “cold fusion”/LENR in technological applications. I respectfully disagree with ICCF10 conference chairman Professor Hagelstein (and ENECO) that all heat engines will be forevermore fundamentally Carnot-limited.
The Mainstream Cold Fusion/LENR Paradigm: Its Limitations “Cold fusion” began with the assertion by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons (F&P) that evidence for previously unknown kinds of nuclear reactions and excess heat of large magnitude could be observed in certain electrochemical cells with heavywater-based electrolyte.6 They wrote, “…the data on enthalpy generation would require rates for reactions (v) and (vi) in the range 1011 – 1014 atoms s-1. It is evident that reactions (v) and (vi) are only a small part of the overall reaction scheme and that other nuclear processes must be involved.” (Reaction (v) was D + D ® T + H and reaction (vi) was D + D ® 3He + n.) They reiterated this in the discussion section of their controversial paper, “The most surprising feature of our results however, is that the reactions (v) and (vi) are only a small part of the overall reaction scheme and that the bulk of the energy release is due to an hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes (presumably due to clusters of deuterons).” Indeed, it was very reasonable for them to presume that a class of nuclear reactions might ultimately explain cold fusion—since some nuclear products had already been detected (tritium generation and low-level neutron emission, which were later confirmed in more exacting ways) and the magnitude of the excess energy was far too large to be explained by conventionally understood chemical reactions.
This set the stage for the battle that has now waged for 14-plus years, with the critics denying the existence of any evidence in support of the F&P nuclear reaction hypothesis— either from excess heat measurements or from measurements of nuclear products. Now, as I have said, the evidence for large magnitude excess heat production in the CF/LENR field is overwhelming, as is the evidence for a variety of nuclear products and emissions. The critics are profoundly wrong. That leaves the hypothesis posed by F&P initially that the “bulk of the energy release is due to an hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes.” Can that hypothesis be adequately defended, as so many in the CF/LENR field maintain?
The first experimental indication that F&P’s hypothesis might be correct came in early-1991, when Miles et al. found a correlation between the excess heat from F&P-type cells (or the lack of excess heat thereof in cases that were null) and the presence or absence of 4He signature in the gas evolved from the F&P cells in their lab.7 They reported this formally in the scientific literature in 1994.8 But while these remarkable results were being readied for publication, several new directions or offshoots had emerged from and within the CF/LENR field. In the spring of 1991, Dr. Randell Mills et al. reported significant excess heat from ordinary water cells with nickel electrodes, an energy which they deemed to be coming not from nuclear reactions, but from a new form of catalyzed shrinkage reaction via a drastically remodeled form of the hydrogen atom and a re-write of quantum mechanics, which is now called by Mills “Classical Quantum Mechanics” (CQM).9,10 These explanations (and even the claim of excess heat in ordinary water-based electrochemical cells) did not go over well either with the CF/LENR community or the hard-line Establishment critics of table-top anomalous physics. CF/LENR scientists, themselves outcasts from the Establishment, strangely enough have not paid much attention to Mills’ experimental work. This is most unfortunate, because it is compendious and strongly supportive of excess heat but also of non-standard, highly anomalous, spectral anomalies from hydrogen systems. This stance can be explained because of the very strong resistance by CF/LENR theorists to exploring foundational flaws in Standard Quantum Mechanics (SQM). Mills’ CQM work could shed considerable light on the problem of CF/LENR—these are results that cannot and should not be logically separated from efforts to understand CF/LENR results proper.
Randell Mills, for his part, wants nothing to do with the “cold fusion” field, in part because of the bad “PR” that cold fusion has acquired. But Mills, while accepting that his ”shrunken” (sub-ground state) hydrogen atoms (“hydrinos”) may well cause nuclear reactions due to their more charge- neutral presentation to other nuclei, does not believe that the excess heat being reported in CF/LENR experiments is of nuclear origin—i.e. the direct result of nuclear reactions with a mass-deficit of Dm, with an energy equivalent output found by E=Dmc2. This latter hypothesis within mainstream cold fusion we shall designate for brevity as the MCFH—the Mainstream Cold Fusion Hypothesis.
Though Mills’ CQM theory may itself have significant flaws, it does have two characteristics that recommend it: A. It seems to have very significant predictive power to suggest what hydrogen systems are likely to evolve excess heat, and which ones may not (more such predictive ability than most CF/LENR concepts), and B. CQM is not beholden to the “mainstream cold fusion hypothesis” (MCFH)—i.e. at least it allows the possibility that many instances of excess heat are not of nuclear origin per se. In this latter “Point B” Mills is likely closer to the truth (but possibly for the wrong reasons!) than are champions of MCFH theories. One only has to examine the 100% repeatable excess energy work of Peter and Neal Graneau in water arc explosions and air arc phenomena (see below and Refs. 25-32) to realize this. Neither the MCFH nor Mills is likely to be able to explain these phenomena.
In the early 1990s there also began to be increasing reports of heavy element transmutation phenomena in low-energy experiments; some of the most remarkable initial results came from John O’M. Bockris et al. at Texas A&M (see the Bockris story in Ref. 11). I well recall the extreme resistance to accepting these heavy-element transmutation claims in the period 1992-1994, expressed to me by some prominent cold fusion theorists, such as the late Julian Schwinger and Talbot and Scott Chubb. Today, heavy element transmutations are in general very well accepted in the CF/LENR field. Some of the most remarkable and definitive results that support such transmutation phenomena have been published by a group at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Advanced Technology Research Center.12,13 Talbot Chubb, for his part, believes he can explain such transmutations via an extension of his earlier theoretical framework that predicts 4He formation in or on metal lattices.14 I believe that this proposal is grasping at straws and represents an ad hoc proposal to preserve loyalty to conventional SQM. Talbot admits that his theory in which a “many-body wavelike deuteron system overlaps with a localized cesium-133 atom” to produce praesodymium may be a stretch. He writes, “I know the above sounds fanciful. It requires that quantum mechanics obey previously unexplored rules when applied to a many-body ion system bound within a multiplicity of shallow wells. These rules are not tested when a many body system is bound within a single potential well.” Better that he should consider that SQM just cannot handle this powerful form of blatant “modern alchemy” in which no special electrical energy input or loading is evidently required. To me, the Mitsubishi work strongly suggests that there is something deeply wrong with our understanding of atomic and nuclear structure—i.e. SQM has a Big Problem.
Of the many CF/LENR papers that report excess heat as well as nuclear products, one stands out for showing a quantitative relationship between excess heat and nuclear products, i.e. rough obedience to the MCFH. This is work that was reported first in 2000 at ICCF8 by McKubre et al. at SRI International.15 The group performed multiple tests of Dr. Les Case’s “catalytic fusion” process, which employs heated palladium-coated carbon catalysts in deuterium gas atmosphere. The replication team cross-checked its results with two types of calorimetry and it published data which shows the increasing evolution of 4He on multiple runs. Moreover, the group was able to correlate the quantity of helium produced at different times during each run with the excess energy produced. The regression lines for each form of calorimetry gave: Q=31±13 MeV/4He atom (for the gradient calorimetry method) and Q=32±13 MeV/4He atom (for the differential calorimetry method). The authors were careful to state: “Although these Q values include that of reaction [1] within their assigned uncertainties, the mean values for the 4He presented directly to the gas phase for analysis is only ~75% of that predicted by equation [1].” Equation [1] referred to is, of course, D + D ® 4He + 23.8 MeV (lattice), which corresponds to the hot plasma fusion D + D fusion reaction yielding a 23.8 MeV g ray. Error bars aside, it is very tempting to suggest that this data is highly suggestive of a kind of net D + D fusion reaction that produces 4He, but we must be cautious because: A. There isn’t highly accurate measurement of the energy-per-atom release and B. Because of the possibility that other nuclear change phenomena connected with alterative fundamental physics theories might eventually be found to yield the same net reaction results.
It is most disappointing that there has not developed more firm evidence to support the MCFH. There is a dearth of other results like the SRI data. There are also prominent experiments within CF/LENR that cast doubt on the rigor of the MCFH—but not, I repeat, against the basic validity of the large-magnitude excess heat and nuclear changes and emissions. To enumerate some of these puzzling results from within CF/LENR:
•Examining several abstracts presented to ICCF10 suggests that uncertainty remains about whether the helium production rate is commensurate with excess energy. One of the very best investigators, Dr. Melvin Miles, writes in his abstract16: “Furthermore, the rate of helium-4 production was always in the appropriate range of 1010 - 1012 atoms per second per watt of excess power.” The “yes or no” helium correspondence with excess heat production cannot be denied; he puts the chance that it is in error at 1/750,000— a fantastic experimental accomplishment. But the failure to pin down commensurate 4He with excess heat within less than two orders of magnitude is troubling. We also have the ICCF10 abstract of A. DeNinno et al., “4He Detection in a Cold Fusion Experiment.”17 The researchers indeed appear to have found anomalous 4He (by “a factor of about 20 out of baseline”), but they appear not to have an accurate assessment of its correlation with excess heat for they can only “estimate, at the present time, a lower bound for the produced energy.” Perhaps they will have more accurate results by the time of the conference. •One of the most paradigm-busting sets of papers to be presented at ICCF10 is by Drs. R.A. Oriani and J.C. Fisher.18,19 Using CR-39 particle track detectors immersed in Li2SO4 dissolved in heavy or light water, and using Ni and Pd cathodes, they conclude: “There is a causal relationship between electrolysis and energetic charged particles and that neither Pd nor D2O is essential for the generation of a nuclear reaction.” In John Fisher’s separate theoretical paper concerning this experiment he reports, “A theoretical basis is offered for the remarkable observation by Oriani and Fisher of a shower of about 250,000 energetic charged particles that occurred in the vapor of oxygen and hydrogen evolved from electrolysis. The shower was localized in space and time, originating a few millimeters above the surface of a plastic detector chip and lasting for a few seconds. The responsible nuclear reactions must have been sustained by the vapor.” Fisher’s polyneutron theory, which suggests that polyneutrons are omnipresent, has this implication, Fisher says: “The theory suggests that a single polyneutron can ignite a chain reaction that is sustained by 18O as fuel.” Sure, we still have the MCFH paradigm here in Fisher’s polyneutron theory, but in this experiment we are far removed from the notion of lattice-based nuclear reactions—are we not? Why not then consider even more radical theoretical medicine? • The work of John Dash and Dan Chicea: The apparent production (enhancement) of 235U from natural uranium foils via either glow discharge in hydrogen atmospheres or in electrolytic production is truly remarkable.20 This high-Z transmutation, if it is validated, shows how “easy” and omnipresent the transmutation phenomenon is. • In recalling some other papers from the past that may challenge the MCFH, we take particular note of Otto Reifenschweiller’s work, which was performed initially decades before the cold fusion era.21,22 In this work, the investigator essentially proves that there is a large—and reversible—temperature dependency of the decay rate of tritium. The author postulates that the formation of tritium doublets somehow can change the radioactive emissions of tritium nuclei. To quote the tornado-flung Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, “We are not in Kansas...” To explain this kind of phenomenon will require far stronger theoretical medicine than has heretofore been brought to bear on CF/LENR problems. • Finally, I take note of the increasing appearance of reported and reproduced transmutations of elements in biological systems. At least one such paper is in fact being given at ICCF10 by an experienced team.23 This work must be taken very seriously now—the researchers at ICCF10 will be presenting a technique that looks very promising for reducing the radioactivity of nuclear waste. The biological transmutation phenomenon has profound implications for CF/LENR theorists, most all of whom have preferred to ignore it. Dr. Ed Storms, to his credit, embraces it objectively. He wrote in December 2001 in his “Cold Fusion: An Objective Assessment”: “Transmutation is claimed to occur in living systems where the process becomes especially difficult to believe or understand. Indeed, people have advised me not to discuss this subject, as if the potential reader would be too immature to handle the intellectual conflict this discussion might cause.” The research in biotransmutation suggests that biological systems have discovered something in nature which they make use of to carry out nuclear changes; and using that “something” most definitely does not require the loading of Pd or Ni cathodes or any metallic lattice within a living system, which—apart from prosthetic devices in people—do not exist. Could it be that our basic atomic and nuclear physics models are flawed at their foundations? Could it be, perhaps, that those many researchers—in medicine and in biology, far removed from the CF/LENR field—who have found other kinds of anomalous behavior in biological systems, are in truth observing the signal of a pervasive medium that is ignored not only in medical and biology texts, but in physics as well? Indeed, that seems to me to be the essence of what is befuddling us all—we are ignoring most of the physical universe in attempting to explain CF/LENR with incomplete and obsolete physics. And, friends, that will just not work. It may “work” for academic speculators about “dark matter” and “dark energy,” who endlessly bend their theories to conform to the latest fashion and who have no ability or intention to discover world-changing technologies. But for researchers in CF/LENR, ignoring what constitutes most of the universe may be nothing less than suicidal.
This enumeration has been but the tip of the iceberg of the “anomalous within the anomalous”—in other words, this is clear evidence from the CF/LENR field itself that the MCFH paradigm must be reconsidered. Not that that paradigm is completely unworkable in all systems examined to date, but that the current theories cannot constitute a generalized explanation for all the phenomena even within CF/LENR proper.
My colleague Dr. Scott Chubb (the technical chairman of this conference) with whom I have an “agreement to agree to disagree” on matters of the acceptable breadth of the CF/LENR field, was properly frank and up-front in one of his ICCF10 abstracts24 when he wrote: “...it is not at all clear that key features associated with many LENR processes have been identified. For this reason, it is plausible that most ideas associated with LENR’s must be viewed as speculative.” Indeed, the central problem exhibited by CF/LENR theorists—as heroic as they have been—is that they have failed to comprehend or admit two glaring facts: A. The breadth of the CF/LENR evidence proper is so stupendous and Alice-in-Wonderland that there appears little hope for SQM/relativity to deal with it and B. CF/LENR theorists are ignoring—deliberately so—excess energy and other phenomena that are right at their doorstep, as we shall see next.
Electrically Stimulated Over-Unity Processes The MCFH paradigm that has grown so strong within the CF/LENR field, has unfortunately blinded many of its scientists to other anomalous energy phenomena, which appear to be far more repeatable on demand than CF/LENR phenomena have been to this point. This should be a caution and a warning that all may not be well with the MCFH and that broader theoretical models should be considered in attempting to explain CF/LENR. Not necessarily in the order of their fundamental importance, the following are brief overviews of other experimental data that CF/LENR researchers should examine carefully for their relevance to anomalous excess energy. This list does not exclude other claimed excess energy processes, but these are ones with which I am most familiar and in which I have the highest confidence:
•Peter Graneau et al.: Arc Discharges in Water and Air Peter and Neal Graneau and colleagues have pioneered the measurement of excess energy in very simple water systems, beginning in the mid-1980s.25-30 However, their experimental work with excess energy had precursors in work reported in 1948 by F. Frungel. By employing a capacitor discharge to a confined pure water sample, the Graneaus et al. achieved what they call a “cold fog” explosion of droplets, which is focused like a gun by a cylindrical confining channel to form an energetic jet. There is no evidence that this jet is from a “steam explosion”—hence the term “cold fog” which they use. They attribute the explosion to electrical repulsion forces among the fractionated water droplets, which are from 1 to 100 mm in diameter. The “slug” of water droplets (about one-third of the water, they say, is converted to droplets of fog or mist) is so powerful that it can easily penetrate 0.25-inch thick aluminum plate! In one set of experiments that involved the release of 25 to 36 joules of electrical energy from a capacitor into a several milliliter volume of water , the investigators calculated there could have been no more than a 6°C rise in temperature of the water—effectively laying the steam explosion theory to rest. Graneau et al. (1996) conclude: “Given the fact that thermodynamic and electrodynamic forces are orders of magnitude too small to bring about the arc explosions, we have to conclude that the experiments prove the existence of anomalous forces. Since every force in nature is backed up by a store of energy, the anomalous forces require the involvement of anomalous energy.” They conceive of the energy source in these water arc explosions as previously poorly understood release of “chemical energy”—positing that that the inter-molecular bonding energy of the droplet dispersion is less than original bonding energy within the liquid water. Thus, they claim that they are recovering a kind of stored “solar energy”—energy stored in the condensation of water in clouds. They also point to theories by J.-P. Vigier about “tight Bohr orbits” to try to further motivate a search for the energy source. The excess energy that they report is usually in the range 15% to 60%.
From my perspective, the stored “solar energy” theory of the Graneau’s is a desperate attempt to find a somewhat “comfortable” theory to explain their well-established, 100% repeatable excess energy. It should be noted that the experimenters certainly do not entertain any kind of MCFH nuclear explanation, nor is there any reason to employ such an hypothesis in this case. The essential system is electricity passing through water—not hypothetical surface or volume nuclear reactions on electrodes. However, apart from their dalliance with Vigier’s “tight Bohr orbit”-type of explanation (a distant relative of the Randell Mills hydrino theory), the researchers avoid considering whether a vacuum energy (aether energy) explanation might be possible. But those who have compiled considerable experimental evidence for a massfree (i.e. inertialess), non-electromagnetic aether have other interpretations to offer.
In reviewing Peter Graneau’s presentation at the Second Berlin Conference on Innovative Energy Technologies (June 13-15, 2002) at which they also presented, Paulo and Alexandra Correa commented on the Graneaus’ work (in their www.aetherometry.com posting):
“Their research in electrodynamic anomalous cathode reaction forces in water and air has had many points of contact with our own work on the PAGD [Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge Reactor (see below)], and subsequently on Aetherometry. We have followed the work of Peter Graneau over the years—and concur with much of Peter’s views on the solar origin of the chemical energy that is anomalously stored in water and air molecules. But whereas Peter’s analysis relies upon the conventional transformations of a supposed solar electromagnetic radiation into sensible heat and the thermal drift energy of molecular substrates, and sees the source of the anomalous energy in arcs as a property of covalent bonds, our aetherometric research has laid the basic scientific proofs for the existence of massfree electric radiation of solar origin and proposed an entirely new set of dependences of the electromagnetic frame upon this electric form of aether radiation. Moreover, the existence of fundamental adiabatic processes—responsible for enthalpic balance in basic chemical reactions and for energy transfer in noncovalent interactions—that remain poorly understood, has led our theoretical effort to propose a new functional and conceptual approach to the relation between sensible heat (in all of its manifestations—radiative, convective and conductive) and latent heat. Neither of the Graneaus accepts, in this context, that both of these processes are driven by massfree aether energy—electric and nonelectric—whose understanding requires new mathematical, physical, analytical and experimental tools. As Neil told us, his vision is not compatible with the notion of an Aether, stationary or dynamic; his approach is one tied to classical positivism, and in particular to the atomistic view of the particle world that remains dominant.”
In other words, even the Graneaus, who have such a brilliantly simple demonstration of an excess energy process, studiously avoid the notion that there can be any massfree anything in the “void” between what are regarded as “hard particle” atoms. Such is the strength of the dominant paradigms that the Graneaus can conceive of only “poorly understood” latent heat mechanisms to explain the perplexing excess energy they have so well documented.
The Graneau work has proceeded further to show that even air-arc’s—the laboratory version of ordinary lightning—exhibit previously unsuspected energy phenomena. Moreover, this air-arc work has now been published in a mainstream plasma physics journal and it demonstrates an excess electrical energy approaching 24%!31 Joule heat in a load resistor was found to exceed the energy supplied from the input capacitor bank. This percentage excess is a very conservative figure, the authors point out, because it does not take into consideration the thermal losses in other parts of the circuitry. The real excess power, they say, is more like 30-40%. The air arc excess energy work has now been replicated independently by a prestigious physics group in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, which includes our old cold fusion friend J.-P. Vigier.32
•David Wallman and Wilbur Dammann: CarboHydrogenTM Gas from Underwater Carbon Arcs Like the work of the Graneaus, the experiments of Wallman and Dammann at DW Energy Research, LLC shows that simple electrical arc systems can manifest apparent energy anomalies. The intent of Wallman/Dammann initially was to develop a controlled plasma technology that could disintegrate organic waste and at the same time generate a useful combustible gas.33 Their computer-controlled arc technology using carbon electrodes under water does indeed create an exceedingly clean-burning gas (nominally a mixture of H2 and CO), which can be used and has already been used in automobile and marine applications, as numerous independent tests have shown. Emissions of CO, NOx, etc. are exceedingly low. But testing the process also gave rise to an unexpected excess energy anomaly of great significance. Testing of the combustion value of the gas produced compared to the electrical power input and carbon input, reported in Infinite Energy in 1996, showed a range in excess power ratios (out/in) of 127% to 144%.34 This was very conservative and did not take into account the heating by the electrical arc of the water solution and test vessel structure.
•Randell Mills et al., BlackLight Power Corporation: Microwave-Generated Plasmas of Hydrogen and Noble Gases The work of Randell Mills and his colleagues has progressed remarkably since it was first announced in Fusion Technology in 1991.35 Mills has long since gone beyond his early work in ordinary water/K2CO3 electrolytic cells employing (typically) nickel cathodes and anodes—work which has been reproduced by several other groups, including one at NASA and another high quality reproduction at MIT Lincoln Laboratory (the latter, most regrettably, not yet published). Mills et al. at BlackLight Power Corp. in Cranbury, New Jersey have mounted what is one of the most direct threats ever to the entire foundation of Quantum Mechanics, because the compendious experimental data sets—if valid—prima facie cannot be explained by Standard Quantum Mechanics (SQM). There is convincing excess energy data of large magnitude and there are spectral emission lines that do not correspond to previously recognized atomic structure.
It should be of more than passing interest to those working in CF/LENR, that the most severe critics of “cold fusion” (e.g. P. Zimmermann and R. Park) have been mounting a very strong effort to attack the Mills work, which is increasingly appearing in quality peer-reviewed journals such as the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. As with the pathological skeptics’ attacks on cold fusion, the attacks on Mills’ work consist of perpetually inventive bogus criticisms of the experiments (the skeptics never offer any actual null experiments, of course), combined with self-satisfied arguments that SQM cannot be challenged. Sound familiar? If the past vocal physics establishment critics of CF/LENR have been temporarily focusing most of their firepower against Mills and ignoring cold fusion, it is because they perceive the Mills work, for now, as a greater threat to their theories and ideology. Indeed, Mills is a very severe threat to those air castles: what his teams predict will happen in experiments does happen. Those in CF/LENR and elsewhere, who may not agree with the Mills’ theory of lower-ground state hydrogen atoms (“hydrinos”) and the electron as an “orbitsphere” spherical shell of charge, should at the very least examine carefully the repeatability of Mills-type experiments, which are now mostly of the gaseous plasma variety.
BlackLight Power has placed much of its technical output on its website (www.blacklightpower.com). Some calorimetric experiments by BlackLight Power extracted from a summary paper on its site,36 which lists some 76 individual anomalous experimental results that are claimed to falsify SQM, should impress CF/LENR researchers (Note: References in brackets [xx] are from Mills’ bibliography of technical papers.):
• “43.) The observation that the optically measured output power of gas cells for power supplied to the glow discharge increased by over two orders of magnitude depending on the presence of less than 1% partial pressure of certain catalysts in hydrogen gas or argon-hydrogen gas mixtures, and an excess thermal balance of 42 W was measured for the 97% argon and 3% hydrogen mixture versus argon plasma alone [22]” • “50.) The Calvet calorimetry measurement of an energy balance of over -151,000 kJ/mole H2 with the addition of 3% hydrogen to a plasma of argon having the catalyst Ar+ compared to the enthalpy of combustion of hydrogen of -241.8KJ/mole H2; whereas, under identical conditions no change in the Calvet voltage was observed when hydrogen was added to a plasma of noncatalyst xenon [31]” • “51.) The observation that the power output exceeded the power supplied to hydrogen glow discharge plasmas by 35-184 W depending on the presence of catalysts from helium or argon and less than 1% partial pressure of strontium metal in noble gas-hydrogen mixtures; whereas, the chemically similar noncatalyst krypton had no effect on the power balance [30]” •”52.) The observation that with the addition of 3% flowing hydrogen to an argon microwave plasma with a constant input power of 40 W, the gas temperature increased from 400°C to over 750°C; whereas, the 400°C temperature of a xenon plasma run under identical conditions was essentially unchanged with the addition of hydrogen [43]” •”53.) Observations of power such as that where the addition of 10% hydrogen to a helium microwave plasma maintained with a constant microwave input power of 40 W, the thermal output power was measured to be at least 280 W corresponding to a reactor temperature rise from room temperature to 1200°C within 150 seconds, a power density of 28 MW/m3, and an energy balance of at least -4x105 kJ/mole H2 compared to the enthalpy of combustion of hydrogen of -241.8kJ/mole H2 [34,35]” •”54.) The observation of 306±5W of excess power generated in 45cm3 by a compound-hollow-cathode-glow discharge of a neon-hydrogen (99.5%/0.5%) mixture corresponding to a power density of 6.8 MW/m3 and an energy balance of at least - 1x106 kJ/mole H2 compared to the enthalpy of combustion of hydrogen of -241.8kJ/mole H2 [50,78]” •”55.) The observation that for an input of 37.7 W, the total plasma power of the neon-hydrogen plasma measured by water bath calorimetry was 60.7 W corresponding to 23.0 W of excess power in 3 cm3 [76]” •”56.) The observation of intense He+ emission and a total plasma power of a helium-hydrogen plasma measured by water bath calorimetry of 30.0 W for an input of 8.1 W, corresponding to 21.9 W of excess power in 3 cm3 wherein the excess power density and energy balance were high, 7.3 W/cm3 and -2.9x104 kJ/mole H2, respectively [36,63,71,73]” •”58.) The observation of energy balances of helium-hydrogen microwave plasmas of over 100 times the combustion of hydrogen and power densities greater than 10 W/cm3 measured by water bath calorimetry [34-36,50, 63, 71, 73, 76-78, 84]” •”62.) The differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) measurement of minimum heats of formation of KHI by the catalytic reaction of K with atomic hydrogen and KI that were over -2000 kJ/mole H2 compared to the enthalpy of combustion of hydrogen of -241.8 kJ/mole H2 [25]”
It should be clear to objective evaluators of this brief excerpt, from a much larger multifaceted experimental program from BlackLight Power, that something quite profound is happening—much as profound findings are emerging, albeit of a different but related character, in the CF/LENR field. It is most unfortunate that the external, intellectually bankrupt terrorist-like activities of people such as Park and Zimmermann has created the circumstance where open communication between the CF/LENR field and the sister area of hydrino science is extremely difficult. But not to assign all blame to Park and Zimmerman: there has been a calculated avoidance of Mills by theorists within CF/LENR. Why? Again, because of excessive and misplaced fidelity to the SQM theory. A curative for this common CF/LENR malady might be a careful reading Mills recent paper, “The Fallacy of Feynman’s Argument on the Stability of the Hydrogen Atom According to Quantum Mechanics.”37
•Paulo and Alexandra Correa (Labofex in Toronto): Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGDTM) Reactor The work of the Correas in excess energy from arc discharges, which began serendipitously for them in the early 1980s, further expands the universe of what is possible in systems with electrical input into plasmas. It took the Correas many long years to control the explosive releases of energy that destroyed many reactors and power supplies, but now they have the process firmly under control. The Correa PAGD work really puts the nonsense of controlled thermonuclear fusion work into perspective, as CF/LENR has not yet been able to do. Here we have self-financed researchers with a small lab in Canada already producing huge excess power, already in the form of continuous output electricity—of which the hot fusioneers can only dream, even after having spent circa $20 billion on their white elephant projects. The Correas are using technologies that are explicitly detailed so far in three U.S. patents covering their PAGD technology.38 They use large glass high-vacuum tubes with aluminum plate cathodes to demonstrate that in a particular negative resistance region of arc discharge, they can create automatic (autogenous) pulses of electrical energy that far exceed input energy. For example, one integrated V-I plot of an output pulse may amount to 42 J of energy in 150 msec, triggered by a 25 msec pulse from the drive pack of only 4.4 J.
Moreover, the Correas show explicitly in their patents how such excess electricity can charge up deep cycle batteries. They have arranged their experiments such that by moving the ~500 V driving battery pack, when it is depleted, to the position of the charging-up (output) pack and moving the charging-up pack to the drive position, they can sustain indefinite electric energy production. They have gone much further: In experiments that this author and others have witnessed in the past few years, they have been able to drive certain flywheel spinner motors at 500 W spin-up power with only 50 W DC input power. (These new developments in motor driving are not yet patent-protected.)
I first had the opportunity to meet Dr. Paulo Correa at the Third International Symposium on New Energy, held in Denver, CO in April 1996. There he spoke about his and his co-investigator Alexandra Correa’s PAGDTM reactor. Alexandra was not able to attend that meeting, but Dr. Correa gave an excellent keynote lecture at that time about the PAGD. Dr. Correa’s scientific demeanor and explanations were then already impressive. He copiously referenced the work of many others who had earlier found anomalies in arc behavior, and he offered specific praise for Dr. Harold Aspden’s work, which I had earlier encountered. (Dr. Aspden is on Infinite Energy's Scientific Advisory Board and is a long-time scientific colleague of the Correas. His website is: http://www.energyscience.co.uk.) At the 1996 Denver meeting, Dr. Aspden spoke on “Vacuum Spin as a New Energy Source”—and this may indeed be part of the explanation for what is going on in PAGD. Dr. Aspden, with his theoretical background in electrical engineering and the experience of his 20 years as IBM’s head of patent operations in Europe, had earlier offered formal assessments of the Correa PAGD work—see the recently posted 1996 Opinion at the Correa website www.aetherometry.com. Infinite Energy began publishing the work of the Correas on the PAGD soon after this Denver meeting;39-43 and we also have continued to publish some of Dr. Aspden's pioneering work.44-51
The PAGD work and technology originated from studies of low voltage X-ray production in the mid-1980s, but the Correas’ joint interest in the work of Wilhelm Reich and Nikola Tesla was of even earlier vintage. Those who would like to know about the Correas' recent work on a host of other “aetherometric” inventions, should read the testimonial letters posted by me, Mr. Uri Soudak (formerly CTO of Israel Aircraft Industries), and Prof. Arthur Axelrad of the University of Toronto. The letters by me in 2001 and 2002 on observations of PAGD and other devices are detailed and self-explanatory. Many of these devices, including the PAGD, can be seen on a scientific DVD available from (www.aethera.org). [Note: The DVD will be shown informally at ICCF10 at the poster session for this paper.]
For now, let us consider the PAGD alone as another example of an electrically-stimulated excess energy process. The primary advantage of this focus is that the technology has been patented and is specified precisely enough in these public domain documents so that others could verify it independently, if they chose to do so. Certainly, any number of plasma physics labs in the hot fusion program would have little difficulty in observing PAGD effects—but judging by their behavior in the cold fusion war, one can understand why these money-sucking, pointless appendages of DoE have no interest in doing so. Perhaps some of the U.S. Navy labs might develop some interest, since they have already carried out a very good effort in the CF/LENR area on a very limited budget.
The Central Importance of the “Third Element”—The Return of the Aether At the conclusion of ICCF9 in Beijing in 2002, Dr. Mike McKubre in his inimitable style delivered a most wonderful set of remarks.52 He admitted his slowness in changing his own paradigm within the CF/LENR field, but then he went on—in a remarkably forward-looking statement—to suggest that it was time for him to change. His words serve as a kind of description of how the overall field of cold fusion has changed and in what directions it must continue to change: “And in general I have resisted the expansion of the field. I resisted the extension of the field into biological nuclear effects, into consideration of the sort of rotating magnetic machines that Gene Mallove’s magazine keeps us informed about, and into the concept of ‘zero point’ energy. I just resist the idea of zero point energy. Nickel/hydrogen studies—the possibility of heat from nickel light water experiments—I have resisted this. And I have resisted the concept of transmutation. That somehow we can change higher mass elements from one isotope to another. It isn’t that I think these effects are not well observed or disclosed by able people. My resistance really is—I resented the diversion of focus of attention from what was already a very difficult problem. In general those effects are just too easy for our critics to attack — to use as sticks to beat us with. At least for the heat effect, possibly also tritium production from nickel/light water experiments with small additions of deuterium, and for the yielded evidence of nuclear isotopes—at least for those two things and at least for me, I think the time has come to change. My prejudice must change…We will have common theory to describe these effects.”
Indeed, that should be the quest for theorists within the cold fusion/LENR field, “a common theory to describe these effects.” But what if something very, very important has been left out? In an additional prescient remark made at ICCF9 in that same talk, Mike McKubre said, “The thing that has really emerged here is what I have called, and what Dr. Iwamura has called, the third element—the important involvement of an element other than palladium and deuterium.” In this remark, he was referring of course to the host of other elements—such as boron, or in the case of the Iwamura et al work12-13 the elements cesium and strontium—which have been used in conjunction with palladium-based cold fusion experiments. But in more liberal interpretation of his remark (which he most certainly did not intend!) the “third element” that has hitherto been ignored may be the energetic aether (EA), that “element”’ which experiments are showing pervades the supposed “vacuum” of “nothingness” within and between atoms, and which in fact most probably gives rise to their very structure as extended toroidal or other geometric assemblages of flux. This would be the logical continuation of models sought by the great aether theorists of the 19th century, among them Lord Kelvin.
Please examine the varied opinions about the aether/ether, which I have collected in a lengthy Appendix to this paper. It will give you a modest historic perspective that is absent in the post-Einstein literature. Just as it is relatively simple for CF/LENR workers today to see though the B.S. that is produced by the mainstream with their references to cold fusion as “pathological science,” so is it remarkable to observe the “memory hole” effect of establishment figures operating on the important matter of the energetic aether.
Yes, at root the paradigm problem with cold fusion/LENR is that it is still stuck in the morass that mid-to-late 20th Century physics has given us—“hard,” fixed elementary particles (such as electrons and quarks), which are further described by a mathematized house of cards known as probabilistic quantum mechanics or any of its variants—the alphabet soup QED, QFT, QCD, and now onto theories about “strings,” “branes,” “dark matter,” “dark energy,” and all manner of other epicycle-like junk. Indeed the hands-on experimentally measurable energetic aether (EA) must now return with a vengeance to replace the older concept of mid-19th Century to early 20th Century physics, the static, luminiferous (electromagnetic) aether—the supposed massfree medium that was transversely vibrated to give rise to what was called electromagnetic radiation.
Einstein’s Special Relativity (1905) was supposed to be a theory that “abolished” any consideration of this aether—any aether. In truth, it abolished nothing whatsoever—at least it did not do so legitimately. SR became merely a seemingly extremely well-fitting body of equations that most surely does “fit” numerous experiments and some energetic reactions. It is the illegitimate interpretation of these limited equations, which suggests a complete equivalence between mass and energy—with no possibility of any massfree (inertialess) source of energy in space. After all, we are given the famous equation E = mc2, which on its face mandates that if there is no mass, m, E=0. And that is again the crux of the problem with the mainstream cold fusion hypothesis (MCFH).
There is an even greater lesson here that theorists within the cold fusion/LENR field should understand, that is if they want to seek the truth about nature, as opposed to merely writing ever more elaborate theory papers with SQM and SR as implied pillars. The philosophical belief in the so-called “Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in describing physical reality53 has proved to be a great hazard—one of the worst imaginable for scientists. Cold fusion people are in some sense already aware of this, but they have not “gone all the way” in ridding themselves of this prejudice. They are aware that in the early days of cold fusion—and continuing—Establishment theorists such as Steve Koonin were fond of “proving” that QM would not allow the possibility of D + D “cold fusion.” But the cold fusion theorists, rightly having more respect for the experiments coming from the lab, accepted the results provisionally (and later whole-heartedly) and began to try to cobble together theories that could hang together and encompass all the cold fusion evidence. In the beginning that evidence was not very broad and not very deep, but it is today. It is time to take stock of new possibilities.
What are some of the effects that can be seen and established that may have relevance to CF/LENR? We have seen that the work of the Graneaus et al., Wallman and Dammann, and Mills’ et al. at BlackLight Power are revealing phenomena that can be ignored by CF/LENR researchers only at their peril. Then we have glimpsed the Correa PAGD work and can readily see that it is among the most promising directions of all the electrically-stimulated excess energy processes. Apart from Mills’ CQM, which will either rise or fall on the correspondence of its spectral predictions to Mills’ hydrino models, the only other comprehensive physics theory that is beginning to enter the public arena is the body of work being developed by the Correas and their colleagues. (There is now an internet discussion group that has begun to form, for which application is necessary): http://aetherenergy.com/mailman/listinfo/asg_aetherenergy.com
The Correas’ not yet fully published AToS theory (Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity) will undoubtedly have many direct predictions about what may really be going on in CF/LENR, but for now it is important to examine some of the already published experimentally-based work for what it shows about a pervading energetic non-electromagnetic aether. Given that this pervading aether would not only “fill” the spaces between and within atoms, but also form the flowing, dynamic structure of leptonic and nuclear particles, it is to be expected that such a theory would have much to say about non-standard energies in chemical bonding, as well as unconventional nuclear reaction phenomena. These may all be involved in CF/LENR.
This can only be the most cursory of reviews—full details have been published by the Correas in a series of monographs on www.aetherometry.com. On the Correa website I have earlier (2002) posted a lengthy discussion under the rubric, “The Correa Science and Technology: An Appreciation”(at www.aetherometry.com). In the brief discussion that follows, I will instead simply annotate the Correas’ own posted “Milestones” of accomplishments feature. For this purpose, my annotation remarks appear in italic font. References to their posted monographs (downloadable pdfs) are in brackets, e.g. [AS2-01]:
____________________________________________________ [From www.aetherometry.com] Summary of fundamental discoveries encompassed by the monographs published on the Akronos website.
The fundamental contributions that Akronos has published to date cover three distinct terrains of investigation:
1. A range of new experimental discoveries in basic physics and biophysics: •The demonstration of an autogenous pulsation that is auto-electronically triggered from saturated cold cathodes in Paschen vacua [USP# 5,502,354]; (This is only one of the three PAGD-related patents that I have mentioned above.) •The demonstration of electrodynamic anomalies in open circuits, in particular the development of cathode reaction forces in interrupted vacuum-arcs or autogenously pulsed abnormal glow discharges [LS1-07, LS1-25]; (Of special interest to CF/LENR people because Aspden’s Law of Electrodynamics appears to explain not only the anomalous cathode reaction forces measured in the PAGD, but also the Graneau experiment anomalies. Aspden’s Law applies to systems—such as electrolytic systems, in which there are charge carriers of different masses, such as ions vs. electrons.) •The demonstration of basic massfree energy anomalies: antigravitic anomalies of the electroscope, driven by latent heat [AS2-01, AS2-02, AS2-06], the thermal anomaly of specific Faraday-cage-type enclosures [AS2-05, AS2-25, AS2-26], anomalous and charge-asymmetric effect of far and vacuum UV photons in the Halwacks experiment [AS2-08], 'vacuum' contribution of longitudinal electric radiation to the normal and abnormal glow discharges in Paschen's Law [LS1-25]; (The validation that there really is an energetic massfree aether is possible with careful, often tedious experiments which employ rather simple equipment, such as accurate mercury thermometers, gold leaf electroscopes, hygrometers, and special Faraday cages, which Wilhelm Reich dubbed “Orgone Accumulators”—or ORACS. The “signal-to-noise” in these experiments is much larger than what CF/LENR people are often accustomed to.) •The discovery of photo-induced antigravitic work promoted by specific blackbody radiation [AS2-08]; •Identification of the particle ratios for photons, gravitons, electrons, atoms and aether energy units in both the Hallwacks effect and the antigravitic kinetoregenerative effect [AS2-10]; (The ”Hallwacks effect” is the pre-Einstein name for the photoelectric effect.) •How to trigger vacuum cathodes into auto-electronic emission in the absence of applied power [AS2-11]; •A formal and experimental demonstration of two different actions of reverse potentials at work in living systems, the ground and water - radiative nonelectric draw versus electric contact draw [AS2-04, forthcoming AS2-28, forthcoming AS2-29]; (These are most remarkable works. [AS2-04] shows simple experimental means—using electroscopes—to demonstrate the existence of biophysical energies associated with the experimenter’s body! AS2-28 has already been published, and is a masterful historical and scientific overview of the errors in biological understanding—in particular those that arose from the Galvani-Volta debate in the 1700s over “animal electricity.”) •Analytic separation of the massfree and massbound charge currents and field effects of ordinary induction and Tesla coils [AS2-13, AS2-16]; •Formal demonstration that Tesla radiation is not electromagnetic, ionizing or blackbody, but longitudinally radiated massfree electric energy [AS2-13]; •Isolation of the fundamental electric, magnetic and electromagnetic frequencies of induction coils for both massfree and massbound charge fluxes [AS2-13, AS2-14, AS2-15, AS2-16]; •Identification and physico-mathematical isolation of the complete spectrum of longitudinally radiated massfree electric energy and fundamental constituent subspectra [AS2-17A]; •Demonstration and simulation of the main solar mode of longitudinally radiated massfree electric energy [AS2-17A]; •Induction of high specific latent heat of trapped electron plasmas inside Faraday cages exposed to Tesla radiation [AS2-17A];
2. The basic theoretical foundations of aetherometric science: •A new analytical theory and classification of the electric and nonelectric functions of the electroscope, where electrokinetic and gravitokinetic components of the action of charges are explicitly differentiated [AS2-02, AS2-04, AS2-10, AS2-27]; •A new treatment of the Boltzmann constant and new functions and dimensionality for the concept of temperature [AS2-07]; •A new model for the local production of blackbody photons; identification of the functional limit of the blackbody spectrum and the two contiguous blackbody subspectra with their contrasting physical and chemical effects [AS2-08, AS2-11, AS2-14, AS2-17A]; •A new model and analytical treatment of leptonic and baryonic gravitons and antigravitons [AS2-10, AS2-27]; •Identification of the electron-resonant, fundamental nonelectric massfree energy element whose superimposition yields the electron mass-energy singularity [AS2-10]; •Identification of the standing electric and magnetic wave functions constitutive of the electron mass-energy and its finite geometry [AS2-12, AS2-15, AS2-17A, LS1-25]; •Identification of the fundamental wave structure and functions of massfree charge and the kinetic energy of massbound charge [AS2-15, AS2-16]; •Identification of the Duane-Hunt wavelength, and a novel fundamental equivalence for Planck's Law [AS2-12]; •Identification of a new proportionality constant eta and its relation to the fine structure constant and the production of the microwave Cosmic Background Radiation spectrum [AS2-12, AS2-17C]; •An original, integrated and consistent theory and physico-mathematical treatment of the basic electric functions and quantities - charge, voltage, current, inductance, capacitance, magnetic flux density, magnetic field intensity, magnetic flux, magnetic wavelength, free and bound current densities, cyclotron frequency and linear velocity [AS2-12, AS2-13, AS2-14, AS2-15, AS2-16]; •A new treatment of the invariant and variable functions for the magnetic permeability and electrical permittivity of media [AS2-16]; •Correction to the value of the gauss in light of the value of the tesla [AS2-15]; •An extended physical and chemical treatment of the basic allotropic cycle of the atmosphere that balances its enthalpy [AS2-09] and identifies the specific solar contributions made by longitudinally radiated massfree electric energy [AS2-17B]; •New model for the structure of the electron in the hydrogen atom [LS1-25] and identification of its two fundamental states, electric and photoinertial [AS2-12, AS2-17A]; (Needless-to-say, this model of the electron should be of great interest to questioners of SQM, such as Dr. Mills, but also to CF/LENR people who will see that an alternate model of the electron of great physical significance is possible.) •Identification of a cosmic background of longitudinal electric massfree radiation, and prediction of baryonic radio Cosmic Background Radiation spectra [AS2-17C]; (Others have pointed out that the CBR does not mandate a Big Bang cosmology. Here is another very good reason not to buy into the Big Bang theory, because the CBR has a consistent, experimentally based alternate explanation.) •New cosmological model for the asymmetric generation of light leptonic charge with minimum kinetic energy [AS2-17C]; •Formation of massfree superlattices in complex Phase Space and Time [AS2-17C]; •A critique of Special and General Relativity [AS4-01, AS4-02] and a redefinition of the Space and Time manifolds and their properties [AS2-04]; • Identification of the functional length and wavelength equivalences of mass [AS2-01, AS2-10, AS2-12, AS2-13, AS2-15, AS2-16, AS3-II.1]; •Critique of Reich's concept of an electroscopic OP, and operational isolation of the org [AS2-03, AS2-07];
3. A series of technological systems and applications that this research has yielded - and that have, to date, remained commercially unexplored: •A plasma-pulse electromechanical inverter and transmitter [USP# 5,416,391]; •A plasma-pulse-driven overunity converter operating in the aPAGD and IVAD plasma regimes that charges batteries, drives spinner-type drag-cup motors and flywheels [USP# 5,449,989; WIPO# 9,409,560; CP# 2,147,153; pending patent; forthcoming LS1-23]; •A gravitoelectric converter that transforms gravitational swings of massbound charges into electric impulses [AS2-11]; •Operation of Tesla coils under conditions of resonance-loading to produce overunity massfree electric radiation [AS2-16]; •Basic Aetheroscope hardware for the aetherometric study of Tesla coils [AS2-16]; •Apparatus to passively charge a battery from a vacuum-emission cell exposed to specially filtered Tesla radiation in the biologically-beneficial energy range [AS2-17A]; •Modified Faraday-cage-like enclosures as thermal drives for Stirling engines in daytime and nighttime [AS2-25, AS2-26]; (This work has also been published in Infinite Energy, Vol.7, No.41, January/February 2002 and Vol. 7, No.42, March/April 2002. By the summer of 2003, such Stirling-hyborac engines had achieved round-the-clock continuous operation exceeding 48-hours. These devices succeeded in capturing much more than the previously understood amount of incident solar energy, as demonstrated by the energy produced by the Stirling engine—with a variety of calibration methodologies.) •Passive biofield radiation meter [forthcoming AS2-29, forthcoming AS2-30]; (This author has extensively tested the response of this remarkable inert device at the Correa lab. It has no active power system, such as a battery, and yet it can produce a voltage response across two terminals from over 3-meters distance with the approach of a human being.) •Multi-tap ground-driven battery and capacitor charger [Dr. Mallove's report of demonstration]; (Indeed, an overnight charging up of a large capacitor from environmental energy.) •Aether Motor/Converter driven by extracting massfree energy from Faraday-cage-like enclosures, atmospheric antennas, living beings, the ground, the vacuum state [forthcoming video, forthcoming Vol 3 of Experimental Aetherometry; patent pending]. (This is, of course, a “Holy Grail” for the “free-energy” field—and, indeed, as far as I am concerned, the demonstrations which I have witnessed with this Aether motor— which involved checking for inappropriate power sources and physically interacting with the device—for me confirms its reality.)
A New Path for “Cold Fusion”/LENR? It is obvious from the foregoing that my view is that we should adopt this position: More progress will occur in CF/LENR if it is understood by researchers that the field can’t remain contained within its usually defined borders. The discovery of fission in the late 1930s offers a useful analogy: Nuclear fission was serendipitously discovered during an attempt to make transuranic elements via neutron bombardment of natural uranium. The investigators did not realize initially that it was fission fragments, not transuranic elements, that were being observed. When they realized that nuclear fission was occurring with neutron production as well, the path to a new chain-reaction energy source opened. The discovery of fission contains a stark warning to the cold fusion field today, which I had no way of realizing when I wrote the following passages in Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor (Wiley & Sons, 1991):
Physicist Emilio Segre, who died at age 84 less than one month after the March 1989 announcement in Utah, the previous December had recounted the discovery of nuclear fission—on its 50th anniversary—before a meeting of the American Physical Society. (Emilio Segre, “The Discovery of Nuclear Fission," Physics Today, July 1989: 38-43.) Segre had worked with Enrico Fermi in Rome in 1934 on experiments that bombarded uranium with neutrons to attempt to produce what they thought would be the first artificial element beyond uranium, element 93—one that by prediction would be similar chemically to rhenium. But this strong expectation of a result prevented the discovery of fission for five years before Hahn and Strassman in Germany ultimately recognized it. They too would make the same mistake by expecting what the Fermi group had likewise anticipated. Segre also recalled other lost opportunities: how another scientist had suggested the possibility of fission happening in their work, but whose writing was ignored; and Swiss researchers who may have seen the fission fragment evidence but who instead thought something was wrong with their detector. But the biggest problem was the expectation of seeing an element heavier than uranium, and not paying attention to the possibility of lower mass atoms that turned out to be the telltale fission fragments.
Segre said of writings by Hahn and Meitner on the road to the discovery of fission, “Their early papers are a mixture of error and truth as complicated as the mixture of fission products resulting from the bombardments. Such confusion was to remain for a long time a characteristic of much of the work on uranium.” Segre recalled, “My own feeling at the time was that there was a mystery in uranium.” In a remarkable statement printed in the historic December 22, 1938, paper in Naturwissenschaften announcing the fission discovery, Hahn and Strassman wrote, “As ‘nuclear chemists’ working very close to the field of physics, we cannot yet bring ourselves to such a drastic step, which goes against all previous experiences in nuclear physics.” When the great physicist Niels Bohr heard of the new insights on fission, he was reported to have exclaimed, “Oh what idiots we have all been! Oh but this is wonderful! This is just as it must be!” As Segre concluded in his talk, “Above all, it seems to me that the human mind sees only what it expects.” Scientists who go far afield to explore puzzles and anomalies often bump into obstacles, but every once in a while they run into a remarkable phenomenon waiting to be discovered. It was just so with fission; might it be true also with cold fusion?
The badly mis-named “cold fusion” began its life by attempting to prove the Main Stream Cold Fusion Hypothesis (MCFH), but in my view the field can lead nowhere else but to a realization of profound mistakes that have been made in 20th century physics—and other mistakes that date back to the 19th century. Though the efforts to explain cold fusion/LENR with prevailing paradigms has been a noble and useful quest, my firm expectation is that these will fail to describe the big picture adequately—the full range of CF/LENR phenomena, not to forget the other phenomena that mainstream physics has no hope of ever explaining. The consequences will be that relativity theory and standard quantum mechanics will not survive. There will be an increasing awareness of the need for larger covering theories to replace these defective paradigms, which—to be sure—seem to be correct theories, in that in many/most cases they give correct quantitative predictions. But is in the nature of the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” that theories, like Special Relativity, which are deemed by the David Goodsteins of this world to be facts, eventually fall as the truth of their fallibility becomes all too evident. The experimental data that these theories supposedly “explained,” will come under a much larger umbrella. There are and will be different explanations for the data. That is happening right now. Above all, the concept of an energetic aether will almost certainly have to play a central role in explaining how CF/LENR phenomena occur. I recommend to you a series of articles and special issues that Infinite Energy has published, if you have not already examined these.54-60
Perhaps I am being too idealistic or optimistic about this, but I would hope that those who have pioneered in the CF/LENR field would re-consider their positions. Let’s get back to fundamentals. If there are other measurements outside the mainstream CF “line” (a word our late friend Juliano Preparata was fond of using), let us by all means step out of line! We should be paying attention to the work of the Graneaus, BlackLight Power, and the Correas, and other challenging work that comes along. In fact, in the very next issue of Infinite Energy (issue #51, out in late September 2003), we will be publishing a comprehensive report on the astonishing history and science behind another physics “miracle” that was inappropriately brushed aside by Richard Feynman, and which has been relatively dormant for decades. This is the “noble gas engine” of Hungarian inventor Joseph Papp. Experimental work going on today on this engine technology (reproduction of energetic detonations in noble gases!) and the record of the past shows that our paradigms will be forced to stretch much further than “mainstream cold fusion” people have been willing to do.
The bridge to an understanding of CF/LENR phenomena can only be a return to where physics was in 1894 when Michelson uttered his famous remark about the unlikely major expansion of Physical Science. Back then we were just beginning to observe and understand transmutation and the aether. Atomic theory was in its infancy. Many good ideas were abandoned for not so good ideas. The discoveries of “Cold Fusion”/LENR may help to bring us back to where such research directions were so unfortunately interrupted. It has brought me back already, and I hope that others will follow at their own speed.
|