LECTURE NO. 8

THE ADAMS-ASPDEN MOTOR PATENT

Copyright, Harold Aspden, 1996

This Lecture is an article that appeared on pp. 50-53 of the September-October, 1996 issue of ‘Infinite Energy’. It has been edited in a very minor way at the point where there is reference to the research of W.G. Tifft concerning the quantization of galactic red shifts, the subject of Tutorial No. 10 in these Web pages and Lecture No. 6.

INTRODUCTION

I first heard of Robert Adams and his motor at a mountain retreat north of Denver, Colorado during the days just before a New Energy Symposium. That was in April 1993. A benefactor interested in knowing the truths about `free energy’ and its potential for solving the world’s pollution problems had funded the expenses of the invited speakers and the preliminary `think tank’ event at that retreat. My talk would be about magnetism and the aether as an energy source, but our `think tank’ groups each had an allocated theme. We were expected to point the finger at the best candidate for onward investigation, from the vague information and reports we had about discoveries and claims pertaining to the new energy world.

Yes, there were several to choose from, machines involving magnets and solid-state devices such as that devised by Hans Coler, dating from the World War II era, or the then-current activity of Floyd Sweet (now deceased). In fact, one of our team, a colleague from U.K., had visited Sweet just prior to that Colorado meeting. However, specific information as to how to build any of these devices was not available, nor was there any acceptable theoretical account of their operation on which we could recommend action.

Fortunately, however, someone had brought with him information publicized by the NEXUS magazine and a Manual, available from Nexus, describing a motor devised by a New Zealander named Robert Adams. `Over-Unity’ performance was claimed and enough was disclosed as a blue print for replication of the machine. We did not really understand how it could operate quite as well as Adams had indicated, but we were convinced that `over-unity’ was in prospect. Accordingly, as it seemed easy to build a motor such as Adams described, our group settled for the recommendation that the Adams motor should be looked into and somehow constructed to verify its performance.

That was how I first came to know about the Adams motor.

COLLABORATION WITH ADAMS

At that time such experimental work that I had pursued on the `free energy’ theme was basically on solid-state magnetic systems and, in collaborating with a Scotsman, Scott Strachan, I had been involved with the invention of a thermoelectric device which was extremely efficient at converting low grade heat into electricity. Undoubtedly it defied the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but that point was not stressed in those early days. That invention had proved problematic because the devices built worked for a while by repeated operation for half an hour or so at a time, day after day, for several months, but then came the inevitable progressive weakening in conversion efficiency, ending with a defunct piece of equipment.

The story on that is told between pages 124 and 128 of Jeane Manning’s excellent book `The Coming Energy Revolution – The Search for Free Energy’, ISBN 0-89529-713-2 published in 1996 by Avery Publishing Group, Garden City Park, New York.

I was distracted from that thermoelectric venture when I took a more practical interest in the magnetic reluctance motor, inspired by what we had heard about Robert Adams. I was to be distracted again towards the end of 1995 when the Correa `Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge’ invention came to my attention, with its 5:1 over-unity feature clearly demonstrated. And now, as year-end 1996 approaches, I am destined to be distracted again, this time by having discovered myself why those thermoelectric devices mentioned above had failed. The remedy is easy as the problem does not involve deterioration. It is as if a bistable system has flipped to its off-state and just needs to be flipped back into its on-state, provided, that is, one knows what to flip!

Now, to come to the point about my collaboration with Robert Adams, I am writing these words on October 28th, 1996 and in a week from now the granted patent I have procured jointly with Robert Adams will become available from the British Patent Office in its issued form. It is Patent No. GB 2,282,708. I plan, in these pages, to introduce my own motor research and relate it to that patent and explain my connection with Adams.

I am also mindful that Adams, now recognized by an honorary doctorate from the Open International University of Sri Lanka, to become Dr. Robert George Adams, has recently published an addendum to the Adams Motor Manual entitled: `The Revelation of the Century’ and has included in that work some of my written contributions.

The immediate focus of my attention, however, is a rather critical letter communication authored by Michio Kaku and sent to a programme producer of a radio station based in New York. It was dated May 20th 1996, but it is only now that I have become aware of this communication from Robert Adams’ new book.

Adams need not have included Kaku’s letter in his book, but he did and I commend him for it. Apart from saying that Robert Adams was either the next Einstein and Newton rolled into one or a crackpot, he made these two comments:

“Apparently, he (Adams) wants to extract energy from the ether by using rotating magnets, thereby violating the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of mass and energy). This is an ancient idea, going back centuries and was most popular in the 1880s, but was disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein’s relativity theory. Ether, which was supposed to be a magical substance which pervaded the universe, has never been measured in our laboratories.”

“The proof is in the pudding. He (Adams) has to show a blueprint of his machines, show that they in fact generate energy, and show with a few equations how his theory works. Lacking a blueprint, a mathematical theory, and, say, video tapes of his motors generating energy from nothing, I cannot say with 100% certainty that he is wrong. (Only 99.99%)”

Now, having just had an `over-unity’ motor patent granted in which I share inventorship with Adams, I will assume that those Kaku remarks are addressed also in my direction and reply accordingly, point by point.

Firstly, as a educational exercise, the extraction of energy from the ether does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. By definition or simple semantics, if you extract energy from something and move it from that something A into something else B, the energy remains conserved overall. The first law of thermodynamics dates from before the time when the transmutation of mass and energy was recognized as the stellar power source by Sir James Jeans (1904). A critic might say, however, as Jeans himself did in his 1928 book `EOS’, that Isaac Newton knew of photosynthesis by which radiant energy transmitted through space is captured by plants and converted into matter, which stores energy by creating a combustible product. The transmutability of energy and mass was not discovered, nor was it first suggested, by Einstein. He was too late.

Secondly, the existence of the ether was not disproved by Einstein. Indeed, Einstein has not proved anything, nor has he disproved anything. One simply cannot flaunt Einstein’s theory around as a reason for rejecting the prospect of an `over-unity’ motor. On the contrary, ask yourself why there are plans to test Einstein’s theory at a cost of $500,000,000 dollars by launching Gravity Probe B in 1999. If Einstein’s theory is right, why are there any doubts warranting expenditure on that scale?

Thirdly, Kaku says the ether has never been measured in our laboratories and that its existence was disproved by the Michelson-Morley Experiment. The fact is that Michelson did not perform the experiment to test or refute the existence of the ether. He lived another 44 years after performing that experiment and believed in the ether to his dying day. He was trying to sense the Earth’s motion through the ether, but, since standing waves developed by mirror reflection had not been discovered when the experiment was planned, he had not allowed for that to affect the result observed. In fact, the ether energy stored in those standing waves, being trapped in the mirror system, makes the wave motion appear to be locked to the frame of reference of the mirrors, and not the ether as expected. The ether certainly was detected in the laboratory when Michelson found he could detect the Earth’s rotation relative to that non-rotating ether by his light wave interference experiments jointly with Gale in 1925. It was detected some years before that by Sagnac in France and is detected in modern navigation technology by the ring laser gyro. How can the speed of a laser beam travelling around a closed path inside an optical instrument detect rotation of that instrument if the beam is not keeping a fixed speed relative to something inside that instrument that does not share its rotation? That something is the ether! No amount of book learning or mathematics can avoid that simple truth, and even though the word `ether’ is seen as something `magical’ it is that something that delivers `free energy’, once we have decoded the combination of the magnetic lock which restrains its release. Note also that the ether reveals its existence when we have rotation and we have rotation in the Adams motor.

Fourthly, as to Kaku’s pudding, which comes first, the chicken or the egg, the blueprint and the working machine, or the theory and the equations? Well, though we have no answer to this question of priority, we know there are chickens and we know there are eggs, so it really does not matter which comes first. Certainly, it seems, that in order for Kaku to decide whether `free energy’ is possible, albeit with only 0.01% chance, there has to be a theory, a machine and an ether.

It is for this very reason that I have made special effort during 1996 to publish my book `Aether Science Papers’ as a forerunner of the Energy Science Report describing my own `free energy’ motor research. This Report No. 9 in the series is entitled `Over-Unity Motor Design’ and its date of publication is November 6th 1996, two days ahead of the first disclosure of details of my machine at a New Energy symposium held in Rotterdam in The Netherlands.

The formal electrical engineering theory explaining the motor operation in tapping `free energy’ is contained in a few pages in that Report. The motor design is described and a photograph of the machine is included. Moreover there is an outline `blueprint’ that indicates the design of the multi-megawatt versions of the machine. However, as to the ether, or `aether’, to use my normal terminology, describing that in full detail needs more than a few pages for scientific proof and, as Kaku well realizes, the wisdom needed exceeds the talents of even an Einstein or a Newton.

ABOUT THE AETHER

I will digress here, just for a moment, before getting back to Robert Adams and the subject of the Adams-Aspden patent. My reason is another comment made by Kaku in that quoted communication. He asserted as a conclusion:

“Inventors want to solicit money from investors, so I have a moral obligation to say exactly what I think about issues that, at some point, may hurt people.”

Now that is a very poor reason for attacking someone’s lifelong efforts to probe the secrets of science with a view to advancing both knowledge and technology beneficial to mankind. The facts of life are that it is investors who want to solicit money by making profit from the creative endeavour of inventors. Invariably, inventors get hurt anyway, without some well-meaning individual doing his moral duty by hurting the inventor more by unwarranted criticism. Is it really a moral obligation to preach the gospel of Einstein’s theory in contending that investors should steer clear of Robert Adams, when his only thought is to have his efforts recognized?

Of course, by the nature of things, the free-lance inventor can go adrift in a technical sense and then, if ensnared by those investors, he can be carried off into obscurity by a tidal wave of turmoil. Meanwhile the orthodox scientific establishment stands by and watches, mildly amused at the futile efforts of the free-lance inventor who ventures beyond the level of gimmicks for use in the household and garden. That is the way it is.

As to my book `Aether Science Papers’ it shows how so much of vital importance, explained by neither Einstein’s theory nor quantum theory, has a straightforward answer. You see, just as Robert Adams in New Zealand and I in England sit poles apart on this our Earth, yet we are governed by the same laws of physics and subject to the same constants of physics. Body Earth is our common rotating frame of reference, but body Earth does not explain why those physical constants are, so far we know, universal. We take that for granted, just as our forebears took for granted the fact that they all inhabited the same aether. Our modernist society and its Einstein enthusiasts tell us there is no aether and so, Robert, you are on your own and only God can tell you why your experiments would work as well in England as they do in New Zealand!

You might then wonder why scientists at the U.S. Bureau of Standards, at the National Physical Laboratory in England and at the equivalent CSIRO National Measurement Laboratory in Australia bother to measure the same physical constants to very high precision. Give or take a fraction of a part in a million attributable to experimental error, they always come out the same. Surely, that is because the aether spreads through all those locations and has the same structure everywhere. What do I mean by structure? Well, you need to look up the paper in Physics Letters, 41A, 423-424 (1972), entitled ‘Aether Theory and the Fine Structure Constant’ to find the answer. That paper emerged from the Australian CSIRO laboratory just mentioned. It shows how alpha, the most basic dimensionless constant in quantum theory, is derived by aether theory to give:

and how N is found to have the lowest cell energy if N is 1843. This gives (α)^-1 as 137.0359, correct to part per million precision in comparison with its measurement at any of those laboratories. If there were no aether then you might as well think of a number and try that, though it would be your ghost that makes that effort because you would no longer exist.

Of course, there will be the Kakus of this world who say that the above formula is mere number play, contrived to fit known results. Well, that may be true for Einstein’s ‘1,2,3’ theory, but it certainly is untrue for the aether theory. You see, all Einstein did by the disguised mathematics of his General Theory of Relativity was to say (1) that the spectral red shift was the same as that evident by use of Newtonian theory, given that energy gravitates, (2) that light beams grazing past stars are deflected by twice the amount expected from Newtonian theory and (3) that planets describe orbits around the sun as if the planet’s motion-dependent attraction is three times stronger than the value predicted by classical theory. It is so easy to contrive a theory for a 2 and a 3 factor. A German schoolmaster Paul Gerber had, in 1898, 18 years ahead of Einstein, presented a theory for the ‘3’ factor, based on the speed-of-light propagation of gravity across space, but that was not mentioned by Einstein. The factor of 3 arises because the energy transfer between sun and planet is not confined to a pencil thin line drawn between sun and planet, but rather fans out as it transfers to the aether field and then converges on its target after taking more time over the longer route.

Einstein’s theory is sterile. It offers no physical insight into the truths of the role played by the aether. It cannot explain that 137.0359 that governs quantum theory and, even on its own territory, it cannot explain the dimensionless constant involving G, the constant of gravity, nor, indeed, can it explain the unifying link between electrodynamics and gravitation!

So, Robert out there in New Zealand, take note that you are in a part of the universe where the aether has the energy state corresponding to N having the value 1843! Note that I first discovered the formula above long ago in the 1950s using an engineer’s slide rule, backed up by logarithmic tables for higher precision.

Take further note that, years after that 1972 paper was published, a famous astronomer in USA (Tifft), discovered that distant galaxies closely paired or in small groups exhibited differences in red shift. The differences were always multiples of 72.5 km/s in relation to the speed of light. Explaining this is a complete mystery. Why should Planck’s radiation constant be different from one galaxy to the next? Well, if you, the reader, were to study my aether theory (as by reading the Tutorial Notes and Lecture No. 6 in these Web pages), you could work out that, since aether energy density throughout space has to be uniform on a universal scale, the microwave emission frequency of a radiating atom will vary in proportion to N^1/9.

Now take 1843 as the base value of N and decrease it in steps of 4 as you look for higher energy per unit cell states in different galactic regions. It recovers in steps of 1, but since two electron-positron pairs are involved in the decrementing phase, that 4-step feature is what is seen. You will find that the result is the 72.5 km/s observed by Tifft. Check that by calculating 4c/9N as N decreases from 1843 to 1828, c being the speed of light. Check the Tifft paper to verify what I say: W.G. Tifft, Astronomical Journal, 211, 31-46 (1977). Refer to Lecture No. 6 and see how the more recent evidence bears out the intermediate steps giving the 18.1 km/s intervals. You will see in that paper just referenced Tifft’s comment that he could find no evidence of gravitational interaction between those adjacent galaxies! So, what has happened to Einstein’s theory. It requires universal gravitation with each of you being an individual observer at the centre of your own universe. I would rather believe in the aether, knowing that there is proof of its reality, and devote my efforts to tapping some of its store of energy to safeguard the future of mankind from unnecessary pollution.

THE ADAMS MOTOR AND THE ADAMS-ASPDEN PATENT

I have not built an Adams motor as described in his Manual. I do know that when I returned to Denver in May 1994 for the New Energy Symposium there were machines on show or described in the Proceedings which purported to be Adams motors but they did not perform over-unity. It was reported that one such machine came very close to being 100% efficient. Adams did not attend that meeting. However, in the intervening year I had struck up a contact with Adams. I found he was under the impression that such machines are unpatentable and I had skills in the patent field as well as knowledge about the physics governing the operation of motors and magnetism generally. In fact, I already had a granted US patent for a motor designed for over-unity operation, but never built [US Patent 4,975,608]. Adams had possession of motors which he claimed had the over-unity performance. I had, at the Denver 1993 meeting, declared my belief that over-unity motors were possible and supported the plan to explore the Adams machine.

My distant association with Adams resulted in an exchange of technical information and the proposal to adapt the design of his motor in a novel way. His motor had open-ended magnetic stators and magnets in a single plane forming radial arms. The invention we jointly devised placed the magnets axially parallel with the rotor shaft, fitted two sets of toothed rotor pieces and made the stators into bridging yokes. The resulting configuration was of the form shown in Fig. 1, taken from the patent specification that we filed in U.K.

The machine has to work over-unity, if properly designed, because the magnetic flux switching assures that much of the flux across the pole gaps is diverted, as the poles separate, so that it still links the magnetizing windings but finds a return closure path sideways from the rotor pieces and so exerts no braking action on the motor. The magnets provide the drive torque pulling the poles into register when no current is applied to the windings. The input of current drives the flux from the stator bridging yokes and forces it into the lateral route as the poles separate.

There can be no input of inductive power by the magnetizing winding if there is no change of net flux linkage. It will change to some degree but, if the design were perfect, then the machine could run on negligible inductive power input. That leaves normal resistance loss and some magnetization loss, much of which can be reduced by making the machine larger and more powerful. A small machine could prove the principle, especially if we allowed for the heat generated in the windings and explored the overall energy situation to see if we really are tapping energy from the aether.

The patent application was filed on 30th September 1993. It named myself and Adams as joint applicants and joint inventors. It has now been granted, as already stated. However, in May 1994, during the early days of its patent pendency, I encountered the reaction of those in Denver who had been unable to confirm `over-unity’ operability of the Adams motor. I saw our patent application as offering an improved design, but there were clouds developing and Adams was facing the problem of defending his position. As background also there was the rumour about rival Japanese motors and, as things developed, I heard of claims for a machine constructed in Hawaii that indicated over-unity operation and could, for all I knew, be quite similar to the one covered by the Adams-Aspden patent application.

I was not too sure how Robert Adams was measuring his energy input and his energy output, so I could not vouch for his performance claims and, indeed, Robert was careful about the information he did disclose. When I heard he was adopting calorific measurement to verify the output energy, which would include heat generated in windings as well as magnetization loss, then I felt we were on track towards confirming the performance rating. I still wonder about the measurement of input power, having regard to the pulsed form of the current, and I am not reassured by the reference to the communication from the Group Research Centre of Joseph Lucas Ltd which Robert includes in his new book `The Revelation of the Century’.

That said, however, going back to that 1994 period, I felt I had to take more initiative myself and so I decided to ask the U.K. Department of Trade and Industry to consider my application in a competition for an award of research funding based on a meritorious invention proposal. I offered something new, based on a new patent application, and backed by the patent cover I already had from my U.K. patent corresponding to the US patent already mentioned. In August 1994, though I was 66 years of age, I won that award and had 75% of research costs covered by the U.K. government. In the event that funding carried my motor research through to year-end 1995.

I did not build the specific form of machine shown in Fig. 1, but instead constructed a motor that was designed to contain the magnetic flux more effectively within what became a single all-embracing magnetizing winding enclosing the whole motor. This is the basis of my own initiative on the ‘over-unity’ machine and, as the U.K. patent specification on this new machine is to be published early in December 1996, I am now releasing information by publication on November 6th of my Energy Science Report No. 9 entitled ‘Power from Magnetism: Over-Unity Motor Design’. Figure 12 of that Report, backed by design detail, shows how the over-unity factor is determined and I reproduce that figure below as Fig. 2.

Without going into full details, note that the diagram is an idealization of a B-H magnetization curve. It has a linear B-H relationship drawn through the origin O but at high flux density levels the curve bends over as it creeps towards saturation and the slope of the curve drops. The areas a, b, c and d, respectively, represent energy density input in energizing the magnetic system. The areas a and b apply for low flux range magnetization over the lower part of the curve. The areas c and d apply to flux changes confined to the upper region. Areas a and c are energy inputs from the magnetizing winding, whereas c and d are energy inputs that electrical engineers never consider, because that energy is supplied by the aether.

Where does the energy go? That is an interesting question fully explained in my Report, but the answer, simply, is that it is pooled by being shared equally between the space occupied by the ferromagnetic core and the space taken up by the air gaps in the core. That energy in the air gaps, or pole gaps in the motor, provides the mechanical drive.

So, you can see for yourself that, if you run the motor over the lower flux density range, which is normal, then you operate at an efficiency which cannot exceed (a+b)/2a, which is 100%. On the other hand, if the motor operates over the higher range, the efficiency can reach up to (c+d)/2c, which is very much higher than 100%!

Consider some realistic figures by putting the knee in the curve at 15,000 gauss and assuming that the incremental B/H ratio is 1000 over the lower range but only 50 over the upper range. Operate the stator core of the motor up to a B value of 20,000. H ranges from 15 to 115 over this upper range. Work out the area c as being (15+115)x5000/2 or 325,000 and the area d as being (15,000+20,000)x100/2 or 1,750,000. You will then see that operation close to 319% efficiency is indicated!

Be less ambitious in power output terms and run the motor over an upper range between 15,000 and 17,000 gauss, to find that area c is (15+55)x2000/2 or 70,000 and the area d is (15,000+17,000)x40/2 which is 640,000. (c+d)/2c is then 507%!

If the aether delivers energy on loan to you and you use it to run the motor as the poles come together but refuse to give it back, then the aether has to replenish itself by taking power from its own vast pool of energy activity. It merely ripples to find a new level of equilibrium just as the sea will recover if you take a bucket of water from it. Eventually, that energy borrowed finds its way back to the aether as we spend it by generating heat radiation..

If you do not believe what I say, then wait and watch the progress as those who do believe, be it Robert Adams or whoever so decides to build a magnetic reluctance motor heeding the design principles I have recorded in my Report.

As a final note I will echo one message which I have independently mentioned in my Report No. 7 (the Report used to brief the U.K. Department of Trade and Industry on my Award progress). It is that magnetic reluctance motors already being manufactured that are said to be 80% or 90% (or even 96% efficient as I now see reported on page 21 of the U.K. Institution of Mechanical Engineers 16 October 1996 issue of ‘Professional Engineering’) are already trespassing upon forbidden territory. That level of efficiency is either a false claim or the motors are already regenerating power from heat dissipated as loss. 

---

LECTURE NO. 7: CONTINUATION

THE COLER REPORT

The following is a collection of sections of text that are quoted from the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee Trip Report No. 2394 BIOS Target Number: C31/4799) entitled: ‘THE INVENTION OF HANS COLER, RELATING TO AN ALLEGED NEW SOURCE OF POWER’, BIOS FINAL REPORT No. 1043: ITEM No. 31′, as made available to the public by the U.K. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, National Lending Library for Science and Technology. The author of the report is named as R. Hurst, Ministry of Supply.

On page 1, under the heading: OBJECT OF VISIT AND SUMMARY:

Coler is the inventor of two devices by which it is alleged electrical energy may be derived without a chemical or mechanical source of power. Since an official interest was taken in his inventions by the German Admiralty it was felt that investigation was warranted, although normally it would be considered that such a claim could only be fraudulent.

Accordingly Coler was visited and interrogated. He proved to be co-operative and willing to disclose all details of his devices, and consented to build up and put into operation a small model of the so-called ‘Magnetstromapparat’ using material supplied to him by us, and working only in our presence. With this device, consisting only of permanent magnets, copper coils, and condensers in a static arrangement he showed that he could obtain a tension of 450 millivolts for a period of some hours: and in a repetition of the experiment the next day 60 millivolts was recorded for a short period. The apparatus has been brought back and is now being further investigated.

Coler also discussed another device called the ‘Stromerzeuger’, from which he claimed that, with an input of a few watts from a dry battery an output of 6 kilowatts could be obtained indefinitely. No example of this apparatus exists, but Coler expressed his willingness to construct it, given the materials, the time required being about three weeks.

Opportunity was taken to interrogate Dr. F. Modersohn who had been associated with Coler for ten years and had provided financial backing. He corroborated Coler’s story in every detail.

Neither Coler nor Modersohn were able to give any theory to account for the working of these devices, using acceptable scientific notions.

There then followed two pages of ‘HISTORICAL NOTES’, divided into two sections, each relating to a different one of the two devices mentioned above. This was followed by the REPORT proper, which included several Appendices containing test data, copies of reports by German professors and drawings.

1. The ‘Magnetstromapparat’

This device consists of six permanent magnets wound in a special way so that the circuit includes the magnet itself as well as the winding. (See Fig. 1).

These six magnet-coils are arranged in a hexagon and connected as shown in the diagram (Figs. 2 and 3), in a circuit which includes two small condensers, a switch and a pair of solenoidal coils, one sliding inside the other. To bring the device into operation the switch is left open, the magnets are moved slightly apart, and the sliding coil set into various positions, with a wait of several minutes between adjustments. The magnets are then separated still further, and the coils moved again. This process is repeated until, at a critical separation of the magnets, an indication appears on the voltmeter. The switch is now closed and the procedure continued more slowly. The tension then builds up gradually to a maximum, and should then remain indefinitely. The greatest tension obtained was stated to be 12 volts.

The ‘Magnetostromapparat’ was developed by Coler and von Unruh (now dead) early in 1933, and they were later assisted by Franz Haid of Siemens-Schukert, who built himself a model which worked in December 1933. This was seen by Dr. Kurt Mie of Berlin Technische Hochschule and Herr Fehr (Haber’s assistant at K.W.I.), who reported that the device apparently worked and that they could detect no fraud. One model is said to have worked for 3 months locked in a room in the Norwegian Legation in Berlin in 1933. No further work appears to have been done on this system since that date.

2. The ‘Stromerzeuger’
This device consists of an arrangement of magnets, flat coils and copper plates, with a primary circuit energized by a small dry battery. The output from the secondary was used to light a bank of lamps and was claimed to be many times the original input and to continue indefinitely. Details of the circuit and a theory as to its mode of operation were given (summarized in Appendix I). (Note by H. Aspden: This Appendix is not included in these Web pages. I cannot accept Coler’s theory, which suggests that electrical charges are also tiny magnetic poles, of north or south polarity, which can move with current through the magnet and somehow gain energy from the magnet. Quite clearly, Coler did not understand why his device worked.)

In 1925 Coler showed a small (10-watt) version to Prof. Kloss (Berlin), who asked the Government to give it a thorough investigation, but this was refused, as was also a patent, on the grounds that it was a “perpetual motion machine”. This version was also seen by Profs. Schumann (Munich), Bragstad (Trondheim) and Knuden (Copenhagen). Reports by Kloss and Schumann are translated in Appendices II and III.

In 1933 Coler and von Unruh made a slightly larger model with an output of 70 watts. This was demonstrated to Dr. F. Modersohn, who obtained from Schumann and Kloss confirmation of their tests in 1926. Modersohn then consented to back the invention and formed a company (Coler G.m.b.h.) to continue the development. At the same time a Norwegian group had been giving financial support to Coler, and these two groups clashed. Modersohn’s connection with Rheinmetall Borsig, and hence with the official Hermann Goering, combined to give him an advantage in this. Coler then in 1937 built for the Company a larger version with an output of six kilowatts.

In 1943 Modersohn brought the device to the attention of the Research Department of the O.K.M. The investigation was placed under the direction of Oberbaurat Seysen, who set Dr. H. Frohlich to work with Coler from April 1, 1943 to September 25, 1943. Frohlich was convinced of the reality of the phenomena and set about investigating the fundamentals of the device. He apparently concentrated on a study of the energy changes which occur on the opening and closing of inductive circuits. At the end of the period he was transferred to B.M.W. to work on aerodynamic problems and is now working in Moscow.

In 1944 a contract was arranged by O.K.M. with Continental Metall A.G. for further development, but this was never carried out owing to the state of the country. In 1945 the apparatus was destroyed by a bomb, in Kolberg, whither Coler had evacuated. Since that time Coler had been employed sometimes as a labourer. Modersohn had severed his connection with Rheinmetall Borsig, of which he had been a Director, and was working for the Russian authorities as a consultant in chemical engineering.

Following the above historical background commentary, the next three sections presented the REPORT as being, respectively, an interrogation of Coler, an interrogation of Modersohn and the actual construction and testing of the device by Coler in the presence of the visiting U.K. Government scientists:

1. Interrogation of Coler
Coler was questioned first about the history of his inventions, when the details above were given.

He was then questioned about the theory of the devices, but he was unable to give any coherent suggestions as to the mechanism. He stated that his researches (apparently conducted with crude apparatus) into the nature of magnetism had led him to conclude that ferromagnetism was an oscillating phenomenon, of frequency about 180 kHz. This oscillation took place in the magnetic circuit of the apparatus and induced, in the electrical circuit, oscillations the frequency of which, of course, depended on the values of the components used. These two phenomena interacted and gradually built up tension (meaning voltage). As the mechanism was not understood the proper arrangement could not be worked out, but had been arrived at by experiment, and the apparatus had to be brought into adjustment by similar trial and error methods. Coler stated that the strength of the magnets did not decrease during use of the apparatus; and suggested that he was tapping a new sort of energy hitherto unknown, – “Raumenergie” (Space-energy). Coler gave a resume of the work done by Dr. Frohlich for O.K.M., and produced a copy of Frohlich’s report (translation reproduced as Appendix IV) and a report of his own (part of which is given in Appendix V).

Coler was next asked if he would consent to build models of these devices if material was made available. He agreed that he could do this and stated that it would take one week to construct a ‘Magnetstromapparat’ and a month to construct ‘Stromerzeuger’. Accordingly we supplied the magnets, condensers and copper wire needed for the former, and Coler proceeded to build an apparatus as discussed in Section 3. A list of the material required to build the ‘Stromerzeuger’ was drawn up by Coler.

2. Interrogation of Dr. F. Modersohn
Modersohn was questioned about the history of these devices, with which he had been concerned financially, and corroborated the details given by Coler. He stated that he had at first disbelieved Coler’s claims, but had taken great precautions to eliminate fraud. He had seen the 70 watt ‘Stromerzeuger’ working on a number of occasions and had taken it while working from one room to another. All parts were visible and nothing was hidden. As he was himself not an expert he had tried to get experts to examine it thoroughly, but reputable scientists either refused to have anything to do with it at all, or else were more concerned to find a fraud than to see how it worked. The exception was Dr. Frohlich, who was convinced of the reality of the effect and who also believed that the secret was to be found in the energy changes in the special inductive circuit used. He had made experiments to test his ideas, but Modersohn denied knowledge of his results. Modersohn was extremely methodical and showed his files on the subject: these contained copies of all letters and reports concerning the device, since 1933.

3. Construction and Testing of the ‘Magnetstromapparat’
In our presence and with material supplied by us (some brought from England and the rest bought locally) Coler built an apparatus as shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 3. It is to be noted that some magnets are wound in a clockwise direction looking at the N pole (called left) and others in an anti-clockwise direction (called right). The magnets were selected to be as nearly equal in strength as possible, and the resistance of the magnet-coil was uniform (about 0.33 ohm). The physical arrangement was as shown in Fig. 2 in a breadboard style. Measurements of voltage and current across A-B were made by Mavometer. A mechanical arrangement of sliders and cranks for separating the magnets evenly all round was made up.

On July 1, 1946 experiments were being continued after three days of fruitless adjusting, and when the magnets were at a separation of about 7 mm the first small deflection was noted (about 9 a.m.). The switch was closed and, by slow adjustment of the sliding coil and by increasing the separation of the magnets to just over 8 mm, by 11 a.m., the tension was raised to 250 millivolts and by 12.30 p.m. it was 450 millivolts. This was maintained for another 3 hours, when a soldered tag became disconnected, and the meter slowly dropped back to zero. Soldering up the broken connection did not restore the tension. The magnets were closed up and left overnight and the same procedure for finding the adjustment was repeated on July 2, 1946. After about three hours a deflection of 60 millivolt was obtained; this was maintained for more than 30 minutes, but then decreased to zero when further adjustments were tried.

During all this work the model was completely open, and nothing could be hidden in it. The breadboard and meter could be picked up and moved round the room, tilted, or turned, without effect.

The apparatus would appear to be too crude to act as an a receiver of broadcast energy, or to operate by induction from the mains (the nearest cable being at least 6 feet away), and the result must for the moment be regarded as inexplicable.

This was followed by a section headed ‘CONCLUSIONS’:

1. It was judged that Coler was an honest experimenter and not a fraud, and due respect must be paid to the judgment of Frohlich in the matter, as deduced from his report to Seysen.

2. The result obtained was genuine in so far as could be tested with the facilities available, but no attempt has yet been made to find an explanation of the phenomenon.

3. It is felt that further investigation by an expert in
electromagnetic theory is warranted and that Coler’s offer to construct a model of the “Stromerzeuger” should be taken up.

The following comments apply to the Appendix section of the Report:
(a) Concerning Appendix I, this outlines Coler’s theory, which does not warrant quotation.
(b) Concerning Appendix II, this is the Report by Professor M. Kloss who tested a device constructed by ‘Captain Coler’ (March 4th, 1926). This had the ‘Stromerzeuger’ form, meaning that battery power is used as input to establish and sustain oscillations of current through the magnets. It includes tables of test data showing input in volts and amps for different tests under increasing load conditions and the corresponding output also measured in volts and amps across lamps used as the load. There is an enormous gain in both voltage and current, as between output and input. The Report contains the following remarks:

The result of the investigation showed an astonishing working of the apparatus, which, without further researches cannot be explained or compared with hitherto known characteristics.

Regarding the cause of the observed characteristics, especially the solution of the question as to where the energy originates, no explanation can be given yet, after the short and simple tests.

Solely the conjecture can be expressed that the magnet-system is the source of energy.

I should like to ask, however, the gentlemen (Coler and Professor Dr. R. Franke from the Technical College of Berlin, both present during the tests) not to mention my name and that of Professor Franke nor divulge the results of our tests without our express consent, or to make them known publicly and above all not in the press.

(c) Concerning Appendix III, this is a Report by Professor W.O. Schumann (Munich) of tests on the Coler device in Berlin on 19th and 20th March 1926. This was a series of tests, again giving data of the results and based on the same arrangement as that tested by Professor Kloss. The last two paragraphs of the Report are quoted below:

After the present examination, carried through as carefully as the limited possibilities of experimentation permitted, I must surmise that we have to face the exploitation of a new source of energy whose further developments can be of immense importance. The apparatus was visible and accessible in all its essential parts. The inventor agreed quite willingly to each trial in so far as, according to his statement, no harm could be done by working of the apparatus.

I do not believe in a deception. I deem it expedient to put the apparatus to a further test, and I believe that a further development of the apparatus and an assistance, given to the inventor, will prove justified and of great importance.

(d) Concerning Appendix IV, this was the Report based on the tests at (i) the Research Department of the Admiralty (OKM), Berlin, Wannsee, between April 1 1943 and June 6, 1943 and (ii) at the Physical Institute of the Technical University of Berlin, between July 1, 1943 and September 25, 1943. The Report concerns essentially the tests made by Dr. Frohlich. It was clear that he had his own theoretical notion as to why the Coler device worked and he allowed this to affect his experimental efforts and his conclusions. There are details of several separate experimental projects. The following are quotations from the Report:

Apart from the great number of alternative arrangements and connections between the different parts, – during the period covered by this report eight different circuit diagrams were tested in addition to the experiments above (This is a reference to the four experiments reported in detail in the Report) – the following so far unsolved problems are hindering success in making the apparatus work:
(a) The influence of the pre-magnetization and of the magnetizing effect due to the battery current, upon the individual frequencies of the oscillating circuits.
(b) The influence of the Barkhausen effect on the phase conditions of the oscillations in the individual circuits and on the mutual magnetic and electrical processes.
(c) The influence of the movement of electrons in the pre-magnetized steel rods by the high-frequency pulse-like field variations, through the oscillations of the molecules of the magnets.
(d) The behaviour of the mutual effect between the flat coils and plates in a high frequency system.

It is clear from the above (meaning Frohlich’s summary review of the Report) that the success of the inventor up to now could only be due to chance or happy accident. The necessity, therefore, arises to transfer the apparatus from the state of empirical development, with sufficient technical means and based on results of an exact basic research, to a state of working procedure which can be controlled.

Concerning Appendix V, this was a Statement by Coler relating to Frohlich’s experiments. Coler is here explaining the circuit tests aimed at generating excess power by normal magnetic inductive techniques at a frequency of 100 Hz. It would seem that the Frohlich initiatives had set Coler thinking about operation at such low frequencies, whereas the theoretical case put by Coler during his later interrogation by that U.K. Government gives a more promising account. There is nothing in Appendix V that warrants quotation here.

This concludes this documentary survey of the Coler Report. I will, however, be reverting to the subject later in these Web pages as well as discussing that induction theme which was attempted by Frohlich. One needs to keep in mind the importance of those air gaps between the magnets or the corresponding effect of demagnetization if an open-ended magnet is used. That 180 kHz resonance is causing movements affecting the energy deployment in the magnetic fields which penetrate those air spaces. To gain energy one has to avoid setting up detrimental back-MMFs (magneto-motive forces) by the induction of a current reaction. At 100 Hz there is negligible scope for gaining excess power in a solid-state magnetic device.
H. Aspden, August 27, 1997.


---

LECTURE NO. 7

THE INVENTION OF HANS COLER

Copyright, Harold Aspden, 1997

INTRODUCTION

It was put under Official Secrecy after its operation had been verified by Government scientists. It was a device which involved magnets and it operated to generate electricity without any source of input power other than the space energy of Nature’s quantum underworld. It was denied patent protection by the German Patent Office, as being a perpetual motion device. It was ignored and the records relating to it were buried in hidden archives. I surmise that that was because the scientists who had to pass judgement on what should be done simply could not understand the physical reason why the invention actually worked.

I believe I know the secret of its operation and I will in this Lecture present a brief outline of that reason before quoting the facts of the case from the now-declassified Government report, which was entitled: ‘THE INVENTION OF HANS COLER, RELATING TO AN ALLEGED NEW SOURCE OF POWER‘.

My approach to the problem takes account of the fact that Hans Coler did not himself know why his invention worked, but he could replicate its operation and instructed others who were able to build working devices. The professors who tested such devices did ascertain that the magnetic field inducing the output power had frequencies in the region of 180 Khz and the evidence pointed to the source of that power being within the magnets. Yet the magnets did not lose any of their strength. The report, as will be seen from the sections to be quoted, gives one assurance that this is no fraud but is, rather, a genuine technological phenomenon, one we cannot turn away from. It must be understood as it may be the energy technology which will provide us with our power in the centuries ahead.

A BRIEF NOTE ABOUT FERROMAGNETISM

It is a fact of physics that the onset of ferromagnetism as iron cools through a critical temperature (the Curie temperature) involves a release of heat over and above that associated with the normal cooling process. It is as if Nature says to the iron:

“When you cool below that temperature, you may find it more relaxing to become internally magnetized by adopting a state of lower energy potential. You will find you can shed even more heat energy by adopting that state and I promise that I shall keep active in regulating your state of energy potential so long as your temperature remains below that Curie threshold. However, should you let yourself get too hot then you will lose your magnetism and I shall take my energy back from you as you cross that threshold. My message, therefore, is that the onset of the magnetic state occurs because I, Mother Nature, let you have some of my energy, which I know you will dissipate as heat, but, conversely, should you contrive to lose your state of magnetism, then you will pay the price and I will take that energy back from you. You will then be obliged to find a way of sucking that energy from the material environment around you.”

Now, physicists do not express themselves in such a style. They merely describe the process as one involving a specific heat anomaly and describe their application of it as ‘adiabatic demagnetization’. However, in the latter pursuit they do not work with iron, but rather with certain paramagnetic salts. Yet it is what is happening in iron that is of major interest.

You see, it so happens that inside each iron crystal at normal ambient temperature there is an ongoing state of transition as the direction of magnetic polarization switches between the 001, 010 and 001 directions in the cubic structure. These are all easy directions of magnetization, because, in an x, y, z coordinate system x, y and z represent these directions and iron finds its optimum energy potential by letting its magnetism lie along a direction parallel with a crystal cube edge. The 011, 101, 111, 110 directions are diagonal directions and it needs a strong magnetic field to force iron to direct its polarization towards such non-preferred directions. Concerning that ongoing state of transition, suppose an iron crystal is polarized in the 001 direction, does this mean that the electron ‘spins’ or whatever it is that accounts for the magnetic condition, all point in the 001 direction all the time? It need not, because logic tells us that symmetry plays a role and the instantaneous state of polarization in a crystal could well lie on the x, y and z axes for equal periods of time in each cycle of transition. Using plus and minus signs to represent direction along a given axis, the sequence: +001, -010, +100, +001, +010 and -100, would add up to a net effect in the 001 direction.

In case you think this is all mere speculation, I invite you to explain why the polarization of iron is 2.221 units of the Bohr magneton per atom. The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment developed by an electron having one unit of angular momentum in quantum theory. Two electrons per atom are involved in setting up the magnetism and each has two Bohr units of angular momentum. This is where I bring in the ‘fudge factor’ of 2 that Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac used in his theory of electrin ‘spin’, but which I see in my theory of magnetic induction as an orbital charge motion in the aether by which that medium reacts to half-cancel any applied magnetic field.

The field set up by each atom is 2x2x2 units in strength, but it spends only one third of the time directed along the +001 direction and so has an average value of 8/3 units. The energy of a reaction in the magnetic field is the same whatever the direction of magnetization and it is determined by that average. It acts as a reaction to halve the instantaneous value of the field and so its reaction strength is (8/3)/2 units, but it spends only one-third of the time reacting to the polarization along the 001 axis. Therefore, its average effect as a reaction is (8/3)/6 units, which offsets the primary action of 8/3 units. Work that out and you obtain 2.222 units as the overall polarization in Bohr magnetons per atom. This compares with the 2.221 observed and suggests that there is a slight delay in the process of losing magnetism in one direction and developing it in another direction, as the crystal experiences its cyclic magnetic transitions.

This was how I interpreted that 2.221 factor some 20 years ago, long before I had heard about Hans Coler. I never thought that there would be any way of proving this ‘time-sharing’ hypothesis as applied to the three preferred axes of magnetization of an iron crystal.

I could even estimate the switching time, because I knew there had to be such a phenomenon for other reasons, dating 20 years back before I found the explanation of that 2.221 factor. It concerned the stress conditions which go with the ferromagnetic state. Copper, for example, is not ferromagnetic because, if it were, the mechanical stresses set up by its magnetic state would rupture it. Iron, nickel and cobalt each have a high tensile strength and a high modulus of elasticity. That reduces the strain energy density that occurs with magnetism and permits the condition of ferromagnetism. Now, if the iron crystal was polarized 100% of the time in the 001 direction, it would be distorted in shape owing to that mechanical strain. The stress set up suddenly in a crystal direction with the onset of a field in that direction is followed by the dynamic adjustment of the crystal form. This does mechanical work and there is a limit on the energy available from that magnetic potential source discussed already. So, after a small displacement, the crystal decides to transfer its magnetic effects to another crystal axis and it starts the process again. This involves ongoing flipping of states between crystal axes.

To estimate the period involved all you need to do is to apply the formula for the speed of propagation of a mechanical displacement in a metal, namely (Y/d)^1/2, where Y is Young’s modulus of elasticity and d is mass density. These are 2×10¹² and 7.86 in c.g.s units for iron. Take the latter quantity to be, in round figures, simply 8, so that that speed becomes 500,000 cm/s.

Now note that the magnets used in the Coler tests as shown in the data in the Report were just over 10 cm in length (probably a nominal length of 4 inches). However, if such a magnet is deemed to expand as the polarization directions of all its domains flip into the longitudinal direction in harmony, then the expansion involves a stress wave which on average travels through only 2.5 cm. This is because the centre of the magnet does not move, whereas the extremities are at 5 cm from the centre. Note that this wave is the physical displacement of a very small fraction of the metal, sufficient to give a small contraction of the gap width separating the end poles of adjacent magnets in the magnet loop of the Coler device. By this I am suggesting that it takes a period of the order of 2.5 cm divided by 500,000 cm/s before the flip of the domain polarization takes effect in adjusting to the change. The result is that the magnetic flux linking the winding around the magnet will build up from a low value to a maximum value in 5 microseconds. Then, if the current in that winding is carried by a resonant circuit optimized to that 5 microsecond rise time, we can expect the oscillation to match that rise time. Almost immediately, once that expanded state is reached, the domains will relax to normalize the stress condition and the polarization will flip to the other modes. Now, laterally, the distances of stress wave travel in the magnet are small in relation to the length of the magnet and this could mean that the reset period is very short. Thus the electrical oscillation in the winding could correspond to a kind of sawtooth stress waveform in the main flux direction linking the windings on the magnet. If that 5 microseconds were then to correspond to a 6 microsecond period, that would imply oscillations at 167 kHz.

Consider what this means. It suggests that Coler may, without knowing it, have discovered a way of interfering with the natural rhythmic domain flipping process which I am sure occurs in a ferromagnet. It tells us to expect that, though it may pass unnoticed, the polarization of each individual magnetic domain in an iron crystal is changing to and from the preferred direction in each crystal at a frequency in the 167 kHz region. Then remember that those professors who tested the Coler device measured a 180 kHz frequency for the power it was delivering. Is this a mere coincidence? I think not! Go further with this reasoning and take note that the mean magnetic polarization in that preferred direction could be much stronger, by a factor of nearly 3, if that sawtooth waveform action really is present. Yes, this is somewhat speculative, but it is going to need something new and challenging in the physics of ferromagnetism if we are to understand why that Coler device works. At least, if one has a theory that supports some aspect of what is observed, then one has then a guide as to which direction to follow in one’s onward research.

HANS COLER’S EXCITATION METHOD

Hans Coler did not apply any external source of power to his magnets. He set up the apparatus and its circuit, adjusted the spacing between the magnets he had arranged in a ring and waited. Nature then began its work as those polarization directions flipped statistically in a near random way, but Coler had devised a circuit, even though he did not know it, that helped those random flips to find harmony in their actions.

His circuit meant that if an overall magnetic flux change did occur through the magnets then it would cause a pulsating current to flow through each magnet. Now consider what that means. It says that he had set up in each magnet a circumferential field pulsation around the central axis of the magnet. It says that when that circumferential field was strongest it would be energetically favourable for the flipping of the magnetic transitions in those crystal domains to be in a direction orthogonal with respect to the main polarization direction of the magnet. It says, therefore, that if the frequency of that pulsation happens to be in tune with the natural frequency of that flip action, then all of the domains in that magnet will try to get in step in their rhythm. In short, there will be a cyclic flux change right around the ring of magnets and linking those coils which Coler had wrapped around the magnets. Without that synchrony of action the random activity would simply give a steady overall magnetic flux around the inductive loop and so there would be no power output.

On this basis the energy generated by the Coler device must come from whatever is powering the cyclic transitions in each of those magnetic domains. Now, standard physical theory has not developed far enough, as yet, to take this cyclic flipping action of magnetic domains on board. Physicists do not really understand the mechanism of ferromagnetism or that mechanical stress activity that is inescapable in that ferromagnetic condition. However, be that as it may, the activity that is occurring is one in which at each critical stress level when the strain energy and ferromagnetic condition get out of balance, the ferromagnetism collapses momentarily. This cools the iron locally, but the ferromagnetic state then develops in an orthogonal direction and an equal amount of heating occurs. This is an ongoing cycle of events. As the ferromagnetism is reasserted along the axis through the body of the magnets in the Coler situation then the harmony of the action means a flux change linking the main winding on the device. This takes energy out as Nature is doing its work to build up that magnetic polarization. In other words, the cyclic demand on Nature to keep reasserting the ferromagnetic direction along the axis of the windings around those magnets, draws energy from the aether at that near-to-180 kHz frequency.

One must, of course, wonder about the implications of this for magnetic skin effects which restrict changing flux penetration according to our conventional theories of electromagnetism, but I take account here of the effective unity permeability one experiences for flux changes in permanent magnets. That would mean that induced currents would have little effect in restraining changes in magnetic flux such as occur in soft iron cores. Indeed, I can only be guided by the facts of the situation and I tend to see what is asserted in the Hans Coler Report as fact. I make an exception with regard to the commentary about an experiment described by reference to a Figure 4 on the last page of the Coler Report, but will comment on that later in these Web pages when I report on certain experiments of my own. Meanwhile, however, I believe I have said enough to set the stage for a review of the Coler Report and I hope that this introduction will encourage whoever reads this, and has the necessary influence, to urge forward the research needed to take Coler’s work through a development phase leading to its commercial exploitation.

I should just mention here that one cannot examine the surface of a piece of magnetized iron, as by using an electron microscope, and expect to see an image blurred by such vibrations. The reason is that the surface layers of atoms extending several Angstrom below the surface of a ferromagnetic body are not polarized. However, the depth of the non-polarized region is a function of crystal orientation adjacent the surface. Data on this are presented in a book by R. F. Soohoo entitled ‘Magnetic Thin Films’, published in 1965 by Harper and Row (see pp. 90-91). That book also includes an interesting comment at the top of p. 238. Observation of some degree of surface anisotropy in the magnetic fields reveals certain ‘peaks’ in the energy coefficients indicated by the measurements. There was a curious statement which reads:

“Assuming a lattice constant is equal to 3 Angstrom and 4(pi)M equal to 10⁴ gauss, we find a value of H_s equal to about 8x(10)⁴. It is inconceivable that a change of 4(pi)M of this magnitude could even occur in a Permalloy film whose normal 4(pi)M is equal to 10⁴ gauss. Thus it appears that whereas a lower magnetization surface layer is capable of explaining the disappearance of the spin-wave modes at a given field orientation, it can not in general account for the high intensity of the peaks.”

If you have understood what is said above about the 8/3 factor and seen that 8 Bohr magnetons is the primary polarization which flips around to give a mean of 8/3 diluted slightly by reaction to become 2.222, then you may see a glimmer of a connection here with what has just been quoted. That 2.222 Bohr magnetons per atom corresponds to a saturation polarization of 2.2x(10)⁴ gauss. 8 Bohr magnetons per atom would give that 8x(10)⁴ gauss value. Note that the saturation polarization of iron at 0 Kelvin is slightly below the value at room temperature. The 2.221 Bohr magneton figure quoted above is observed at zero Kelvin.

Returning now to the Hans Coler theme, reproduction of the full text of the Official Report on the Hans Coler invention is not my intention. Copies of the Report can no doubt be procured from the appropriate sources. I do not have the relevant data on that as I write this text, but I will amend this Web page section as soon as I can provide such information.

What follows is a sequence of selected excerpts from the Report and I shall not offer further comment on it in this Lecture. You must draw your own conclusions as you proceed, though I hope you will keep in mind what I have said above. However, I believe I will have much more to say on the subject in the onward development of these Web pages.

---

---

LECTURE NO. 6

PROTON CREATION

© Harold Aspden, 1997

INTRODUCTION

There is nothing more fundamental in science than the processes involved in the creation of the proton, simply because the proton accounts for virtually all of the matter that forms the universe. The residue comprises the electrons which provide the electrical neutralization and so allow gravity full freedom as the governing force.

However, read as many books as you may, as written by best selling authors, and you will not find any answers to the three basic questions:

Yes, they will tell you that there was a Big Bang at the beginning of time and that the universe was born out of the intense heat of that cataclysmic event. They will tell you that after a few seconds or so, indeed after a specific number of seconds from the beginning of time, the protons and electrons came into being and they will go further and explain that gravity comes about because ‘space-time’ is curved and particles, which like to move in straight lines, have to follow what they call geodesic paths, the straight lines of curved ‘space-time’.

You may come to believe what they say, especially after they explain why they think the universe is expanding and has been expanding steadily for upwards of 10,000,000,000 years. You see, there is a phenomenon called the ‘red shift’. Light from distant stars appears redder than it does from our Sun and that is interpreted as a Doppler effect, which is the apparent reduction in the frequency of electromagnetic radiation sourced in those distant stars, should we be receding away from them in a relative sense. They will tell you about cosmic background radiation and how measurements conducted on aircraft in the upper atmosphere reveal an anisotropy in the intensity of that radiation, one which betrays the existence of our motion through space relative to a kind of residue of energy put there by the Big Bang. To them, it all makes good sense, but do you really understand what they tell you?

When I read about the Expanding Universe Hypothesis I wanted to know why it was that a light wave traveling at close to 300,000 km per second could keep going for 10,000,000,000 years without its frequency reducing somewhat. That is what they assume! The observed loss of frequency, evidenced by the red shift, is interpreted as a Doppler shift, something to do with relative motion, and not simply as a loss of frequency owing to the transit of light over vast distances of space.

Those who write about such matters will tell you they know they are right in their assumption because, if there was something in interstellar space which affected that light and caused its frequency to reduce, it would affect different frequencies to different extents and the red shifts observed reveal no such dispersion. That is the logic of their assumption, just as they assume the validity of Maxwell’s equations governing light wave propagation without understanding the physical process which accounts for those equations.

I wanted to know what there was in the vacuum that could cause light to travel at the fixed speed which scientists label by the symbol c. You can be sure that the speed of light is not constant just because Einstein took that as a principle on which to build his theories. If there is something in that vacuum I wanted to know why it is that light can involve undulating waves which can travel through space without losing frequency. More to the point and consistent with observation, I wanted to know if light could lose frequency at a rate linearly proportional to the frequency at each position along the transit path. You see, there could be loss of frequency as a function of distance traveled and, provided the loss is proportionally the same for all component frequencies, there would be the property needed to account for the observed red shifts from those remote stars and their galaxies. There is then no need to imagine that the universe is expanding from a point in space at which it was suddenly born as a virtually infinite amount of energy compressed into a infinitesimal point – the infinite in the infinitesimal! Any alternative explanation, if scientifically founded, has to have a prior claim on our common sense alongside the horror of that Big Bang hypothesis.

Surely the situation demands that physicists must look again at that vacuum and Maxwell’s equations and be prepared to accept that they have overlooked something. Just because light gets dispersed in traveling a few cm through matter, dispersion resulting from different component frequencies traveling at slightly different speeds, we should not assume that it will suffer the same fate in a populated vacuum. Whatever does populate the vacuum could well have the property needed to explain a slight progressive loss of frequency in traveling trillions of kilometers through space.

It is clearly both absurd and illogical to say categorically that there is nothing in the vacuum but yet know that somehow something there regulates light in transit and then go further and compound that statement by saying that, if there were something there, it must cause dispersion and not a progressive loss of frequency.

Remember that the ‘vacuum’ is ‘space devoid of matter’, not ‘space devoid of physics’. Those Maxwell equations are a statement about the physics of what is there in that vacuum. They tell me, at least, that a propagating wave undulates in planes at right angles to its direction of propagation. Then I ask myself how something physical can oscillate in that lateral sense without pushing on something equally physical to keep a balance. Quite obviously something is missing from Maxwell’s equations. There must be two mutually-interacting physical attributes in the vacuum medium that assist in the propagation of those light waves. Maybe these work together in a way which conserves the wave in spite of obstacles encountered, but at the price of some loss in terms of energy and frequency.

So I say that we need to learn what that ‘something’ is and examine the physics involved to see how it accounts for that red shift we see as we look at distant galaxies. That I have done and I find I can deduce Hubble’s constant, a measure of that cosmological red shift phenomenon, in terms of a theory which admits that protons are being created everywhere in space

THE PROTON CREATION HYPOTHESIS

I will tell that story about deducing the Hubble constant in another Lecture. In the meantime the curious reader can look up my paper on the subject [‘The Steady-State Free-Electron population of Free Space’] abstracted under reference [1984e] in the Bibliography section of these Web pages. My object here in this lecture is to discuss how protons are created.

My proposition, one I have come to after studying the research findings on quantized galactic red shifts, is that there are vast regions of space in which a kind of natural equilibrium prevails at a low energy potential and some regions which are abnormal and at a higher energy potential.

My hypothesis is that protons are created by a statistical process, as energy fluctuations in the vacuum intercept the hidden charge forms that sustain electrical displacement in Maxwell’s equations. A further aspect of the hypothesis is that there will be an incidence of proton decay keeping that proton population constant but not affecting its spatial deployment.

We are, therefore, going to explore the physical processes by which protons are created in the vast expanse of space. Now, radio astronomers looking at their galactic radio sources pay close attention to the microwave emission at 21 cm wavelength. The source of this emission is the hyperfine feature of the spectral emission from hydrogen, the simple atom formed by the proton with its solitary satellite electron. The mass of the proton is crucial to the frequency of the signals emitted and the study of red shifts has something to tell us about the region sending us those signals.

Though I shall show that the proton can have different mass values in some galactic regions, I shall give reason for believing that the mass of the proton, as it applies to the major part of the universe, is a universal constant. However, for those seeking assurance on the latter point and who need some experimental confirmation, I will here refer to the discussion of the constancy of the ratio m_e/m_p by Petley at page 47 in his book: ‘The Fundamental Physical Constants and the Frontier of Measurement’, published by Adam Hilger of Bristol and Boston. He refers to an astronomical method which relies on evidence from quasars. The basis of this method is that wavelengths of the hydrogen lines depend upon the Rydberg constant and (1+m_e/m_p)^-1. In contrast, the wavelengths of lines emitted from heavier atoms have far less dependence upon the ratio of the masses of electron and nucleus. Therefore, if the red shifts of the hydrogen lines differ from those of the heavier atoms, for distant objects radiating with large red shifts, one has an indication of change of proton mass over time. However, the observational data quoted by Petley suggested that any change in m_e/m_p has to be at a rate less than 5% per billion years.

It is therefore appropriate to presume that, generally speaking, the proton/electron mass ratio does not change over time, but, being more specific, there are anomalies linked to the quantized red shifts that are now being observed in the study of 21 cm microwave radiation from remote galaxies.

At this point I should like to summarize my objectives in presenting this Lecture. I know how protons are created and can deduce theoretically the precise value of the proton/electron mass ratio, meaning part in ten million precision. My theory, as it was developed many years ago, tells me that the protons created anywhere in the universe do have the same mass energy where a least energy state of the aether exists, but it also tells me that there are conditions, those prevalent in the higher energy regions of space, where that proton/electron mass ratio and the other of the two most important constants of physics, namely the fine structure constant, can have slightly different values. I do not suggest that any such constant can vary over time. All I am saying is that the value may depend upon energy conditions that are ‘frozen’ into the particular galactic domain locality under observation. My objective is to convince you, the reader, that I have here the answer to the first of those questions listed above.

As to the second question, the creation of the electron, I will discuss that in a later Lecture in this series, but the third question, that of gravity has already been explained as you may see from Tutorials Nos. 6 and 9 in these Web pages.

In fact, those Tutorial Notes (see particularly Nos. 8 and 9) also showed you how to calculate the proton/electron mass ratio, but I want here to prove the formula by applying it to the quantized red shift data which has emerged and which tells us that the proton/electron mass ratio can adopt different values in different localities of space.

As you will see, the reason for this diversion has to do with the factor N, as used in those Tutorial Notes. There I was considering only circumstances local to our own space domain region, a low energy equilibrium space region, where N has a value proved to be 1843. However, N can be different, and have lower integer values under certain circumstances. This is important because the proof which verifies my theory, apart from the numbers coming out right, is the explanation of the quantized galactic red shifts that have been discovered since the theory was first developed.

The route I followed in developing the theory initially took me into a formal analysis of the electrical structure of the aether and the need for its dynamic state to ensure that the interaction of its charge components avoided falling into a state of negative potential. The condition for zero potential was a factor which determined N, the number of electrons and positrons which, given energy input, could be produced from a simple element of aether charge without displacing the surrounding charge of a balancing continuum of opposite polarity. N was determined as being slightly greater than 1844, but the condition for least positive energy with N odd gave the definitive value of N as 1843.

From this I was able to formulate the inverse value of the fine-structure constant as:

which has the value 137.0359, if N is 1843, but there was a group of such formulae involving N. This gave the theory its full power by embracing the proton/electron mass ratio m_p/m_e and the constant of gravitation G. To this group, as presented below, I will now add the expression showing how the hyperfine microwave radiation frequency of hydrogen depends upon N, this giving a measure of the quantized red shift.

THE GOVERNING EQUATIONS

where K and K’ are constants of proportionality. The expression for G is approximate, as a minor term has not been included. It does not concern our present analysis and is included here only to show how N affects the constant of gravitation.

f_h is the frequency representing the hyperfine radiation spectrum of hydrogen. As a red shift, expressed as an apparent Doppler shift velocity, based on the 300,000 km/s speed of light, this formula tells us that the quantized step in the red shift is:

so you can verify that if N_o, as reference, is taken to be 1843, then as N decreases in integer steps so the red shift changes in steps of 18.1 km/s.

To confirm the first five of the above equations one has to work through the details of an aether theory, as I have shown in the Tutorial Notes. I have written these Notes specially, as I have no doubt that the task of studying in depth the original periodical references was too daunting for even the few members of the scientific community who may have stumbled across my work. That plus the evident conflict with Big Bang theory, bearing in mind that the notion of an expanding universe does not suit the aether model I had proposed, is the likely reason for lack of interest. It was all too easy to say that I was ‘playing with numbers’, even though that is an unfair verdict, whereas those who think Einstein had to be right and aether theory had to be wrong did not heed anything I had to say.

For those who wish to explore the background of my aether to learn more about the derivation of that integer N, I draw attention my paper entitled: ‘The Theory of the Proton Constants’, which is paper No. 7 of the 14 papers reproduced in my book ‘Aether Science Papers’. The periodical reference of the paper is Hadronic Journal, vol. 11, pp. 179-176 (1988). The subject was also addressed in my paper ‘A Theory of Proton Creation’, paper No. 9 in the above book. Its periodical reference is Physics Essays, vol. 1, pp. 72-76 (1988).

Based on that derivation of the unique proton value of N as 1843 I shall now revisit the subject of Tutorial No. 10 in these Web pages to rectify an error that came about because I wrongly assumed that the quantized galactic red shifts observed by Tifft were seen in the optical spectrum rather than in the microwave radio spectrum of the hyperfine transitions in hydrogen.

QUANTIZED GALACTIC RED SHIFTS

If you refer to the pages of my Tutorial No. 10 you will see from equation (5) that the aether lattice dimension d was shown to vary as N^-1/9. Certain other aether quantities, such as m_ec², hf_o, e²/d and f_od, were all deemed to be truly universal constants, notwithstanding the possibility that f_o, d, h and e individually could be different in different galactic domain regions. Note that f_o is the Compton electron frequency, the frequency for which the energy quantum hf_o equals m_ec².

The variation of d, the lattice spacing, was based on the assumption that the energy density of the aether lattice structure remains uniform throughout the universe. I now see that this was an error. I should have regarded the main energy constituent of the aether, that of the virtual muons, as being of uniform density. Thus, you can see, from the above expression for m_mu/m_e, that it is (1/N)^4/3/d³ that is the universal constant and this makes d proportional to (1/N)^4/9.

Keep now in mind the fact that our Tutorial analysis showed us that d is equal to 108π electron charge radii and that the rest-mass energy of the electron, which we assume to be a universal constant, is proportional to e² and inversely proportional to that charge radius. This tells us that e⁴ is proportional to d² and so to (1/N)^8/9.

Now, to come to the nature of the microwave radiation detected by Tifft and from which the quantization of galactic red shift was measured, it is noted that the formula for the frequency of hyperfine line separation producing the 21 cm emission is proportional, in theory, to the product of the Bohr magneton eh/4πm_ec and the nuclear magneton eh/4πm_pc as divided by Planck’s constant h. This represents a term proportional to frequency and explains that sixth equation in the above group.

Since m_e/m_p is proportional to N^4/3 and e⁴ is proportional to (1/N)^8/9, that microwave expression becomes proportional to h(c)²/e² times N^4/9. Note that m_ec² is a universal constant. Now we know from the fine structure formula above and its derivation that h(c)²/e² is proportional to c(1/N)^1/6 and c/r is proportional to f_o, whereas r/d is proportional to (1/N)^1/6, so that microwave expression becomes proportional to (N)^4/9(1/N)^1/6(1/N)^1/6f_od, which reduces to proportionality to N^1/9, because f_od is also a universal constant. Accordingly, we have justified the form of the sixth expression listed above.

Remember that in the Tutorial No. 10 account, based on an assumed optical red shift, the corresponding variation was N^4/9. That had explained the red shift steps of approximately 72.5 km/s with N stepping downwards through both odd and even integers.

However, with our corrected analysis based on the radio spectrum observation, the theory implies red shift steps of 18.1 km/s as N decreases in integer sequence.

Now it is my understanding from reading more of Tifft’s work that, though 72.5 km/s is the dominant feature in the quantization of galactic red shifts, there are intermediate levels of quantization, typically involving 36 km/s and 18 km/s red shift spacing.Tifft has written many papers on the subject, ranging over a 25 year period, many appearing in the Astrophysical Journal.

It now becomes an interesting exercise to explore the factors which might govern how Nature selects one value of N with a stronger preference to another and to assess how this N quantization spectrum might have other cosmological implications.

Having only recently come to see this feature that N can have a value other than 1843, I can only proceed tentatively in my own exploration of the subject, but a picture is developing. It is based on the belief that the virtual muon population, which must have the mean mass-energy values as determined by the above expression for m_mu, adapt to a mix of virtual muon pairs of odd units disposed either side of that mean value. Thus, if the mean virtual muon has 206.3329 electron units of energy, as applies with N as 1843, then there are pairs of muons of 207 and 205 units in a mix having a ratio of very nearly two to one.

Do note that this numerical circumstance might well explain why 1843 is rather special. An N value of 1844 corresponds to the least state of energy potential but it is 1843 that offers the easy route to proton creation, because nine virtual muons have to contribute to its creation and the statistical mix of 205 and 207 muons is virtually a 1 to 2 ratio. This means that three 205 muons plus six 207 muons can come together in a smooth energy transition to create the proton, whereas the N value of 1844 would involve some energy turmoil.

Now, if you then consider how an aether domain can adapt to a higher energy state, meaning one for which r/d has increased and N reduced, there has to be creation of electrons and positrons to take up the volume of space freed by the reduction of N. Note that N is an integral number of electron charge volumes in an aether lattice particle, the quon. Now, there are only two ways in which N can change as a space domain boundary moves through the energy system that fills all space. N can increase or decrease. It will increase if it moves from a region where there are too many electrons and positrons in the quantum electrodynamic underworld. These will combine to create more compact forms of matter, those protons that we know are created by surplus aether energy. So as each electron positron-pair suffers its demise to shed energy for pooling as part of that creation process, their charge volumes will be taken up by two quons expanding their individual volumes by one unit. N will increase by 1.

The reverse process is not that simple, because a quon has no way of acting alone to shed some volume and create an electron or positron. It has to look for assistance from the migrant leptons that are present everywhere in space. The electron-positron pairs cannot serve this purpose, because they act to increment N and we are now presuming that they are in a deficit state, because we are going to create them as the domain wall progresses.

So we look to the virtual muons which we know bombard the quons to create the proton but we are only looking at an event where a virtual muon pair attacks the quon, rather than that rare event of proton creation when a multiplicity of virtual muons need to attack in the same rhythmic cycle period. The scenario therefore is one for which a pair of 207 muons, in ‘fertilizing’ the quon, shed energy to decay into a pair of 205 muons by creating two electrons and two positrons. This means that N can only decrease in steps of 4 units as the quon shrinks a little to free the space needed by those electrons and positrons.

Consider what this means. There are regions of space in which there is an excess of thermal energy. Thermal energy is associated with motion of matter and all such motion involves inducing electron-positron activity in space. Indeed, the kinetic energy of an electron can be shown to be attributable to the statistical creation of electron-positron pairs in the close proximity of that primary electron. Space has a way of allowing such activity, whilst conserving energy, charge parity and the volume of space occupied by electric charge, but that process concerns the equilibrium of the interplay between matter and the aether and we are here considering the interplay between aether and aether at a space domain boundary wall. Those virtual electrons involved in the quantum-electrodynamic underworld are really part of the aether. They can store energy temporarily but we want our domain wall transition to be between two stable modes, each locked in a state defined by that number N.

The thermal energy that escapes by being radiated well away from its matter source has to be absorbed by the aether and it must somehow over-populate space with those virtual electron-positron pairs which we see as affecting N at the seat of boundary transitions.

We have argued that N can only increase one integer unit at a time, but it can only decrease in steps of 4 units. Decrease of N corresponds to increase of material energy activity in the domain. Therefore, where there are cataclysmic events in space releasing enormous amounts of thermal energy, the domains will form with lower N values, probably stepped down in units of 4 from the base value of 1843. As to probability of the N transition in the ‘cooling’ phase, domain boundaries do not move through points in space at short intervals of time. They are well separated by distances measured in light years, as evidenced by their effect on geomagnetic field reversals, so in stepping down one integer digit at a time we shall have a series of domains at the unit intervals which are associated with a ‘cooling’. The 4-step domain states are the ones set up by the ‘hot’ state, meaning the stronger source of microwave radiation.

Then remember that each of those unit steps has been shown theoretically to involve a red shift difference of 18.1 km/s. The stronger radiation will come from the domains with the N tiering at the 4 unit separation. This would suggest 72.5 km/s red shift intervals between radiation from these domains. So what this all amounts to is my tentative explanation as to why 72.5 km/s is the dominant red shift interval, but red shifts said to be close to 36.6 km/s and 18.3 km/s are also observed.

In questioning this idea, keep in mind that my theory holds firmly to the proposition that truly fundamental charge forms are spherical and comply with the J.J. Thomson formula relating energy E, charge e, radius R and mass M, namely:

This means that the quon, which has a charge volume N times that of the electron is important in these space volume considerations, as is the electron, but all other particle forms which have very much larger mass are insignificant as to the charge volume requirements. The story is, of course, very different for the taons and gravitons which sit in the G-frame, as even the most minute volume of space that they displace can make its presence felt through the space domain as a gravitational action.

Having regard to the energy implications involved in these changes of N, it will need a great deal of analysis of the actual observations of those anomalous red shifts before one can comment further. I do feel, however, that it is here that the evidence can be found to prove my theory of the proton and with it the theory of the fine structure constant and the constant of gravitation. The parameter N holds the key and it seems that those red shifts observed by W. G. Tifft of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Green Bank, West Virginia and the Steward Observatory in the University of Arizona, Tucson have opened the door to which that key belongs.

SOME CONCLUSIONS

To put the above in an overall perspective, the following conclusions emerge:
1. The energy density of the universe, meaning mainly that hidden in the aether, is uniform, but there are ongoing minor fluctuations.
2. Those fluctuations can result in some hybrid forms of galactic domains in which the dimensions of the lattice structure, the rhythmic frequency of lattice oscillations and even the unitary electron charge can all adopt a different set of values characterized by a quantization integer N.
3. The domain boundaries can move as domains grow and shrink in size, just as can the magnetic domain walls separating the polarized regions of a ferromagnetic material. New domains can develop and spread, each having its own set of characteristics according to that value of N which is locked into the domain pattern set by the level of excess energy above the aether norm as it is formed.
4. As protons and electrons appear within the domains, gravity having been ‘switched on’ within the confines of a newly formed domain, stars come into being and those stars acquire motion which can eventually carry them through galactic domain boundary walls and so transfer them to other domains.
5. Generally speaking, therefore, what we see in the universe is stellar activity from domains that have, in a sense, survived by being normalized at a common N value. However, there remains an ever-present proportion of domains that, by virtue of the energy fluctuations and the new domain creation activity, survive with abnormal N values.
6. The norm of activity is for that stellar migration across domain boundaries to cause N to increase to its optimum value, one of least energy potential consistent with the physical processes involved in proton creation. The smaller N, the larger the red shift observed in the microwave radiation from the hydrogen atom. The optimum value of N is that which prevails here in our local galactic environment, namely N=1843.

Harold Aspden,
August 23, 1997.

---

We began this lecture on ‘Binary Vision’ by referring to two Letters to the Editor that appeared side by side in the October 1985 issue of American Journal of Physics and have devoted our attention so far to the topic raised by Jerry Webb. That took us into the realm of cosmology and the role of the aether in developing vacuum spin which could account for the creation of our Sun and the angular momentum of the solar system, as well as the formation of the planets, and the Earth-Moon system.

Now, in this concluding section of this Lecture, we shall revert to the first of those Letters to the Editor, which was entitled ‘The Proton Enigma’. In writing that 1985 Letter to the American Journal of Physics I had in mind that 10 years earlier I had, in collaboration with Dr. D. M. Eagles [1975a], reported on the process by which protons are created from energy shed by the aether. This is a continuous creation process but it is governed by energy equilibrium so that matter can regenerate itself in its primordial form. This is something of extreme importance to physical science and it has its implications for new energy technology, but the achievement was really the proof, as evidenced by the derivation of the proton-electron mass ratio being exactly in accord with its measured value.

Now I spoke earlier in this Lecture about the significance of numbers in relation to the physical constants, meaning the dimensionless formulations, and the implications one might draw from a decoding exercise to trace what is hidden in the physics that determines those quantities. You will see an example of this as I come below to quote the text of that ‘Proton Enigma’ Letter. The prime number 23 is mentioned in connection with a property of the neutron, which I see as an anti-proton neutralized by the presence of a positron and a varying admixture of electron-positron pairs. I give the full theory, as it developed later, in reference [1986d] which is reproduced in full in my 1996 book ‘Aether Science Papers’, so you can tell from the 1986 date that I knew far more about that factor 23 than I was revealing in the short Letter I wrote in 1985 to the Editor of American Journal of Physics.

In the full theory, the neutron has four different states and it flips between states as it is attacked by the ever-present virtual muon bombardment that is ongoing in the aether, spending most of its time in the ground state. In that ground state and in two of the remaining states the anti-proton component stands a little apart and it is this that accounts for the fact that the magnetic moment of the neutron is -1.913043 nuclear magnetons. Allowing for the g-factor of 2 which applies to the proton (or anti-proton) if wave resonance states cannot develop around it, as is the case in this multi-particle neutron system, this tells us that the fourth of those states of the neutron exists for the proportion of time:

Now, if you are reasonably adept at using a pocket calculator, you may run through the exercise that I performed when I first saw this figure for the measured magnetic moment of the neutron reported at a conference I attended at the U.S. National Bureau of Standards in 1981. I was sitting in the conference auditorium and I had my pocket calculator at hand. I pressed a few keys to evaluate the above quantity and then the key showing its inverted or reciprocal value, to find that the number that appeared was 22.9998735. That got me excited, because it was virtually the integer 23. So I checked further, taking note of the experimental precision of that measurement and … well, see for yourself in what I wrote in the Letter published by American Journal of Physics.

Before quoting from that item to conclude this Lecture I will just add the further note that my [1986d] paper explained that the factor 23 came about, not because of wave resonance around the neutron, but rather because of the odds of the chances of transition between the four neutron states, given that each presented a different target for the virtual muon bombardment. You obtain the number 23 by virtue of the different electron-positron presence giving different target exposure and, wonder of wonders, this allows the mean mass of the neutron in flipping between states to be calculated. The value, expressed in energy terms as an excess over proton mass, is in perfect accord with that measured, theory giving 1.2933214 MeV and observation giving 1.293323+/-0.000016 MeV.

If you wonder how 23 comes from the odds of Nature’s statistical game of chance, then you must read that paper [1986d]. It explains how there are four neutron states, A, B, C and D. It shows that the equilibrium ratio between states B, C and D is 2:3:1 with state A as the ground state. It develops a theme based on charge volume conservation and energy conservation in lepton transmutations which shows that the electrons and positrons develop in groups of 166. The B, C, D group must have 64 electrons and positrons collectively, because states A, B, C and D have an electron/positron target exposure areas of 3, 5, 5 and 7, respectively, corresponding to electron-positron pair populations of 1, 2, 2, 3. This complies with the need for 166-64 to be divisible by 3. Note that 7×2+6×5+4×5=64. State A is the ground state and state D is the only state in which the neutron exhibits its truly neutral character so far as magnetic moment is concerned. The equilibrium ratio of states A, B, C, and D is found to be 17:2:3:1 or, to get the 166 electron-positron combination, 34:4:6:2. This results in state D prevailing for 1 part in 23.

This may all seem a little complicated but it has a logical simplicity and the underlying truth of it all is confirmed once the mass-energy of the neutrons in the various states is averaged according to the same probability distribution. As already stated above, one gets the precise mass of the neutron as measured.

The text of ‘The Proton Enigma’ reads:

This letter refers to the editorial entitled “Small things in physics can be big things.” [1] It begins by commenting that “Surely, the proton is predictable” and, after showing how minor discrepancies have led to major advances in theoretical physics, ends with the challenging reminder that, even after 50 years, there is still no resolution of what is a major discrepancy involving the proton magnetic moment. It is discrepant by a factor of almost 2.79285, with this its value measured in nuclear magnetons.

Having recently [2] responded to Victor F. Weisskopf’s concern about the proton-electron mass ratio, by drawing attention to a 1975 theoretical derivation of this quantity, now valid at the one part in 10 million level of its precision measurement, I offer also a comment in response to the challenge of Ref. [1].

I believe that the proton magnetic moment and, indeed, the neutron magnetic moment are explicable fully by a theory involving a standing wave system centered on the proton and its quantum electrodynamic interaction with virtual muons and electrons in the surrounding field. The method is too long to outline in this short letter, but it is hoped that my papers on the subject will be published in the scientific literature in the not-too-distant future. Meanwhile, readers can share my own fascination with a quite remarkable result, which, if fortuitous, would be a cruel act on the part of nature. The theory gives reason for believing, first, that the basic proton magnetic moment is governed normally by the usual g factor of 2, but that standing wave excitation increases this to its anomalous value of nearly 2.79285. Second, the neutron responds to a wave excitation between virtual muons and electrons in the magnetic field as if separated from a neutralizing charge to become a non-excited (g=2) antiproton for 22/23 parts of any short period of time. The standing wave resonance indicates integer relationships; it is relevant that the nearest integer 207 to the muon-electron mass ratio includes, as its highest prime factor, the integer 23. The consequence is that the neutron magnetic moment should then be (2)(l-1/23) or 44/23 nuclear magnetons attributable to a negative charge. Evaluated, this gives a theoretical neutron magnetic moment of -1.913043478 nuclear magnetons, in excellent accord with the measured value of -1.91304308(54)(0.28 ppm) reported by Greene et al. [3].

If this standing wave explanation eventually finds acceptance, the theme of the editorial will still hold, because it was the explanation of a small discrepancy connected with the electron magnetic moment that suggested the standing wave approach to the proton and neutron.

References
[1] J. S. Rigden, Am. J. Phys., 53, 107 (1985).
[2] H. Aspden, Physics Today 37, 15 (1984).
[3] G. L Greene, N. F. Ramsey, W. Mampe, J. M. Pendlebury, K. Smith, W. B. Dress, P. D. Miller, and P. Perrin, Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants, edited by B. N. Taylor and W. D. Phillips (Natl. Bur. Stand., Spec. Publ. 617, 1984).
The above Letter to the Editor of American Journal of Physics was written from my then-address at the University of Southampton in England.

Remember that in the body of this Lecture, which has extended through four sections of these Web pages, I have presented the full version of the Lecture paper on ‘Space, Energy and Creation’ that I delivered at the University at Cardiff in Wales back in the year 1977. You will, therefore, appreciate that as we progress further with these Web lectures by the author we will be building on a very far-reaching framework for our understanding of fundamental physics. As each new item is now introduced, I ask you not to judge it as if it stands alone unsupported and unrelated to these other research findings. If you sense weaknesses in the arguments used then that should be seen as your challenge to look for ways of contributing improvements, but please do not think you can discard the whole framework of what I have introduced. Explaining gravity and proton creation has been a formidable task. Be sure you understand what I am saying on this subject before you dream of its rejection as it may be a very long time, if ever, before any alternative answers are forthcoming from the work being done on superstring theory and the like. If you try to study quantum gravitation based on such ‘superstring’ theory, then I wish you ‘good luck’. You will need it if you are to make any sense at all from what is being written on that subject.

H. Aspden
June 19, 1997

SATELLITE FORMATION

[It has been shown above that the parameter Ad, which is a property of the vacuum medium, must have the value of approximately 20 gm/cc. This does not mean that this mass density is that attributed to the vacuum medium, because A is a numerical constant and the three separate empirical sets of data that tell us the value of Ad have not revealed the value of A on its own. However, we can now proceed further, using the result we have obtained to tell us something about the satellite system that can develop, whether we consider Sun or Earth. The following analysis was summarized in a box illustration in the 1977 lecture paper. However, it also features in the text at pp. 158-159 of my 1980 book ‘Physics Unified’ and, taken in combination with pp. 166-167, is expressed there with greater clarity. Accordingly, apart from the diagram below (which did not include the suffix feature for M or m) I shall here, in the remainder of this text under the heading SATELLITE FORMATION, reproduce text from this book to complete this section.]

Let m_s denote the mass of a satellite material in orbit around the parent body in its surface regions of radius R, that parent body being of mass M_p and let X represent the angular momentum of that satellite system. Suppose that the parent body has a net electric charge +Q during the satellite formation phase and that the satellite material has a net electric charge -Q. Then force balance gives:

where k may be less than unity if, for some reason, not all of the charge seated in the satellite region is effective in setting up the attractive force between parent and satellite.

Note that:

R. A. Lyttleton in his book ‘Mysteries of the Solar System’, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 34, 1968 has explained how magnetic forces exerted within a system of charge by its rotation and self-gravitation will force angular momentum outwards. Thus the transfer of the angular momentum X to a concentrated surface zone is understandable. In a sense this can be thought of as a phenomenon similar to the gyromagnetic reaction already discussed. The reaction angular momentum of the field absorbs angular momentum from the centre of the body and the primary balance of angular momentum is driven to the outer periphery of the rotating system, all as a result of the diamagnetic screening effects within the electrical core.

Once the equation involving kQ and X above is established, the body is primed to create its satellite system. All that has to happen is for the Q charges to neutralize by slow discharge and as this happens the satellite matter of mass m_s will leave the main body. It will take up an eventual orbital position governed by gravitational balance between M_p-m_s and m_s and the centrifugal forces on m_s.

This is all rather simple and it lends itself to immediate verification because we can develop a formula for m_s/M_p which can be checked with observation. Use the above equation to link G, M_p and Q and write M_p as 4π/3 times d_pR³. Replace X by 2M_pR²w/5, the angular momentum formula for a uniformly dense sphere of mass M_p and radius R rotating at angular velocity ω. Then the equations combine to give:

Now apply this to the Sun, noting the initial angular velocity ω is found by summing the present angular momentum of the solar system and computing ω from the above expression for X. This is shown in Appendix II of the book ‘Physics Unified’ to make ω a little greater than 8×10^-5 rad/s. [But note that this assumes that the Sun’s mean mass density of 1.4 gm/cc applies as a uniform distribution throughout the solar form.] On this assumption, we then find that if k=2 the planet/Sun mass ratio given by our formula is 1/764. The observed value of this mass ratio is 1/745.

Next, let us check this same formula with the Earth’s own satellite, the Moon. The Earth has a d_p value of 5.5 gm/cc and ω of the initial Earth before the Moon was ejected was, according to Lyttleton, 5.5 hours per revolution or (3.2)x10^-4 rad/s. This is easily verified by adding the Moon’s angular momentum in orbit around the Earth to that possessed by Earth today. In this case we find that if k=1 we obtain from our equation a value of the Moon/Earth mass ratio of 1/83. The observed ratio is 1/81.

It follows that we have a viable theory of creation of our planetary system if only we can explain why k=2 for the Sun and k=1 for the Earth. This is a vital clue to the understanding of the cosmic medium and the source of the Sun’s initial angular momentum.

[The 1977 lecture paper did not resolve the question as to why k should be different by a factor of 2 for Sun and Earth and so we will not here follow through with the explanation that later appeared in the 1980 book ‘Physics Unified’. However, it will be the subject of a later Lecture included in these Web pages and, in the meantime, copies of that book are in print and are still available at this time (June, 1977). The subject Lecture now proceeds by reverting to the next section of text in the 1977 lecture paper.]

STRUCTURED SPACE

An important question is that of why the solar system suddenly came into being some 4,500,000,000 years ago. It is as if there was a sudden decision that gravitation would come into being. The usual starting point is to suppose a diffused cosmic dust begins to come together due to gravitation. But why should there be such a beginning? If matter dispersed in space was created slowly and steadily the results which have just been presented would not apply. An answer comes from the understanding of the nature of the force of gravitation and the realization that it only exists in a vacuum medium which has structure. The analogy is found in ferromagnetism. There are forces which depend solely upon the prevailing ordered state of the ferromagnetic substance. Above the Curie temperature there is no magnetism. Similarly, in any crystalline substance there are forces which vanish once the crystal becomes disordered by high temperature effects. Therefore, I offer the suggestion that the electrical medium permeating the vacuum has structure and that some 4,500,000,000 years ago [or whenever it was that our Earth and solar system were created] this structure went through a transition which allowed gravitation to assert itself.

The geometry of a lattice-structured vacuum can yield parameters determining the fundamental physical constants and assuring their universal equality [1969a, 1975a]. However, this takes us beyond the scope of this paper and I wish to conclude by suggesting some experiments.

OPTICAL SENSING OF THE VACUUM

It should be possible to distinguish between linear motion and rotation by optical sensing of the vacuum medium. A sphere of rotating structure will not disturb a similar surrounding structure. The linear motion of a lattice-like structure through a similar surrounding structure seems impossible. Yet it is possible if the lattice density is reduced by linear motion and the free lattice substance is in counter-motion within the body of the lattice. Analysis [1976a] shows that the optical reference frame moves with the lattice in linear motion, a result confirmed by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. On the other hand, since the lattice density is unchanged in the rotating state, the optical reference frame remains the non-rotating reference frame. Thus an experiment involving the measurement of the speed of light in the Earth’s rotating frame should be sensitive to the Earth’s rotation. This is confirmed by the experiments of Michelson, Gale and Pearson (A.A. Michelson, H. G. Gale & F. Pearson, Astrophysical Journal, v. 61, p. 140; 1925).

The interesting question is whether the vacuum can be set in rotation by test apparatus and this Earth rotation component obscured in optical tests. For example, at the equator the laboratory moves eastwards at a speed of about 460 m/s. Speed of light tests should indicate a difference of 920 m/s between the west-east and east-west speeds. This is provided the apparatus has not become, in effect, a system with its own rotating vacuum and so carried forwards around the equator with what is effectively a vacuum system in linear motion. In short, if rotating apparatus is avoided, it should be possible, as in the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment to detect the 920 m/s speed difference in the light tests. If the presence of rotating apparatus obscures this measurement and differences of a few metres per second are measured then this is evidence supporting the vacuum spin hypothesis presented above. I submit that the many experiments which now verify the isotropy of the speed of light relative to the laboratory and claim results to within a few metres per second all have test apparatus in rotation during the experiment. Therefore, what is needed is an experiment which involves no rotating apparatus and measures Earth rotation speed, but which can then be subjected to rotation and shown to become insensitive to Earth rotation. Then any delay in the onset of this change following rotation of the apparatus will give evidence of the inertial properties of the vacuum spin. The follow-on from this is to seek to sense mechanically the coupling between the vacuum spin and the rotating apparatus.

ELECTRICAL SENSING OF VACUUM SPIN

Another experiment worth attention involves setting up an electrical charge and seeking to induce vacuum spin which might be sensed by its magnetic field. In this connection it is noted that the Earth generates a magnetic field which is of the magnitude expected from vacuum spin. This is known from the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis baed on the fact that the Earth exhibits the magnetic moment it would have if it had electric charge related by the factor G^1/2. Blackett (P.M.S. Blackett, ‘A Negative Experiment Relating to Magnetism and Earth Rotation’, Phil. Trans. Royal Society, v. 245A, 309; 1952/53) claims to have disproved this hypothesis experimentally. He sought to concentrate the magnetic effect by using a dense gold cylinder but obtained a null result. However, he did not suspect that the vacuum medium might generate the field and this is not influenced by the density of gold.

Finally, an interesting experiment has been performed by Ryan and Vonnegut (R.T. Ryan & B. Vonnegut,’Formation of Vortex by an Elevated Electrical Heat Source’, Nature Physical Review, v. 233, 142; 1971). They arranged for a cage to rotate around an electric arc discharge at quite low speed and found that this stabilized the arc. The task of stabilizing an electric arc is one of the major problems of thermonuclear fusion research. It seems therefore very difficult to believe that the wild antics of the arc discharge are tamed merely by the slow rotation of a column of air. Perhaps there is vacuum spin in this experiment and it is the influence of the induced vacuum fields which stabilize the arc. Here then is more scope for research. Can the arc be stabilized in a vacuum? It is research which the modern physicists will not readily undertake because there is widespread belief that the vacuum is a non-entity devoid of any special properties. It is a belief encouraged by the development of relativity and in my experience those who believe in relativity deny the existence of the aether. On the other hand I was once reassured by a comment Professor Cullwick made about something I published (E.G. Cullwick, ‘Relativity and the Ether’, Electronics & Power, v. 22, 40; 1976). He quoted Einstein as saying: ” The special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny the existenceof the ether….there is weighty evidence in favour of the ether hypothesis.”

[The above lecture paper was dated 15 September, 1977. It did include another boxed illustration containing the following analysis explaining the induction of charge by vacuum spin.]

CHARGE INDUCTION BY VACUUM SPIN

[Beneath this heading in the 1977 lecture paper there was a sub-heading (Linear Oscillator Property) which stressed the point that the vacuum medium exhibits the characteristics of a simple harmonic linear oscillator. The vacuum medium has a natural oscillation frequency which has the value found by dividing the rest-mass energy of the electron by Planck’s constant. At the speed of light that frequency corresponds to the Compton electron wavelength h/mc. As an angular frequency it is denoted Ω.]

Each element of the structured vacuum rotates at the universal frequency Ω in small orbits of radius r. If there is vacuum spin at angular frequency ω then in the plane of Ω an element moving at radius R from a spin axis will be radially displaced by the amount ωR/Ω. The area of a disc of radius R will change in proportion to 2ω/Ω.

Note then that there will be an induced charge density of σ, given by:

where σ_o is the overall charge density of the aether structure not allowing for the compensating effect of the non-displaced neutralizing charge background. Now let K denote the restoring force rate so that Kr is the centrifugal force component attributable to each element m_o forming that aether structure and K is m_oΩ².

The electrical nature of the restoring force and the electric induction developed by vacuum spin are then readily explained by dimensional analysis. Note that the ‘=’ sign used here implies equivalence or proportionality and not equality.

Thus K, as a property of the vacuum, is proportional to eσ_o and:

which, by multiplying by the number of charges e in unit volume of the aether structure, can be rewritten as a statement that the mass density of the vacuum structure is proportional to (σ_o/Ω)².

Then, since we have shown that σ_o(2ω/Ω) is proportional to σ, we find that the mass density of the vacuum structure is proportional to (σ/ω)² which we also inferred earlier from dimensional analysis, but without giving reason for the induction process in terms of the linear oscillator property of the electrical system that exists as the aether medium.

ADDED NOTE

The question of vacuum spin, by which is meant the storage of spin energy in the vacuum medium, and the prospect that the vacuum itself may thereby assert turning forces on matter has been implied in the 1977 lecture paper by reference the research of Zinsser. Also there may seem to be some confusion in presuming, in the discussion about electrodynamic interactions, that out-of-balance turning effects cannot be induced electrodynamically, and then suggesting the opposite, as by reference to the Zinsser experiments. The point I wish to stress is that the vacuum spin is set up by electrostatic action attributable to a radial electric field and does not owe its origin to electrodynamic action. It would seem that out-of-balance linear force can arise from electrodynamic action, by energy transfer attributable to moving electric charge, whereas out-of-balance turning couples, really balanced by aether reaction, are the province of electric displacement from a central axis.

Concerning Zinsser I cannot vouch in any way for the authenticity of what he claimed, but I think it appropriate to refer here to some comments I quote from a book by Thomas F. Valone entitled ‘The Homopolar Handbook’, published by Integrity Research Institute, 1377 K Street NW, Syuite 204, Washington, DC 20005.. This book is dated 1994, but it includes on pp. 74-75 an account of a meeting between Valone and Zinsser in Hanover, Germany in 1980. The report there published had appeared earlier in ‘Energy Unlimited’, No. 9, publisher’s address: Rt. 4, Box 288, Los Lunas, NM 87031, USA.’

Valone’s remarks read: “At dinner, Adam Trombly and I were interrupted by Dr. Nieper re-introducing Rudolph Zinsser as the foremost German expert on gravitation. Then the friendly, white-haired Zinsser began to describe his 10 years of research to us as I reached for my tape recorder. There was an excitement in the air as Adam and I struggled to comprehend Dr. Zinsser’s patented pulse generator (US Patent No. 4,085,384) causing an unprecented 3 to 5 hour force from a brief ‘activation’ of only 90 seconds. We were shown a 6-inch plexiglas cylinder with two aluminium plates inside submerged in a water dielectric. He described the small activator in front of us energizing an object suspended in a vacuum.

Dr. Zinsser showed us graphs recording the angle of deflection of the object which was labelled in terms of force. A maximum of 8 dynes manifested within 1/4 hour of activation, slowly dropping to zero about 5 hours later. He said everything could be scaled upwards without difficulty. In comparing the impulse delivered to power input, he said that it was at least 10,000 times the ratio obtained from chemical rockets (based on Dr. Peschka’s analysis). I am really glad I met Rudolph Zinsser who certainly destroyed my conventional notions of force and energy.”

---

This is a copy of the lecture material and hand-out as presented by the author to the students and staff of the Physics Department at the University of Cardiff in 1977. There was some interest at that location in the author’s research on gravitation, as reported in the books ‘Physics without Einstein’ and ‘Modern Aether Science’ and the author was invited to give this as a special lecture. Some of the findings were later mentioned in the 1980 book: ‘Physics Unified’. Note, however, that there will be some comments included in square brackets in the text below by way of explanatory notes needed to explain something quite important which the author attributed in error to Clerk Maxwell, but which in fact the author should have claimed as his own original brainchild. As to the references, where these refer to this author’s papers these are given as they are indexed in the Bibliographic Reference Section of these Web pages. Other reference detail will be included in italics in the body of the text.

INTRODUCTION

This lecture presents some new scientific evidence which may help our understanding of the creation of the solar system. It suggests an experimental approach for exploring the phenomena involved. It results from theoretical enquiry into the structure of the vacuum medium, a pursuit which is somewhat controversial. It is hoped, however, that the evidence presented will speak for itself and encourage those with the resources to undertake the necessary experimental research.

SOLAR ENERGY AT CREATION

We believe the Sun to be a nuclear inferno and that it was formed by matter in space condensing under gravitational force. This resulted in a build-up of temperature until eventually the primordial matter in the form of hydrogen began to be steadily converted into helium by nuclear processes. The radiation from this nuclear core then prevented the Sun from contracting further and we have a stable, but slowly dying, Sun which could well feed us with solar energy for another 10,000,000,000 years.

We no longer worry about what happened to the energy released by the gravitational field when the Sun was first formed. There was enough energy from this source to sustain the present level of solar radiation for about 20,000,000 years. We suppose that it was all radiated away long ago. However, it must have performed some role during the early stages of the Sun’s creation and it is this which I find of interest.

For example, if the energy released was somehow all stored by the Sun as kinetic energy, the Sun would have to move at about 500 km/s. Curiously, measurements of the Earth’s motion through space by reference to the supposed-isotropic cosmic background radiation do indicate speeds of this general order (E. K. Conklin, ‘Velocity of the Earth with respect to the Cosmic Background Radiation’, Nature, v. 222, p. 971; 1969). This then leads one to ask whether the gravitational energy released is perhaps conserved in the local cosmic environment as a state of motion.

Speculation such as this raises problems of momentum balance. We know that interactions between matter must satisfy the action and reaction law of Newton. Angular momentum is conserved in any complete system subject to central laws of force such as the law of gravitation. This follows from energy conservation principles.

However, the source of angular momentum of the solar system poses very perplexing problems. We would like to think that the planets were formed from the Sun, but the planets revolve in their orbits in exactly the same sense as the rotating Sun. Somehow the Sun must have acquired a substantial angular momentum when it was first formed and somehow it shed most of that angular momentum in giving birth to the planets.

So difficult is this problem that philosophers have resorted to the unlikely hypothesis that another star once passed close to our Sun, imparting angular momentum and inducing planetary creation. Such an event, they recognized, is so improbable that the solar system could be unique in the universe, assuring mankind a rather special place in the cosmic scene.

I prefer to regard the problem of the source of the Sun’s angular momentum as a clue linked with the storage of gravitational energy released when it was formed.

ENIGMA INVOLVING ROTATION

There is other evidence of phenomena which involve unusual angular momentum properties or raise difficulties with the principle that action balances reaction.

One example is the mysterious energy source of tornadoes. It has been argued very persuasively by Vonnegut (B. Vonnegut, ‘Electrical Theory of Tornadoes’, Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 65, p. 203; 1960) that this energy really comes from the electrical discharges we associate with thunderstorms but the very substantial angular momentum of the tornado is also a problem. It may be that the energy somehow concentrates the angular momentum of an ordinary whirlwind or, as Vonnegut writes: ” it is possible that the vortex is initiated directly by electrical energy.” Vonnegut also remarked that: “an understanding of ball lightning may very well be necessary if the tornado puzzle is to be solved.”

[Vonnegut illustrated features of the tornado as above, noting that there is ‘incessant lightning’ and a ‘brilliant cloud’ within the funnel.]

Thus ball lightning becomes the second enigma. It is the problem of glowing spheres which are regularly seen to float about in the air following a thunderstorm. They have an aetherial character because they can pass through walls, get inside aircraft and vanish suddenly, sometimes explosively with release of substantial energy. They are so peculiar and subject to such strange reports that they evoke a great deal of scepticism. However, the fact remains that they are a mysterious scientific phenomenon produced by lightning. They contain energy of some 10⁷ joules per cubic metre and apparently form as spinning spherical objects. The implication is that they have an associated angular momentum.

In the laboratory there are, to my knowledge, two reports of anomalous behaviour which are seemingly relevant. In 1972 a demonstration at a meeting of the Institution of Electrical Engineers in U.K. surprised its author. A rotor in a machine speeded up when the power was switched off. It happened and yet could not be reproduced in later efforts to study the phenomenon (E. Laithwaite, ‘Unexplained Phenomenon’, Electronics & Power’, v. 18, p. 360; 1972). It is as if, by some very special circumstance, energy was stored as rotational kinetic energy in the environment of the machine and was fed back to the machine when it was switched off.

The other report appeared in the German publication Umschau in 1975 (R. G. Zinsser, ‘Kinetobarische Effekte – ein neues Phanomen?’, Umschau, v. 5, p. 152; 1975). Experiments are here reported as consistently verifying a phenomenon which defies explanation. An energy pulse communicated at high frequency across a capacitative coupling is absorbed in a torsion balance. After the pulse has subsided, a unidirectional torque prevails in the system for up to two hours for no apparent reason. It is as if energy is stored by some kind of unseen flywheel that feeds energy back to the apparatus slowly once the power is switched off in the system.

It is clear from these examples that there is a case to answer and we can rightly examine the source of the Sun’s angular momentum in relation to electrical action and the rotation of an unseen medium. I am therefore suggesting that the vacuum medium itself may exhibit properties attributable to its rotation. Before developing this thought, however, I wish to give one more example of the problem we have with the balance of action and reaction if we choose to ignore the role of the vacuum medium in interactions between matter.

THE LAW OF ELECTRODYNAMICS

Theoretically there is good reason to suppose that the electrodynamic action between two charges in parallel motion can produce forces which develop rotation.

By suspending a charged capacitor any transverse motion should result in a turning effect until the line joining the effective centres of charge is at right-angles to the motion. Only then will action balance reaction in a steady uniformly-moving system.

Electrodynamic interaction between two opposite charges in parallel motion, as expected from conventional theory.

The experiment was performed by Trouton & Noble in 1903 (F.T. Trouton & Noble, ‘The Mechanical Forces acting on a Charged Electric Condenser moving through Space’, Phil Trans. Roy. Soc. London, v. 202A, p.165; 1903)). They sought to detect the Earth’s linear motion through space, but a null result was reported. It gave stimulus to relativistic doctrine but equally it demonstrated the inapplicability of Lorentz’s electrodynamic formula. The Lorentz law is inadequate to deal with actions between isolated electric charges in motion.

All the empirical evidence before that time had involved the interaction of effectively closed circuital motion with individual charges. This did not give enough empirical data to formulate a unique law of electrodynamics. It was a point well appreciated by Maxwell because he wrote about this in his great treatise (J. C. Maxwell, ‘A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism,, Section 526 of 3rd Edition, 1891. See p. 173 of reprint vol.II by Dover Publications, New York, 1954). He presented four alternative laws of electrodynamics, all equally valid for the closed circuit charges in motion.

This problem attracted my attention because there is an interesting choice available in the formulation of the likely general law. Either one has to admit inequality of action and reaction in the linear sense or one has to accept it from the point of view of rotation. This, bear in mind, applies to a system which may not be complete because we ignore the presence of charge in motion in the vacuum itself. We seek a law of electrodynamics applicable solely to interaction between two charges. [I note here that the attempt by Ampere to say that action and reaction balance applies both for linear and angular momentum does not afford a simple form of law that I can regard as ‘likely’].

Faced with this choice and guided by the null result of the Trouton-Noble experiment it seemed that the mutual electrodynamic action of two charges cannot develop a torque. This favoured the third law of electrodynamics in Maxwell’s work [provided a minus sign replaces the plus sign before the middle term in the following equation]. Maxwell’s third law, expressed in scalar vector notation rather than quarternion form, was:

where q, q’ are the electric charges in c.g.s emu, v, v’ are their respective velocities and r is the separation distance between the charges. F is the force acting on q’ and r, as used in the square brackets, is the vector drawn from q to q’.

Note that, if v and v’ are parallel and if that plus sign is replaced by a minus sign, the equation becomes:

which compares with Newton’s Law of Gravitation:

where G is constant and the interacting masses are m, m’.

[Note here that the law with the plus sign ensures that the interaction of the two charges cannot produce an out-of-balance linear force but normally will produce an out-of- balance force couple tending to turn the orientation of the charge pair in space. In contrast the law with the minus sign precludes such turning action but allows linear force imbalance. There is no way in which the far more complicated law of Ampere can reduce to a form compatible with gravity given that the charge velocities can be in any direction relative to the charge separation vector.]

Now, independently of such a choice based on hypothesis, there is theoretical justification for deducing the law empirically. This comes from an analysis of the magnetic field energy deployment and its change when two charges separate.

The law [with the minus sign replacing the plus sign] has two very interesting consequences. When applied to charges of like polarity moving with the same velocity we obtain an inverse square law of attraction exactly of the form needed to correlate with Newton’s Law of Gravitation. This gives basis for unifying field theory. Secondly, there is the curious problem of the linear imbalance of action and reaction, which arises for generally-directed charge motion or, as analysis has shown [1969a], for parallel motion if the interacting charges have different mass.

Aspden’s Law of Electrodynamics is:

Experimentally there should be interesting anomalies in the forces exerted by electrons on ions in arc discharges and plasma. This is now appearing in the literature, though the anomalous behaviour of cold-cathode discharges (those involving ions rather than electrons) has been of record for many years. More recently it has been recognized that there is a high anomalous acceleration of ions by electrons in plasma [1977a]. The new law which I have been urging is the Maxwell’s third law of electrodynamics [as modified by that minus sign coefficient replacing the plus sign of the (v.r)v’ term] but adapted to cover interactions between charges of different mass. It is a law which is different from that derived using relativity as a faith and the refusal to consider criticism of relativistic doctrine has hindered the rational development of electromagnetic theory. I am quoting here from a paper dated 1977 circulated by Professor McCausland of the University of Toronto in which he makes reference to some words by Dr. Essen (L. Essen, ‘Einstein’, The Economist, March 19, 1977, p.4.) [Note that Dr. Essen was a Fellow of the Royal Society and was famous for his work at the National Physical Laboratory in U.K. concerning time measurement and his discovery of the caesium atomic clock.]:

“There is some evidence that a new theoretical approach could break the stalemate in the development of nuclear fusion, which appears to offer the only source of energy that could prolong our civilization far into the future.“

Such is the possible importance of resolving the problems which are addressed here.

CHARGE INDUCTION BY VACUUM SPIN

Reverting now to the problem of anomalous angular momentum effects, we consider the hypothesis of vacuum spin. If rotation of the vacuum medium induces an electric charge displacement we can show from dimensional analysis that the induced charge density will be proportional to the speed of rotation and proportional to the square root of a mass density. In short, the vacuum medium has a mass property which must be manifested when spinning. Now it is known from Maxwell’s work that charge is displaced linearly in the vacuum. It is the basis of his displacement currents. Therefore we must be open to the possibility that charge can be displaced in a radial sense. Put another way, we can expect that a charge density within a volume of matter might induce a reaction by the vacuum medium to cancel the matter charge. Such a reaction should involve vacuum spin.

The mass, time and length (M,T,L) dimensional relationships were also shown in that 1977 paper in the box enclosing that figure, the box illustration being as used by the author as an overhead viewer transparency when delivering the lecture.]

[Note that the author was here using cgs units in which the vacuum has a magnetic permeability and a dielectric constant both set at unity, but there is purpose in using k for generality in this analysis. The vacuum medium is not deemed to be capable of reacting to a magnetic field in any way that would endow it with a magnetic permeability other than unity in this system of cgs units. It can, however, break up into a kind of fluid crystal form when matter is present and then exhibit a dielectric constant. More will be said about that in these Web pages by particular reference to the topic discussed in reference [1976a] where the Fresnel coefficient is applied to the vacuum medium to explain the basis of the null finding in the Michelson-Morley experiment.]

One way of developing a charge distribution is by a strong electric discharge. The fast moving electrons will be drawn together by the ‘pinch effect’, so generating a radial electric field centred on the axis of the discharge. If the vacuum medium reacts to develop a compensating effect then it will absorb the field energy to sustain a vacuum spin about the discharge axis. This spin may be shared by the air surrounding the discharge, with the result that the tornado angular momentum becomes explicable.

Another way of developing a charge distribution is by the gravitational condensation of stellar substance. Two heavy masses will have greater mutual acceleration under gravity than two lighter masses. In the cosmic dust from which astronomical bodies form there will probably be quite a few free electrons. Thus the heavier matter will aggregate to form a core temporarily leaving an electron population behind in surrounding space. The core need not stabilize initially by a balance of nuclear energy pressure and gravitational force. It can stabilize by a balance of gravitation and the mutual electric repulsion of the positive charge associated with the core. Therefore we know that when an astronomical body is first created it has an electric charge given by G^1/2 times its mass, where G is the constant of gravitation.

As explained already, this charge will then develop a vacuum spin and we can formulate a mathematical relationship between this speed of rotation and the mass density of the body, involving only the value of G and the density parameter d of the vacuum.

[The following six illustrations, which should be self-explanatory, appeared opposite page 8 in the 1977 paper.]

THE SOLAR SYSTEM

By supposing that the vacuum spin will be coupled, albeit rather loosely, with the body, the speed of rotation of both will become the same. Thus we have basis for explaining how the newly-created Sun or Earth was caused to rotate. Furthermore, the production of satellites becomes explicable. Once the electron population reaches the surface of the parent body it will begin the process by which the vacuum medium returns its energy to matter. The vacuum spin will slow down as the atmosphere of negative charge accumulates this energy. The electrical attraction between the positive core and this negative orbiting atmosphere will balance the centrifugal force. This will determine how much mass from the parent body will be swept into the satellite system. Then, as the two charges become neutralized by mutual discharge or extraneous particle radiation the satellite will move away from its parent to take up its eventual orbit. Meanwhile much of the energy released will have gone into electrical discharges and possibly have been dissipated. Some energy may even, as I suggested at the outset, have found its way into an ordered state of translational motion of the Sun in its galactic path through space.

Suffice it to say at this stage that the creation of the solar system need present no insuperable mystery of the kind which has troubled us to date. The data verify the hypotheses involved, because we can deduce the same numerical vacuum density property from three separate creation processes. These are the asteroid creation, the Sun creation and the Earth creation. Furthermore, when this then-known parameter of the vacuum is applied to the formulae for satellite creation, we deduce the satellite/parent mass ratio in reasonable accord with that of the solar system and the Earth/Moon system.

[The evidence as shown in a box illustration used in the 1977 lecture is reproduced below under four headings, three being the creation processes just mentioned.]

VACUUM MEDIUM ANALYSIS:

by vacuum spin induction

by core stabilization, where d_m is the mean mass density of the body of matter associated with that spin. Therefore:

SUN CREATION:
If the Sun had 100% of the angular momentum of the present solar system when created it would have (2/5)M_sR²ω or (3.2)x10⁵⁰ cgs units of angular momentum, where its mass is denoted M_s and its radius R is (6.96)x10¹⁰ cm. M_s is (1.989)x10³³ gm. Hence ω is (8.3)x10^-5 rad/s. For the Sun d_m is 1.4 gm.cc and, as G is (6.67)x10^-8, we obtain from the preceding equation:

EARTH CREATION:
For the Earth-Moon system, according to R.A. Lyttleton (Science Journal, v. 5, p. 53, May 1969), the Earth rotated once every 5.5 hours before the Moon was ejected. d_m for Earth is 5.5 gm/cc. Therefore, again from the preceding equation:

ASTEROID CREATION:
For the Asteroids the data of G. P. Kuiper (Celestial Mechanics, v. 9, p. 321, May 1974) show that the mean speed of rotation is once in 6 to 7 hours. If we estimate the value of d_m as 4 to 5 gm/cc, say 4.5 gm/cc, this gives:

---

INTRODUCTION

These Lectures are intended to show how easy it is to build an understanding of the primary factors involved in the creation of the universe and which govern the way in which Nature regulates the activity which underlies what we describe as ‘physics’. By that I mean that I intend to show how easy it is to explain, for example, not only the cause of gravitation, but also how the Constant of Gravitation G is determined in terms of the charge to mass ratio of the electron. If one really can explain gravitation and go on from there to show why and how protons are created with their mass of some 1836.152 times that of the electron, then we are well on the way to success in the ultimate search for complete understanding of the science which governs our existence.

Sadly, I have had in my previous Lectures to pay some attention to the role played by Albert Einstein, because his philosophical picture of space has made everything obscure and has blocked the way forward in progressing to the ultimate truths. I have much more to say on that subject in the Lectures that will follow. Here in this Lecture, however, I will introduce my account of things by presuming that Einstein has never existed.

The question is: “Where to begin?” and my answer to that is to presume that those of you that are interested in what I have to say are the kind of people who might read the American Journal of Physics or the equivalent periodical published by the U.K. Institute of Physics, namely Physics Education. Physics teachers, their students, including those involved in research, and graduates in physics are the kind of people who will be able to understand the subject I now address.

So, I shall begin by referring first to something you can read on page 938 of the No. 10 issue (Volume 53) of American Journal of Physics, dated October 1985. In the upper portion of that page there is a Letter to the Editor entitled: ‘THE PROTON ENIGMA’ and, nested alongside that, there is another Letter to the Editor entitled: ‘THE SOLAR SYSTEM AND A BINARY STAR: IS THERE A CONNECTION?’. So here we have protons mentioned alongside stars, a spectrum of physics ranging from the basic building blocks which form our universe to the stars into which those building blocks cluster. We need to explain how those protons are created and why they group together to form those clusters and I am going to develop what I say here from what was written in those two short communications to the Dr. J. S. Rigden, the then-editor of the American Journal of Physics.

Now, concerning my method of approach and the need to interest you, the reader. The question you face is whether you want your physics to be expressed in symbols, equations and formulae or whether you want physics to provide the checks and balances that come essentially from getting the numbers right. By that I mean that you may be the type of person who enjoys the elegance and symmetry of a mathematical formulation, even though it gives only rough answers, numerically speaking, or you may be the type of person who expects the numerical answers to come out right and expect precise accord with observation before you can believe anything expressed by fancy mathematics.

You see, here I have suffered from experience in that I have always regarded the constants of physics as Nature’s challenge to us as an invitation to decode or decipher what is hidden behind those numbers. Like most people interested in science, I have enough imagination to invent a variety of explanations for certain unexplained phenomena which interest me. However, ideas and inventions are not sufficient in themselves to solve the basic problems of physics. One can so easily go astray. What one needs is the simple truth and I emphasize here the word ‘simple’! You can be sure that Nature builds on foundations that are firm in their structure, just as the fundamental form of solid matter comprises and orderly arrangement of atoms in a crystal structure. That is why what we measure as physical constants in our physics laboratories in USA are the same as those in Europe or elsewhere around the world. The factor which decides whether something is a constant is simply whether the numbers come out the same at those different laboratory locations. The number is important!

So, about my experience, I found that when I offered my ideas on the fundamental issues of physics, as hypotheses developed to show interesting connections and relationships, with some formulations in support, they were rejected as ‘mere speculation’. If I stressed their success in giving the right numerical values for the constants of physics that hitherto lacked a physical basis of derivation, I was told that I was merely ‘playing with numbers’. As if I would be stupid enough to sit patiently pressing keys on a pocket calculator, just hoping to see some numerical coincidence appear that looked like it had the same value as one of the dimensionless physical constants!

In fact, my main breakthroughs on the theory I am writing about in these Web pages, were made before I ever owned a pocket calculator or any form of computer other than a simple engineer’s slide rule. Yes, my first calculations leading to the value of hc/2(pi)e², which is slightly greater than 137 were made using a slide rule in the mid-1950 period and it was not until 1960 that they appeared in published form in a printed publication, necessarily, in those days, hand-set in printer’s type. So, please believe me when I say that the subject I am now addressing is simple in its component form and is something that you, the reader, can check, step-by-step, if I guide you through the process. You will find that you can calculate the value of G in terms of e/m_e, the charge to mass ratio of the electron, but that will be a few Lectures ahead.

First, we need to put some method into our approach. At this point, I ask you to ignore what you may have heard about neutron stars and Black Holes. My reason is very simple. It is that physicists do not know enough about neutrons here on Earth to make sense of what they see, so how can they begin to convince us that there are neutron stars? Also, not heeding my findings, they do not know how to calculate G, which means that they do not understand the physical cause of gravitation. That further means that they do not know the limits and constraints which govern the action of gravity. Suppose I were to explain why an apple falls to the ground by saying that I do work in lifting it to a height of 2 metres before allowing it to fall, adding that gravity is like the action of a stretched spring linking apple and Earth, and that was all you knew about gravity by way of theory and experiment. You would be justified then in saying that gravity is something that has a range of action of two metres and it applies to objects having a mass approximating that of the apple. To apply the same theory to more massive objects separated by very large distances you surely would need to know something about that spring and to wonder whether God did the work of stretching it in the first place to separate those objects. You see, something or somebody has to wind up the spring that runs a mechanical clock and there has to be something in space that constitutes the universal ‘time machine’!

Ah, but you now say that Isaac Newton convinced us that the action of gravity involves that constant G and an inverse square law of action which applies to interaction between Sun and planet, Moon and Earth and even to that apple and body Earth. True, but now go from there with your neutron in mind and ask how the force of gravity can override the electrostatic forces of repulsion between electric charges seated in protons, for example. If you say that the proton charge is always neutralized by the presence of an electron, as in an atom, so that there need be no electrical restraint on gravitational compaction, then you have imposed your own limit on the effect of gravity. It can never crush atoms together so as to squeeze them into less space than is needed for their atomic electron shell form.

To go further than that and argue that Black Holes exist, as by neutrons alone forming into stellar objects, then you have invented your image of a neutron and given it properties of your own choosing and you have also declared, in effect, that the force of gravity is not seated in actions which stem from electrodynamic effects. You have lost contact with physics as we see it from laboratory measurement and wandered off into no-man’s land, where you go unarmed and unequipped to deal with the problems you then can only imagine.

A sensible person waits in his Earth laboratory environment until the riddle of G is solved and then begins to think about the consequences of that solution. So, reverting to our American Journal of Physics reference, we will now build from there, following the two separate tracks defined by each of those Letters to the Editor and beginning with the one concerning the solar system. It was authored by Jerry Webb of the University of Arkansas at Monticello in Arizona.

THE SOLAR SYSTEM

Webb’s brief Letter to the Editor reads:

“Some time ago I noticed a very interesting feature of the solar system that evidently has not been commented upon before. If it has I have been unable to find any reference to it. If one calculates the total energy and the total angular momentum of the planets, the numbers turn out to be the same as those of a single planet having a mass essentially the same as the total mass of all the planets, and orbiting the Sun in an orbit which is near to the present day center of mass of all the planets. The possibility that the solar system was once a binary star (or is in the process of becoming one) needs to be examined more closely.“

You will see here that Webb is influenced by that numerical circumstance into speculating that the planets formed by the break-up of a small star orbiting around our Sun. Now, long before Webb wrote this, I had taken some interest in a different aspect of this same problem. The idea of a binary star was not in my mind, because the total mass of the planets is so small compared with the mass of the Sun that a binary system was not, as I saw it, a logical implication. My approach had been to say that the Earth must have formed and then shed the Moon to carry away most of its angular momentum and, by analogy, the Sun first formed and shed the planetary matter from which the Earth emerged. I did wonder if the sequence of events involved shedding the planetary matter in one go, as it were, or whether it was shed step-by-step, each step involving two planets, dynamically disposed on opposite sides of the Sun at the time they initially formed.

Now although cosmologists spend most of their efforts and their funded resources on theorizing about what there may be out there in space well removed from our solar system, there is a great deal to be learned still, and at very little cost, from deliberating on the kind of question put by Jerry Webb. However, we must be guided as much by those numbers and what they imply as we are by notions about the underlying processes needed to account for those numbers and the way things work out. Here there are two kinds of numbers, those which apply specifically to one system, such as our solar system, and those which apply universally, such as the constant of gravitation G, Planck’s constant h and the proton/electron mass ratio M/m_e. The values of those numbers do tell us something!

For example, using the measured values of G and M and m_e, as well as the magnitude of the electric charge e of the electron and the proton, we can work out that the gravitational force of attraction between those two particles which form the hydrogen atom is very much less than the force of electrical attraction between them. Indeed, that electrical force is some 23×10³⁸ times greater than the gravitational force. If we consider instead two well-spaced hydrogen atoms then the electric force between them is zero because the positive proton charge and negative electron charge cancel to leave us with a neutral entity. So here the force gravity is infinitely greater than the electrical force. If, then, gravitation has to be explained in terms of the electrical properties of matter, we need to consider the possible effects of charge motion, meaning electrodynamic forces of the kind we associate with electromagnetism.

However, here we encounter problems that are not numerical in significance, but are more related to the direction of the forces set up by moving charges, because there is the problem that the standard interpretation of the electrodynamic force between two charges in motion does not give a force acting directly along a line linking the two charges.

On this account the problem of gravitation might seem to be quite formidable, but yet we can solve the riddle involved and know we are right, because the value of G emerges with the correct value and so provides the needed confirmation.

Explaining the creation of the solar system is not the best place to start in this quest to solve the riddle of gravitation, but it has some appeal and can engender interest and give the reader the initial confidence needed to keep with me as I work my way through that challenging task.

I will return to discuss the other Letter to the Editor in American Journal of Physics, the one alongside that by Jerry Webb, after presenting what I will be saying below under the heading: ‘Space, Energy and Creation’. That other Letter was entitled ‘THE PROTON ENIGMA’ and it opens what I will have to say in this Lecture concerning the proton and the neutron, which are recognized as the primary actors having the main gravitational role in our universe.

Concerning the solar system, the following presentation of data is identical in form to what was presented on the page facing page 2 in a Lecture paper ‘Space, Energy and Creation’ that was published 20 years ago in 1977:

		
OBJECT		MASS	ORBIT	 REVS.	ANGULAR MOMENTUM
			RADIUS	 /YR.	IN EARTH UNITS
SUN	    332,800.00	  --	   --	  20 (approx.)
MERCURY	 	0.05	0.387	  0.24	  0.03
VENUS		0.82	0.723	  0.62	  0.69
EARTH		1.00	1.00	  1.00	  1.00
MARS		0.11	1.52	  1.88	  0.135
JUPITER		317.8	5.20	 11.86	724.6
SATURN		95.2 	9.54	 29.46	294.1
URANUS	      	14.5	19.18	 84.01	 63.5
NEPTUNE       	17.2	30.07	165   	 94.3
PLUTO          	0.11 	39.44 	248  	  0.69
					______________
					1200 (approx.) 	  	   	

Note that in the above tabulation 1 Earth unit of angular momentum in the c.g.s. system of units (gm.cm²/sec) is given by combining the relevant astronomical components such as Earth distance from the Sun and Earth mass:

divided by:

Therefore the angular momentum of the whole solar system, as 1200 Earth units, is (3.2)x10⁵⁰ in c.g.s units.

Now the significance of all this can be understood if one now takes note that Jupiter spins about its axis in less than 10 hours and that Saturn spins in just over 10 hours, as does Uranus, whereas Neptune has a spin at nearly 16 hours. The Sun spins once in 25 days. Then observe that 1200 divided by 20 is 60 and so, if all the planetary angular momentum were to be put back into the Sun, then the primordial spin rate of the Sun would be just about the same as we see for Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus!

Here is a curious fact. Does it not tell you that when large astronomical objects first form, as by coalescing from whatever form matter takes at that stage of Creation, there is for some reason a process that likes that spin rate of the order of 10 or so hours per revolution?

I add here the point that those 20 Earth units of angular momentum assigned to the Sun were estimated assuming that much of the solar mass is concentrated towards its centre and so a figure was used of about half of the value applicable if the Sun’s mass density were to be uniform throughout. The figure adopted was only intended to show the scale of angular momentum deployment as between Sun and its satellite system.

Now one may next ask about the Earth and Moon system. Yes, here too we see that the primordial form of body Earth, before it shed the Moon would spin far faster than it does today, even faster than that 10 or so hour rate implies. However, these are only early clues to help us on our way and, for my part, my contribution is summarized in just a few pages in chapter 8 of my 1980 book: ‘Physics Unified’. If you have a copy of that book then read that section. If not, then I invite you to read on here in the continuation of this Web Lecture as I reproduce the text of my 1977 lecture paper on ‘Space, Energy and Creation’.

---

Having completed three years of experimental research on the loss anomalies in
ferromagnetic materials, I left Cambridge in June 1953 to write my thesis and earn my living
in the Patent Department of a corporate organization. My spare time hobby for the next six
years was to delve into the scientific mystery which underlies electromagnetic phenomena
and solve one particular problem that had troubled me as a Ph.D. research student. Simply
stated, it was the question of why a steady magnetic field can penetrate a lump of copper
without being virtually completely suppressed by the diamagnetic reaction set up by the
numerous free conduction electrons in that copper.

The solution to that problem providing the first stepping stone in a quest which was
later to lead me to a deep understanding of the nature of gravitation and its unifying link with
electromagnetism. There was enormous spin-off from my early endeavours, too much for me
to be able to express in a style compliant with the prevailing methods then being used in
physics. These were intolerant of the idea of an aether and subservient to the Einstein
philosophy, whilst the quantitative successes of early quantum-electrodynamics were flagged
before me as rival territory onto which I must not intrude.

I had my living to earn and my patent professional qualifying examinations to pass
and so that self-imposed extra-curricular research was really a labour I would have soon
abandoned, were it not for the incredibly exciting discoveries that were emerging.
My scientific papers offered for publication were no longer authored from an
academic address and they were systematically rejected. So, when, in September 1959, IBM
offered me the position of Patent Manager heading their U.K. Patent Department, I decided
to wrap up my hobby interest and publish myself a printed 48 page monograph. It was
completed on 22nd November 1959, before I took up my new position with IBM and promptly
published under the title: ‘The Theory of Gravitation’.

I shall in these lecture notes refer again to this first of my publications on my aether
theory, but for the moment I will just mention that its chapter 5 was entitled ‘The
Geomagnetic Field’. I had been able to calculate the geomagnetic moment in terms of
aether spin with the Earth and the result was in full quantitative agreement. I deduced on
page 32 that aether spin results in the induction of electric charge density of 4.781 esu per cc
per rad/sec of spin rate, subject to a reducing factor cosA, where A is the angle between the
spin axis of that aether spin and a preferred axial direction in space.
The preferred direction, incidentally, lies parallel with the axes associated with the
quantum spins of the aether particles at those lattice sites already mentioned.

Taking the angle A as being approximately 23.5 degrees for body Earth this told me,
as can be seen from page 32 of that 1959 monograph, that the Earth’s geomagnetic moment
should be (0.000319)(4/15)πwR⁵/c, where w is the Earth’s angular velocity, R
is the radius of the Earth’s aether and c is the speed of light, the conversion factor translating
electrostatic units of charge into electromagnetic units of charge.

The Earth’s measured geomagnetic moment was 8.06×10²⁵ emu so I
was able to estimate the mean height of the spherical boundary of the Earth’s aether as
being 140 miles above the Earth’s surface.

On page 33 I then addressed the question: “Will the above explanation account for
the dipole character of the geomagnetic field?” This is an important issue confronting any
would-be theorist who tries to understand the Earth’s magnetism. The shape of the Earth’s
magnetic field is somewhat similar to that applying if it were all due to a magnet placed at the
Earth’s centre, it resembling the field of a magnetic dipole. I then concluded that Chapter 5
by two paragraphs using the following words:

“It is found that the actual magnitude of the effective particle displacement in the
Earth’s aether matrix caused by the Earth’s rotation is very much less than the interparticle
spacing. On this basis it is clear that the charge effect caused by the rotation may merely
amount to the displacement of charge to the aether boundary. When this is interpreted in the
terms of magnetic moment it is found that the magnetic moment of the boundary charge is
exactly twice that of the distributed charge and acts in opposition. The result is a net
magnetic moment equal in magnitude to that already estimated, but the magnetic field
distribution becomes more nearly that of a dipole.”

“Although not related to gravitation the explanation of geomagnetism provided by
this theory lends extremely strong support to the theory upon which the understanding of
gravitation is founded, and its inclusion in this work is considered pertinent. This chapter will
also have proved of interest to those familiar with the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis.”

Now at this point I emphasize again that there is a difference between the theoretical
formulation for the magnetic moment of a planet, such as Earth, and that applicable to a star.
The above formula for induced charge density in body Earth was a function of w, the angular
speed of Earth rotation. In contrast, the applicable formula for a star is governed by the
mass density, 1.41 gm/cc and the connection with the constant of gravitation G.
In my earlier writings on this subject I was more concerned with the role played by
aether spin charge induction than the resolution of the charge density differences between
the non-ionized body and the ionized body. Therefore the reader may well see that I could, in
retrospect, have given a much more comprehensive account if I were now to rewrite the text
which appeared in my 1966 second edition of ‘The Theory of Gravitation’.

I had been with IBM for six years when I finally found time to work again at my hobby
interest, having been promoted in the meantime, in 1963, to a position where I was then in
charge of IBM’s Patent Departments throughout Europe. So, I wrote an enlarged 132 page
version of my earlier monograph and added the discovery I had by then made that gave the
mu-meson or muon a role in my aether theory. The mu-meson is a heavy version of an
electron and I had come to look at an even heavier version which played an essential role in
determining G, the constant of gravitation.

The graviton was found, theoretically, to have a mass-energy of 2587 Gev, nearly
5063 times the mass of the electron. Should the reader wonder how this relates to G, then
the formula, taken from page 80 of my 1966 book, is:

where (e/m) is the electron’s charge to mass ratio, then measured as being 5.27299 esu/gm.
From this G has the theoretical value of 6.67×10^-8 cgs units.

That theoretical derivation of G based on a deep understanding of the
electrodynamic interactions involved is fully in accordance with the measured value and it is
stressed that the 5063 quantity, which is the graviton mass measured in units of electron mass, i.e. 2.587 GeV, is itself theoretically derived from first principle analysis.
It was this achievement that motivated me to entitle my book ‘The Theory of Gravitation’, but
I wish here to proceed with my discussion of the magnetism of astronomical bodies.

Addressing the subject of geomagnetism I showed how the formula for the Earth’s
magnetic moment MM was derived by theory common to that used to deduce the value of G.
The formula without the cosA term is presented on page 93 of the book as equation (6.12)
[referred to below] and is:

where er is the Bohr magneton, 9.26×10^-21 esu-cm, R is the Earth’s
aether radius in cm, w is the Earth’s angular spin velocity, 7.26×10^-5 rad/s, d is
the spacing between aether particle lattice sites in the cubic structure, 6.37×10^–
11 cm and c is the speed of light, 3×10¹⁰ cm/s. The radius of the Earth
is 6.37×10⁸ cm but the aether boundary will no doubt be somewhere in the
ionosphere and I noted that if R were 6.45×10⁸ cm, this would give an estimate
of geomagnetic moment of 7.9×10²⁵ in the cgs system of units, compared with
the measured value of 8.06×10²⁵. If R were greater and located in the upper
ionosphere then that would give a greater value but one downwardly adjusted by the cosA
factor. There could be no question that the theory offered an excellent quantitative account
for the geomagnetic moment.

However, the modern physicists seem to be unimpressed by theory which is based
on an aether, whatever the numbers mean in comparison with the facts of observation. They
would rather rely on a vague theory which gives no numerical check, because they cannot
abide any thought that the aether may play a role in determining the values of the
fundamental physical constants.
So, I can but extend this review by reproducing the discussion section between
pages 94 and page 109 of my 1966 book in the hope that the modern physicist will see that
there has been no progress in understanding the source of geomagnetism and stellar
magnetism during the past 31 years and come to see in retrospect that my 1966 book gave a
valid basis for such understanding.

The following text, apart from notes in [..] is all directly quoted from the author’s 1966 book.

“It is important at this stage to pause to discuss this account of the geomagnetic
field. There is scope for much argument about the manifestation of the aether phenomenon
in the form of terrestrial magnetism and we must therefore deal with the main arguments
even though we digress from the main objective.
The topic will be introduced by a brief historical account of the Schuster-Wilson
Hypothesis.

The phenomena of terrestrial magnetism and gravitation present challenges of long
standing to the theoretical physicist. Effects governed by both phenomena have been
understood for centuries but the true nature of the phenomena has gone unexplained, even
though it is believed that they should be related to something more fundamental. Today,
while on the one hand we have the hydrodynamic theory of geomagnetism and on the other
we have a so-called gravitational theory in the form of General Relativity, neither theory is
able to bridge the gap and make connection with fundamentals common to both and neither
theory is wholly satisfactory in accounting for the prime phenomenon.

It is not, therefore, surprising that some excitement was aroused by the Schuster-
Wilson Hypothesis which purported to relate magnetism and gravitation and it is well to
introduce the problem under study, that of accounting for geomagnetism in terms related to
mass or momentum, by a review of that hypothesis.

Schuster [A. Schuster, Proc. Phys. Soc., v. 24, pp. 121-137; 1912] and Wilson [H.A.
Wilson, Proc. Roy. Soc. A., v. 104, pp. 451-455; 1923] have shown that the magnetic
moments and angular momenta of the sun and Earth are approximately related by a
common ratio. This has led to the hypothesis that a fundamental property exists which
causes any rotating body to have a magnetic moment. A particularly significant result
appears when the quantitative aspects of this hypothesis are considered. It was shown by
Wilson that the right order of magnitude for the magnetic fields of the Earth and the Sun is
obtained is obtained if it is assumed that a moving mass, measured in gravitational units, has
the same effect as a moving negative charge, measured in electrostatic units. Blackett
[P.M.S. Blackett, Nature, v. 159, pp. 658-666; 1947] has expressed the same result in the
following terms:

where β is a constant of the order of unity, c is the velocity of light in vacuo and G is the
Constant of Gravitation.

This possibly coincidental result suggests a link between geomagnetism and
gravitation. Unfortunately, however, the impact of the hypothesis was mitigated by a negative
result of a laboratory experiment carried out by Wilson. from magnetic tests on a swinging
iron bar, he was able to show that the magnetic field to be expected on the basis of the
hypothesis did not in fact exist. The hypothesis therefore stood refuted.

Interest revived when Babcock [H.W. Babcock, Publ. Astr. Soc. Pacif., v. 59, pp.
112-124; 1947] succeeded in measuring the magnetic field of the star 78 Virginis. It now
became possible to apply the hypothesis to three bodies instead of two. The hypothesis was
verified as being fully applicable to them all, the range of angular momenta being 10:1. The
hypothesis, now called the Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis, became the subject of more detailed
examination. Various anomalies were discovered. For example, Babcock [H.D. Babcock,
publ. Astr. Soc. Pacif., v. 60, pp. 244-245; 1948], Thiessen [G. Thiessen, observatory, v. 69,
p. 228; 1949] and Von Kluber [H. Von Kluber, Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc., v. 111, p.2; 1951]
have found that the solar magnetic field varies in a manner which is not consistent with the
simple conception afforded by the hypothesis. Attempts were made to test the hypothesis
again in the laboratory. Blackett [P.M.S. Blackett, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., v. 245A, pp. 309-
370; 1952/3] studied the magnetic effects of dense matter rotating with the Earth. His
experiments are conclusive in showing that no magnetic effect of the appropriate character
and magnitude exists as a general property of matter on Earth. Furthermore, Runcorn and
others [S.K. Runcorn et al, Phil Mag., v. 41, pp. 783-791; 1950] & [S.K. Runcorn et al, Phil.
Trans. Roy. Soc., v. 244A, p. 113; 1951/2] measured the variation of the Earth’s magnetic
field over a range of depths below the Earth’s surface and compared the results with those
predicted on the basis of a distributed theory and those applicable to a core theory. In the
core theory the Earth is assumed to have a field produced by a magnetic dipole. The
distributed theory involves the assumption that each element of a body gives rise to a
magnetic effect as if it had a charge proportional to its mass rotating with the Earth, as
required by the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis. The principal distinction between the results
predicted by the two theories is that on a core theory the horizontal component of the
geomagnetic field should increase with increasing depth below the Earth’s surface, but on the
distributed theory there should be a decrease. The measurements showed there to be an
increase. The result went against the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis. This was a great pity in
view of the seeming applicability of the hypothesis over such a wide range of
momentum.

Consideration shows that there is scope for reviving the substance of the hypothesis
at least over the results of Runcorn if we argue that not all of the geomagnetic field is
attributable to rotation of distributed charge. Gunn [R. Gunn, Phys. Rev., v. 33, pp. 614-620;
1929] has suggested a radial limitation of the Sun’s magnetic field by ionic moments in the
Sun’s atmosphere. Ions moving at their kinetic velocities in a magnetic field spiral about the
lines of force to oppose the fields present. Can it not, therefore, be that some reaction effect
in the ionosphere opposes the magnetic field produced by the distributed charge? it is a fact
that the Sun’s field is weaker than one would expect if beta had the value of unity as implied
above. According to Blackett’s data, the values of beta are, for the Earth 1.29, for the Sun
0.92, and for 78 Virginis 0.95. Allowing for such reaction effects, particularly for the Sun
and 78 Virginis, it seems that the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis could just as easily have
required the ratio of magnetic moment to angular momentum to be 2G^1/2/c, the
factor of 2 perhaps having analogy with the gyromagnetic ratio factor. It is well known that
the ratio of magnetic moment to angular momentum for changes in magnetism in iron is
about twice that predicted in terms of the motion of electron charge associated with electron
mass. Hence, if we can retain the simplicity of the Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis while
incorporating the factor of 2, we need to accept substantial field reaction effects in the Earth
to reduce the factor 2 to 1.29 and need even more substantial reaction in stellar bodies.

It is, therefore, suggested that this reaction effect
presented by Gunn may well reconcile the difficulties with the
Runcorn experiment. The same effect could also account for the
variable nature of the solar field and the anomalies arising from
this.

However, even if the Runcorn experiment can be overcome,
there is still the negative result of Blackett’s experiment and
that of Wilson on the swinging iron bar. This might be dealt
with if we consider the implication of the hypothesis that there
exists in close association with any element of matter a negative
electric charge proportional to its mass. This is really the
basis of the statement expressed by the above formulation of the
hypothesis.

Augenheister [Augenheister, Phys. Zeit., v. 26, p. 307;
1925] has shown that this assumption gives the correct ratio for
the magnetic fields of the Sun and the Earth, but he also
recognized the physical difficulties of assuming the existence
of real charges of the necessary magnitude and the consequent
very large electrical fields which must accompany them in an
electrically conducting material such as the Earth’s core. One
way out of this difficulty is to argue that in an aggregation of
matter as with the Earth the negative charges associated with
mass are cancelled by migrating charge, but that the balance is
made up by a repulsion of free migrating charge displaced to the
outer boundaries of the body. For example, in order to establish
charge balance with the negative-mass charge some electrons might
be displaced from the atomic structure of the matter involved,
and these electrons would spread around the Earth in the
ionosphere. On this model, mass exhibits no charge in laboratory
experiments and has no apparent magnetic effect detected by the
Wilson or Blackett experiments. Furthermore, the Augenheister
problem is overcome. Even the Runcorn experiment is no longer
applicable because the distributed charge theory does not hold.

This interpretation of the hypothesis puts the prime source
of the geomagnetic field outside the Earth, in the ionosphere.
This has been objected to by Bauer [L.A. Bauer, Terr. Magn., v.
28, pp. 1-28; 1923] who has shown by spherical harmonic analysis
that most of the Earth’s field is of internal origin. For
example, Bauer ascribes as much as 94 per cent of the Earth’s
field to internal causes. Since the Earth’s ionosphere would
need to cancel a substantial part of the field arising from the
distributed charge for Runcorn’s results to be reconciled with
the Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis, this objection is of paramount
importance. However, even here it is very important to remember
that the most general assumption used in spherical harmonic
analyses of the Earth’s field is that the Earth’s magnetic
potential is composed of two portions, one due to magnetic matter
within the Earth’s sphere and the other due to magnetic matter
outside the Earth’s sphere. The operative words in this
assumption are ‘magnetic matter’. In this sense a current
encircling the Earth and seated in the ionosphere does not
constitute magnetic matter located wholly outside the Earth’s
surface. For example, a current around the equator at a height
of 200 km gives rise to two elements of magnetic matter, one
situated inside the Earth and the other outside the Earth, the
latter being related to the former in the ratio of the areas
2(pi)Rx200 and (pi)R², where R is the Earth’s radius in km.

Since r is 6,371 km, it is seen that, curiously enough, this
gives 94 per cent of the magnetic matter ascribable to ionosphere
currents as seated within the Earth.
The results of spherical harmonic analysis do not preclude
magnetic reaction seated in the ionosphere, provided this
involves charge migration around the whole Earth. For stellar
bodies, no harmonic analysis data are available and, therefore,
the closed spiral-type motion of gas ions may supplement the
reaction effect of any charge migration. The result deduced by
Bauer is certainly of no relevance to stellar bodies.

From such consideration, the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis
could well survive in a modified form. We have introduced a
charge in the ionosphere which could well be objected to for
other reasons. Perhaps we can even regard this as compensated
by charge which does not rotate with or at the same speed as the
Earth. Perhaps, though, this is stretching the hypothesis too
far.
Nevertheless, this gives scope to understand reasons for
substantial changes in magnetic fields in astronomical bodies
over short periods of time, and there is now evidence that the
magnetic poles of many stars even exchange positions in a few
days. As Runcorn [S. K. Runcorn, The Times (London), April 26,
1965, p. 11] stated very recently: “This is one of the most
stimulating challenges of cosmic magnetism”.

The Schuster-Wilson Hypothesis stands rejected today.
Instead, the theory of hydromagnetism is applied to account or
the geomagnetic field. An excellent account of this subject has
been presented by Elsasser [W.M. Elsasser, American Jour. Phys.,
v. 23, pp. 590-609; 1955] and [W.M. Elsasser, American Jour.
Phys., v. 24, pp. 85-110; 1956]. This theory will have great
difficulty in accounting for the reversal of the magnetic poles,
though it can be applied to account for the Earth’s secular
variation of magnetic field. Bullard and others [E.C. Bullard
et al., Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., v. 243A, pp. 67-92; 1950] have
provided an account of he westward drift of the Earth’s magnetic
field in terms of theory which they state to be consistent with
other theories of the origin of the main field, provided there
is a differential rotation within the core. This statement
recognizes that the prime source of the geomagnetic field might
well stem from something other than a hydromagnetic effect. The
great concern for the reversal of the magnetic field in stars
stimulates a consideration of other possible accounts for cosmic
magnetism.

The above discussion of the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis does
stress the possibility that there might well be some link between
gravitation and cosmic magnetism. It is therefore of some
interest that new ideas about gravitation already presented in
this work are found to be capable of extension to geomagnetism.
The fact that, in developing equation (6.12) [the above
formula for magnetic moment MM], the elemental magnetic moment
is found proportional to X squared [X being a distance from the
Earth’s centre] shows that the character of the geomagnetic field
matches that of a uniformly distributed charge over the Earth’s
volume. The distributed charge theory was found by Runcorn to
give field gradients opposite to those observed in practice.
Here, however, it must be remembered that, by the theory
developed, the geomagnetic field is attributed to a radial
displacement of charge. The charge is displaced, in effect, to
the boundary of the rotating aether. Clearly, therefore, if the
effect of the rotation is to generate an effective uniformly
distributed charge within the aether, an exactly balancing charge
of opposite polarity must be established at the boundary. The
displaced charge is, by its nature, constrained to balance in the
radial plane. Thus, in considering magnetic moment, it is found
that the charge displaced to the boundary, in rotating with the
Earth’s aether, produces exactly double the magnetic moment given
by (6.12) in the opposite direction. Quantitatively, therefore,
(6.12) still applies. In considering magnetic field gradients,
however, by Runcorn’s mine experiments, the component of magnetic
field attributed to distributed charge is oppositely directed
with respect to the general magnetic field of the Earth. Thus,
the result of the Runcorn Experiment actually supports the theory
developed.

In considering the dipole nature of the geomagnetic field
as evidenced by the results of Runcorn’s experiments, it is to
be noted that a double strength shell containing an opposed
single strength distributed charge would appear to present a
field form more like a dipole than does a single strength shell.

The rotation of Earth has been argued to produce the
geomagnetic field by an induction effect in an electrical aether
medium rotating with the Earth. The result of the Blackett
Experiment imposes upon the analysis the need to regard the
induced charge within the Earth as compensated locally or
alternatively the need to regard the lattice as not concentrated
by local matter. In Blackett’s experiment the magnetic effect
of a dense body rotating with the Earth was under investigation,
in contrast with the Wilson experiment where the body under study
moved in the Earth frame.
This strengthens the concept that the origin of the
geomagnetic field is a uniform aether medium rotating with the
Earth frame. We have to recognize that the aether has some
uniformity, a lattice charge density, not affected by changes in
mass density within the Earth.

We now come to the real problem. The distributed charge and
the balancing boundary charge of the rotating aether have to be
cancelled by other charge to balance the electric field effects,
but this other charge must not cancel the magnetic field effects,
that is, it must not rotate with the Earth. The solution to this
problem is amazingly simple.
As the Earth moves in its orbit, its aether lattice will
come into collision with surrounding aether lattice. We have
shown that one constituent of the aether has the form of fluid
charge and the other constituent is the lattice system of
particles of charge e of opposite polarity, the aether as a whole
being electrically neutral. The fluid constituent cannot move
through itself. A spherical volume of it can rotate about its
own axis, but it cannot move laterally in the sense that an
element of the fluid moves laterally. The sphere housing fluid
which rotates can move laterally, however, provided the rotary
motion is transferred from fluid left behind by the sphere to new
fluid coming into the sphere. The particle constituent, on the
other hand, can move through itself.

Imagine now the well ordered particle lattice formed within
the Earth’s aether to move laterally and collide with surrounding
particles. This lateral movement of the whole particle lattice
in the Earth’s aether causes a deficiency of particles behind the
lattice and a surplus in front of it. Thus an electrical field
is set up along the line of travel of the whole lattice system.
this field is not strong enough to disrupt the lattice but is
strong enough to cause some of the particles in front of the
lattice to migrate through it to fill positions vacated in the
fluid behind the lattice. In short, the particle lattice can move without undue disturbance through similar surrounding particle
structure if surrounding particles in collision with it travel through it to fill vacant locations left behind. Thus, if we
regard the Earth’s aether to behave in this way, we see that
there is, traveling through the Earth, an abundance of free
lattice particles which are constrained to move in opposition to
the Earth’s motion in its orbit. The magnetic effect of these
particles cancels exactly the magnetic effect of the matrix
particles in their travel with the Earth in its orbit.
Consideration shows that there is also balance of linear momentum
in such a system. However, these free particles do not rotate
with the Earth. They are free to a limited degree to cancel the
electrostatic effects of the induced charge, but they do not
share the Earth’s rotation and therefore no cancellation of the
geomagnetic field occurs.

This albeit rather peculiar notion of particles moving in
formation, with other particles moving at higher speed traveling
freely in opposed directions and between the ranks of the ordered
particles, gives a very simple and direct account which overcomes
the Augenheister problem introduced above.
It introduces the requirement that the Earth must move
laterally and not just rotate to obtain this electrostatic
balance condition. The faster the Earth moves then the greater
the number of free particles in it to cancel the electrostatic
charge. Clearly, the particles are likely to fall out of harmony
with the general system and deploy their velocity in their small
orbits to travel at this velocity through the matrix. This
velocity is seemingly constant for all particles. Therefore, the
ratio of free particles to bound lattice particles in the Earth’s
aether lattice depends upon the ratio of the Earth’s orbital
velocity to the velocity of the particle in its small orbit.
It is suggested that if the Earth were to stop in its orbit,
then, apart from being drawn into the Sun by gravitation, there
would be nothing to balance the strong electric field induced by
its rotation and, since these fields are of the order of many
millions volts per cm, all matter in the Earth would become
ionized. The Earth would then lose its magnetic field.
It is suggested that if the same argument is applied to the
Sun there is cause, owing to the Sun’s relatively slow motion,
for understanding why its magnetic field is less constant than
that of the Earth.

MAGNETIC MOMENT OF THE SUN

The expression (6.12) for the magnetic moment can not really
by tested for other planets until we know their magnetic moments.
the magnetic moment is proportional to the square of the speed
of rotation. Thus, the Moon will hardly have any significant
magnetic field. Using (6.12) it is to be expected that the
magnetic moment of Mars will be about 3.2×10²⁴ emu.
We can, however, test (6.12) by applying it to the Sun. The
Sun rotates once every 25 days and has a radius 108 times that
of the Earth. Hence its magnetic moment should be
(108)⁵/(25)² that of the Earth, or 1.9×10³³ emu.

Estimates of the solar magnetic moment have to take into
account the sporadic magnetic fields produced in sunspots. Some
early estimates may therefore be unreliable. One recent analysis
by which the dipole moment of the sun has been estimated is that
of Sakurai [K. Sakurai, J. Geomagn. Geoelect., v. 11, pp. 21-33;
1959] who observed a value of 5×10³² emu.
This is somewhat less than that predicted by this theory but
the data is of the right order and the result adequately supports
this theory.
Furthermore, as has been stated, there is evidence that the
solar magnetic field has been decreasing over the past few years.
There is also evidence that in some stars the field reverses in
direction very frequently, in some cases every few days.

To account for this, let us regard the estimate of
1.9×10³³ emu to be the solar magnetic moment in the absence
of cancelling charge of the kind developed by ionization. Then,
considering the Sun to be in motion so as to provide the
constrained charge carriers able to prevent total magnetic field
cancellation owing to ionization. The magnetic field will then
be partially cancelled, perhaps in the ratio of the abundance of
ions to the abundance of the constrained migrating charge
carriers. Now, this relative abundance will be a function of the
speed of the Sun. The faster the Sun moves, the more abundance
in constrained carriers and the stronger the magnetic field.
Also, and of great interest to this account, the abundance
density of the constrained carriers will be uniform throughout
the Sun but the abundance density of free ions may be greater in
the outer regions of the Sun than in its core. It is seen,
therefore, that what will happen as the Sun changes from fast to
slow speed is that when moving rapidly it will have a fairly
normal dipole moment induced by its rotation, the constrained
aether constituent in its inner and outer regions being more
dense than the ions. Then, at a lower speed the abundance of
ions in the outer regions outweighs the effect of the unbound
lattice particle charge, thereby substantially cancelling the
magnetic action of the outer field-generating shell of displaced
lattice. The inner core field generation will not be affected in
such a significant way by the lower speed. As a result the double
strength magnetic moment of the shell is cancelled and the
opposed single strength magnetic moment of the core remains
unchanged. The total effect is a complete reversal of the dipole
magnetic moment of the Sun. This has not required any change in
rotational speed of the Sun. It merely requires that the Sun
should fluctuate in speed in its own orbit. The reversals of its
magnetic moment should appear in phase with the variation in
speed.
We predict, therefore, that the variation of the solar
magnetic moment must depend upon the motions of Jupiter and
Saturn.

There is perhaps insufficient data available at present to
check this account of the solar field reversals, though it does
appear that over the past few years the solar field has decreased
and indeed reversed, whilst the Sun has decreased in speed as
Jupiter and Saturn have moved into opposition.
The fact that some stars can reverse magnetic field in only
a few days indicates that their orbital speed changes at this
frequency. This is possible if a star has a satellite close to
it. [It may belong to a binary pair, with both stars orbiting
around one another every few days, as for DI Herculis mentioned
in the first of these lectures on cosmological questions.]

CONSERVED ANGULAR MOMENTUM IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM

We have seen how the motion of an astronomical body through
space provides a constrained aether constituent which prevents
ionization owing to the induced charge caused by aether rotation.
If a body such as the Sun did not move through space, then, apart
from any other source of ionization, its rotation alone would
induce electrical fields and cause ionization.
Motion at varying speed through space arises from the need
to be in balance with a satellite planet. Then ionization need
not occur as a consequence of rotation. If it does occur its
effects will moderate the induced magnetic field, but this
moderating effect will be weaker, the faster the Sun moves
through space.

The rotation of an astronomical body is accompanied by the
rotation of the aether it contains. For the planets the aether
rotation momentum about the centre of the solar system is
insignificant compared with their material orbital momentum.
However, for the Sun the contribution of the aether angular
momentum due to the Sun’s rotation is very substantial in
relation to the angular momentum of the solar system.
It has long been a difficult question to account for the
formation of the solar system in terms of a solar explosion which
somehow imparted substantial angular momentum to the planets but
left the sun with a balancing angular momentum of the order of
1% that imparted to the planets.

This is no problem in the case of the formation of secondary
satellite systems, where the satellites are assumed to form from
a mother planet (see work of Alfven [H. Alfven, Astrophys. Jour.,
v. 137, pp. 981-990; 1963]). Yet, while it is debatable whether
the Moon, for example, came from the Earth, it is less debatable
that the Earth came from the Sun and it is here that angular
momentum balance presents a baffling problem.
This theory may help in resolving this anomaly because the
value of aether lattice density m_o/d³ is of the order of 100
times the Sun’s density, showing that the aether angular momentum
of the solar system might well be in balance with the material
angular momentum. [Note that m_o denotes the mass of an aether
particle and that the value of m_o and d, the cubic lattice
spacing of the particles in the aether structure, were
theoretically determined in the earlier pages of the book from
which this text is quoted].

While this hypothesis will not be pursued here, it is of
interest to mention, in passing, that in discussing the origin
of the satellites and the planets, Alfven and Wilcox [H. Alfven
& J. M. Wilcox, Astrophys. Jour., v. 136, pp. 1016-22; 1962] have
proposed that this has come about from the interaction of a
neutral gas and a plasma. In contrast, the present theory, which
is concerned mainly with the magnetic and momentum properties of
such bodies, regards them to consist in reality of a neutral
material substance and an all-pervading plasma which we have
termed the ‘aether’.

It is appropriate to observe that the aether lattice moving
with the Earth through aether fluid not only gives us the account
of terrestrial magnetism presented but explains the experiment
of Michelson-Morley by confirming the words of Campbell [N.R.
Campbell, ‘Modern Electrical Theory’, 2nd. Ed., Cambridge
University Press, pp. 387-388; 1913]:

“If we speak of ‘aethers’
and not ‘the aether’ all our experiments prove is that the
particular aether with which we are concerned in any case is that
which is at rest relative to the source and may be regarded as
forming part of it. This is the simple way out of the
difficulties raised by the Michelson-Morley Experiment. If from
the beginning we had used a plural instead of a singular word to
denote the (aether) system….those difficulties would never have
appeared”.

Thus, the Earth and the Sun may each have their own
individual aethers as envisaged here and we need have no
inconsistency with the observations from the Michelson-Morley
Experiment.”

[The above is quoted from a book I wrote in 1966, more
than 30 years ago. About 10 years on from that time
I was actually able to derive the quantitative basis
for a theory explaining how the planets formed from
the mother body, the Sun. Moreover, I then found that
the Moon did, in fact, come from body Earth by the
same process. Without aether theory there is no way of
deriving this result. That theory appears in my 1980
book ‘Physics Unified’. I hope, however, to provide a
section later in these Web pages based on a lecture I
was once invited to deliver to the students and staff
of the Physics Department at the University in Cardiff
in Wales, with diagrams to illustrate my case.]

I know that cosmologists will argue that Neutron Stars exist because they can think
of no other way by which to give account of the rapid pulsation of the radiation we receive
from some stellar objects. They believe that the radiating source is rotating at a frequency
which can be of the order of only one revolution per second. A star the size of the Sun would
have a peripheral surface speed exceeding the speed of light, if rotating that fast. It would
be subject to enormous centrifugal forces which would far exceed the gravitational action
holding it together and so it would explode long before it could reach such a fast speed of
rotation.
However, it is a bold leap to infer the existence of Neutron Stars based solely on the
fast pulsation of some mystery sources.

I suggest, therefore, that the true nature of a pulsar is still an open question. It could
be a phenomenon involving the periodic discharge in a stellar plasma drawing on energy
which accumulates in the capacitative system of the star. Just as a star must have an electric
potential owing to that charge density already mentioned, so the storage of that energy
means it has capacitance. There could then be radial oscillations at a frequency of the order
of the speed of light divided by the radius of the star. Indeed, thinking along these lines I do
wonder if the research reported on the Correa invention [Energy Science Report No. 8 listed
in the Book and Report section in these Web pages] may have some bearing on this
cosmological issue.

To enlarge just a little on that theme, I am now going to delve into history. I will then
ask a question and give you my answer. It will surprise you, but I defy you to find fault with
what I say.
First, I wish it to be understood that, unlike most scientists of this modern age, I
believe we need to revive belief in the aether as a real medium.

Recently, I was asked by someone who had discovered my writings if I could
recommend a textbook on aether theory. That person, Mike Dawson by name, said he was
already familiar with Sir Edmund Whittaker’s authoritative ‘History of the Theories of Aether
and Electricity’ [1951 edition, published in U.K. by Thomas Nelson and Sons. My answer to
that enquiry drew attention to Max Born’s book ‘Einstein’s Theory of Relativity’, my copy
being the revised edition published in 1965 by Dover Publications Inc.
I refer here to the section in this work dealing with Faraday’s lines of force and quote
below from pages 170-171 of volume 1.

“According to the theory of action at a distance, the effect of the dielectric is an
indirect one. The field in the vacuum is only an abstraction. It signifies the geometrical
distribution of the force that is exerted on an electric test body carrying a unit charge. But the
field in the dielectric represents a real physical change of the substance consisting of the
molecular displacement of the two kinds of electricity.
Faraday’s theory of contiguous action knows no such difference between the field in
the ether and in insulating matter. Both are dielectrics. For the ether the dielectric constant
equals 1, for other insulators it differs from 1. If the graphical picture of electric displacement
is correct for matter, it must also hold for the ether. This idea plays a great part in the theory
of Maxwell, which is essentially the translation of Faraday’s ideas of lines of force into the
exact language of mathematics. Maxwell assumes that in the ether, too, the production of an
electric or a magnetic field is accompanied by ‘displacements’ of the fluids. It is not
necessary for this purpose to imagine the ether to have an atomic structure, yet Maxwell’s
idea comes out most clearly if we imagine ether molecules which become dipoles just like
material molecules in the field. The field is not, however, the cause of the polarization, but it
is the displacement which is the essence of the state of tension that we call an electric field.
The chains of ether molecules are the lines of force, and the charges at the surface of the
conductors are nothing but the end charges of these chains. If there are material molecules
present besides the ether particles, the polarization becomes strengthened and the charges
at the ends become greater.”

Now, with this historical background in mind, the question I now ask is how energy is
stored in such an aether when subjected to an electric field. The statement that it is by some
kind of tension is not sufficient. If our ultimate task is to unify the force of gravitation with
electromagnetic theory, then we must be consistent. It seems improbable that one could
ever explain gravitation in terms of the mechanical properties of matter. Our unification
quest is more likely to succeed if we aim to explain everything in terms of electrical
fundamentals. Therefore, if the aether can store electrical energy by ‘tension’, that ‘tension’
must itself arise solely from electrical force.

It really suffices to note that if two planar layers of uniformly distributed electric
charge, one of positive and one of negative polarity, are spaced apart slightly in a mutually
parallel relationship then there is a mutual attraction between those charge layers. Energy is
stored in the intervening space owing to their mutual electric potential. Now, if those layers
are the two plates of a parallel plate capacitor separated by a vacuum, the aether in that
vacuum can be regarded as the seat of a multiplicity of pairs of charge layers that are pulled
apart when the capacitor is charged. Each such layer has the same distributed charge as
that on one of those plates. The energy density in the intervening spaces is the same,
however numerous those pairs of charge layers.

So, one could adopt conventional practice and merely regard the vacuum as a void
between the two electrically-charged plates and formulate the energy accordingly, or get the
same result by imagining that a real aether medium exists between those plates and still get
the same energy formulation. However, the charge displacement concept, as an aether
property, serves another purpose. Owing to its analogy with the dielectric properties of a real
solid medium, it gives a basis for understanding electromagnetic wave propagation at a finite
speed that is a function of the properties of that medium.

When I first considered the physical form that the aether might have I opted for it
being a plenum, containing no voids and comprising a uniform continuum of charge of one
polarity in which there is a distribution of identical aether particles having the polarity
opposite to that of the background continuum. My reason for this was simple logic. If I had
regarded the aether as being a void containing electric discrete charges of both polarities and
assumed that there would be no mutual annihilation of charge pairs, then I would be unable
to justify an equilibrium state in which the charges take up sites in a lattice having the
structure needed to characterize a solid. You see, I knew that Maxwell’s equations demand a
solid-like structure to sustain the lateral oscillations associated with wave propagation. I also
knew that I had to set up a model in which the aether particles could take up sites from which
they could be displaced to become subject to a restoring force proportional to the
displacement. I knew that the continuum model would meet that requirement and I
suspected that I was the first to conceive an aether with an in-built asymmetry of this
kind.

I found that the structure of the aether would be simple cubic, meaning that those
aether charges will be located at corner sites in a cubic array. This implies planar layers of
charges and planar boundaries. The aether model was simple and easy to analyze in
mathematical terms. I was well satisfied with the fruits of that analysis. Nature’s aether is
not the least bit complicated. It has structure, but its structure is not close-packed-hexagonal
or body-centred cubic or face-centred cubic, as were the ferromagnetic substances I knew of
from my main subject of research.
I pictured the aether as having the properties of a fluid crystal. Where present the
local energy fields set up by matter affects the aether and promote its local crystallization
nucleated on that matter.

Reverting now to that cosmological theme, I saw a star as having a spherically-bound structured aether, capable of sustaining the propagation of waves at a finite speed
determined by the structural properties of that aether model. I went further and studied how
energy could be stored in that aether by displacing each of those aether particles from its
neutral position. I saw each such particle as having a quantized orbital motion about that
neutral position. That gave me the link I needed to relate the aether to quantum theory and
Planck’s constant. More than this, I imagined what would happen if the system I had just
envisaged were to spin as a whole, sharing the rotation of a star. That led me to see how
there was electric charge displacement relative to the spin axis, resulting in a distributed core
charge and a compensating charge at the spherical boundary of the whole system. I saw the
coextensive matter content of the star as being ionized and so compensating the aether
charge electrically but not compensating it magnetically or gravitationally. My reason was
that, if the aether lattice structure is the frame of reference for electromagnetic wave
propagation, the frame’s distortion or motion cannot set up gravitational or electromagnetic
fields.

For the purpose of this general introduction I can summarize the situation in the
following way. Inside any astronomical body there is a kind of ‘ghost’ form, a crystal-like
structure that is aetherial. It comprises electric charges set in an oppositely charged
background continuum. This structure cannot withstand linear forces because it will yield as
a fluid with a counterflow which compensates and nullifies its overall linear momentum. A
spherical body of that structure can, however, rotate about an axis through the centre of the
sphere and the aether in this mode can store angular momentum. Similarly such a spherical
structure can exhibit some elasticity in resisting radial compression or expansion. In short
the solid aspect of the aether within a star will serve to prevent the star from collapsing under
gravity, even though its own distributed charge induced by rotation cancels the free proton
charge that accompanies ionization.

The star, as a gaseous plasma, would, if there were no aether, compact to a form in
which its internal gravitational interactions just balance the charge interactions of the protons
released by the ionizing contact of the hydrogen atoms. However, with the aether present
and rotating to set up a charge displacement which neutralizes the proton charge in the star,
the electrical repulsive forces within that stellar gas are no longer present but the
gravitational compression is transferred to the lattice structure of the aether. This prevents
the compaction of the star beyond the ionizing limit already determined before the aether in
the star acquired its spin.

The physical sequence of events by which this process can be formulated involves
firstly the stellar material being a finely dispersed ‘dust’ comprising hydrogen in its fully
ionized form. Then something on a grand cosmic scale occurred, such as the condensation
of the aether to form its lattice-like structure. By analogy with the ferromagnetic state which
requires crystal order and further cooling before magnetism appears, so eventually the
phenomenon of gravitation appeared on the physical scene. This then caused the protons to
accelerate rapidly to some focal point, together with the hydrogen atoms that had been
formed by ion recombination, and the primordial stellar form then appears with its positive
core charge. The size of this stellar object is limited by the contact of the K-electron shells of
adjacent hydrogen atoms. There will be more ionization arrested, as already described, by
the balance of the gravitational and electrical forces. But along with these events, that charge
of the newly formed star will promote radial displacement in the coextensive body of aether
and that is a recipe for that body of aether to begin to spin. Indeed, as the electric field
cancels to shed the electric potential energy, which came from the release of gravitational
potential, so the aether spin absorbs that energy as kinetic energy needed owing to its
angular momentum property.

It will be seen from this that we have a whole new scenario to explore, thanks to the
aether being recognized as a real medium. The thought that the aether within a star can
display elastic properties in response to radial compression and expansion means that it can
oscillate radially. If it does that in a background of charge associated with the matter
constituting the charge, where a distributed core charge of positive polarity exists balanced
by a cancelling electron charge in the ionospheric boundaries of the star, then some
fascinating possibilities emerge.

The spherical boundary charge of the aether sphere could be subject to a rhythmic
oscillation which penetrates sequentially outwards and inwards through the electron
ionosphere at a frequency of the order of one cycle every second. Pulsating bursts of
radiation must then occur. Hence we see scope for understanding the pulsar without
assuming that it rotates at what, in stellar terms, is an inconceivably high rate. Stars rotate
with periods measured in days, not seconds!

The enigma of the pulsar warrants a review of the orthodox belief that is linked to the
Neutron Star theme and the Black Hole. It may be difficult for some readers to accept the
revival of an aetherial basis for physical reality, but this makes far more sense than
imagining the existence of Black Holes and Neutron Stars. Note that I shall have much to
say later on the subject of the apparently enormous concentrations of energy radiation
detected in radio astronomical observations. What follows will prove to be so comprehensive
that it will pay to read on rather than halting and assuming that these ideas stand in isolation.
What has been said about the equilibrium of the core charge in a star held in position by
gravitation can be put to the test, because its initial cancellation by charge induced by aether
spin has some fascinating implications. When the star sheds some of its angular momentum
and breaks up to create planets or form a binary system, the ultimate state of aether spin is
at a much lower speed. There is then only partial cancellation of the gravitationally induced
electric charge.

For a star, the ionization prevails and if the star sheds, say 98% of its initial spin
angular momentum in creating planets, as is the case for the Sun, then the resulting
magnetic moment of the star will be 98% of the value we expect from the assumption that its
charge density (in esu) is equal to its mass density times the square root of the constant of
gravitation (in cgs units).

For an astronomical body such as Earth, which no doubt formed as an ionized object
before solidifying, the ultimate state is one where there is no residual core charge held in
place by gravitation. The gravitational forces are then absorbed by the compaction of the
atomic substance and its resistance to compression. In this case the only source of a
geomagnetic field is the aether spin associated with body Earth as sustained by inertia, after
it has shed the Moon. However, that spin condition induces charge displacement in the
aether and the Earth’s substance responds to set up a cancelling displacement of electrons.
The result is a geomagnetic field having a magnetic moment determined, not by G, the
constant of gravitation, but by the properties of the aether and the rate of spin which it shares
with body Earth.

It is then somewhat fortuitous that the formula involving G happens to be in
reasonable accord with what is observed for body Earth, but there is an associated
misfortune in the history of the subject, because scientists tried to confirm the validity of the
formula from detailed tests on body Earth, not realizing that its true validity was restricted to
the plasma systems of the stars.

The next Lecture in these Web pages summarizes that history. I told the story in the
1966 edition of my book entitled ‘The Theory of Gravitation’ and, some 31 years on from that
time, I reproduce the text unamended, except for the use of the notation (x)^1/2
so signify the square root of x, so that the square root of G is written as G^1/2.
Also the Greek symbols used are replaced by words in brackets, such as (beta) and (pi).