It was in August, 1996 that I received a communication from A. G. Callegari of Dane Bridge Nursery, Much Hadham, Herts SG10 6JG, England. It was dated August 2nd and concerned his experimental findings on the measurement of ‘Schumann Resonance’. What he had to say led me to look up the comments expressed by Tom Valone in his paper: ‘Powerline EMF Radiation and Your Health’ (Proceedings of United States Psychotronics Association Conference, 1990), my copy being a pamphlet version issued by Tom Valone from the Integrity
Research Institute, 1377 K Street NW, Suite 204, Washington, DC 20005, USA.

I began to make sense of a figure (Fig. 2 on p. 15 of that pamphlet) which gave a radiation intensity spectrum of the frequency pattern for the observed Schumann resonance. My concern was
that the fundamental frequency component peaking at roughly 8 Hz was about 10 per cent weaker in strength than the second harmonic component which peaked at about 15 Hz, whilst the third harmonic
at 20 Hz was about 85% of the strength of the fundamental component. The fourth and fifth harmonics seemed to be at 26 Hz (55% strength) and 33 Hz (30% strength).

Now this simply should not be, unless there is some factor at work other than the action setting up the fundamental oscillation.
The Callegari communication indicated that he was using a frequency counter model WFC 308 made by Wisher in Taiwan. It specified that no antenna was used, by which I inferred that there was no local resonant circuit which could distort the frequency spectrum of the signal to be analyzed. It then stated:

“Frequencies in the range 7.06 to 8.45 Hz have been measured continuously at this site since January 1993, except in February 1996, when values increased suddenly to a temporary range (13.4 to 14.25 Hz) which lasted for about half a minute before falling back to the saturating value. Relaxation from that value appears to be semi- asymptotic of the order of 15 minutes. Analysis of existing data shows strong correlations with Schumann resonance, atmospheric and Telluric temperature changes and discontinuities, brain-wave frequency band limits (theta to alpha and alpha to beta), …. “

The letter then added the comments:

“I’ve just acquired a second WISHER 308 counter in which frequencies have displayed mostly (90%) in the range 15.5 to 16 Hz, with occasional jumps (10%) up to about 17 to 19 Hz – rarely below 15.45 or above 19.5 Hz.”

This suggested to me that with the newer equipment he was getting a more reliable measure of the stronger signals in this low frequency range, possibly supporting the indication in Tom Valone’s paper that the second harmonic of the Schumann resonance was stronger than the fundamental component. I wrote to him, expressing my thought that the oxygen and ozone in the ionosphere might be a radiating source supplementing the basic Schumann resonance, thinking also that variation in concentration of a different mix of O(18) and O(16) isotopes might account for the anomalous frequency shift. At the time, it was on my mind that the London newspaper, The Times, had in their August 8th issue just declared that life had been discovered on Mars, the evidence being a fossil-containing fragment which came from that planet and contained the heavier form of oxygen, O(18).

Then, by letter dated August 26th, Callegari reported his investigations on his new equipment used in a test run between 4.00 pm and 4.11 pm on that same day. He had a reading every 2.56 seconds
and the measurements showed little variation about a mean of 15.79 Hz.

Now, based on the Larmor precession formula, w = Hq/m, the angular frequency resulting from motion of an ion in a magnetic field H of strength 0.5 gauss (the Earth’s magnetic field), would
correspond to 768/N rev/s, where q is the unitary electromagnetic charge of an ion and m is the mass of the ion, which mass is also N atomic mass units. N is 16 for an isolated oxygen atom, and 48 for
ionized ozone. Since 768/48 is 16, this tells us that ozone in the ionosphere could be a source of electromagnetic radiation at 16 Hz. Now this is virtually that second harmonic frequency, bearing
in mind that the 0.5 gauss Earth’s magnetic field strength is only a close approximation.

However, there is the very clear message here that this could explain why there is a dominant second harmonic in the radiation intensity spectrum associated with the Schumann resonance. Going
even further, we can look at the oxygen molecule in its ionized condition in the ionosphere and expect that to produce radiation at the frequency 768/N Hz, where N is 32. This would indicate radiation
at 24 Hz. This would be the third harmonic frequency associated with the Schumann resonance. A strong fourth harmonic could then arise as a second harmonic of the ozone radiation, but a fifth harmonic of the Schumann resonance is not so easy to explain.

I do, however, feel that I have made out a good case for asserting that the ionosphere, besides providing a cavity for setting up the Schumann resonance, has another way of generating ELF radiation. If tests were made in polar regions where the ozone layer is absent, then that second harmonic associated with the Schumann resonance should fall off in strength. That would confirm this theory.

In conclusion, identifying this new interpretation of the anomalous strength of that second harmonic by the name `Aspden resonance’, I express the opinion that neither the Schumann resonance nor the `Aspden resonance’ warrant concern from the hazard risk point of view. Unlike cyclotron resonance in our body cells attributable to overhead power lines and electric blankets, there is really nothing we can do in any event by way of a preventive measure.

The reason this Research Note is dated 31st March 1997, bearing in mind that what has been presented dates from August 1996, is the deferment of its preparation to the time when this Energy
Science Report No. 10 entitled: ‘Cyclotron Resonance in Human Body Cells’ is ready for publication.

Schumann Resonance

Did you know that there are electric field effects in the atmosphere that affect your brain? We need to solve the mystery of why it is that your alpha rhythm, as measured by detectors sensitive to brain waves, has a frequency equal to that detected by the study of weak electric field oscillations in the atmosphere. The frequency is 7.8 Hz, about one sixth or one seventh of the frequency of electricity supplied to your home. It was Tesla who first discovered those atmospheric oscillations. He even embarked on research to exploit the phenomenon, aiming to transmit power to homes
everywhere around the world by low frequency ‘radio waves’. That was deemed to be a venture that could put power companies out of business. How would they be able to charge for the service? So now we have to concentrate instead on the power of our own brain waves to progress in the world of ‘free energy’.

It was Schumann’s research reports which gave formal scientific recognition of this physical phenomenon of our atmosphere and so it has the name ‘Schumann Resonance’. When I first heard about this from Tom Valone at a conference I attended in Canada in 1988 I was mildly interested. I was there to air my views on how one might be able to generate power using magnetism as a catalyst in tapping
aether energy. I was told not to use the expression ‘free energy’ in the title of my talk as that might destroy my credibility! So I was a little restrained in my pursuit of the technological implications of my ‘brain child’ and atmospheric resonance effects were not uppermost on my mind – or so I thought! What I did learn was that the Schumann resonance was deemed to be a phenomenon occurring as electromagnetic waves travelled around the Earth in the concentric
spherical cavity between the Earth’s surface and the ionosphere. If one takes the circumference of Earth and compares it with the speed of light then one finds that electromagnetic waves travelling around body Earth would set up a kind of standing wave resonance effect at 7.8 Hz. This is the alpha rhythm frequency. So we, meaning our brains, may be phase-locked in some way with body Earth and its
atmosphere. The expression ‘phase-locked’ means that everything in this merry electrical dance is in step and moves at the same frequency.

Aspden Resonance

Dare I now put my name on another interpretation of this resonance phenomenon? I leave it to you to judge. Firstly, as background I note that in 1988 my interest in aether theory led to contacts between me and Dr. P. E. Rowe of Mashpee, Massachusetts, USA . I had a theory which explained how protons were created from the aether. Dr. Rowe had experimental evidence that protons were created inside his electrical discharge tubes which he operated at 50,000 volts and he too believed the aether was the source. It seemed to me that he had found a way of focusing the work done by the aether in creating matter so that, in a sense, he was harnessing the power
of Creation! I saw in this also the danger of effects on our bodies if we were near enough to electric power lines to be in the ‘proton creation zone’, but far enough away not to be electrocuted. I then wrote the paper (abstract 1988f in these Web pages). I had forgotten ‘Schumann Resonance’ because my mind was on my own theory and
protons, deuterons, neutrons etc. There was not much I could do anyway, even though I was aware that if protons could be created inside my body in existing atomic nuclei I might suffer some consequences. I wondered about DNA and whether its chemistry took account of isotopes. It may have been A. A. Berezin, an academic
researcher in Canada, who pointed out that there were more people in the world than possible DNA combinations of atoms in the DNA molecule but yet we were all different. The implication I saw in this was that there could be different isotopic combinations in the DNA structure.

Maybe the odd deuteron replacing the proton in the hydrogen atom in DNA can make a difference! If so, then the odd proton causing
a transmutation to a deuteron could make the odd DNA molecule a misfit in our composition. Would that promote cancer? I do not know but I do know that someone somewhere should be researching that possibility. I may have done no more on this theme if it had not come to my attention that an electric blanket manufacturing company had sought certain assurances from staff members of the Electrical Engineering Department at my local University. They wanted to be assured that the electrical and magnetic fields produced by their blankets were so weak as to be non-harmful to health. I was a Visiting Research Fellow in that Department pursuing my own research on energy from a technological viewpoint, but I was not consulted on that question, nor was there any reason for such consultation.
Measuring those electric and magnetic fields is quite straightforward, given the necessary test equipment. In my opinion, thinking about the matter privately, it was not sufficient just to measure the strength of those weak fields and assume that they
could do no harm. If the medical world said there was evidence of a problem, then there was a problem!

Now an electric blanket and an overhead power line have something in common. Unlike the cables which come into your home and in which the forward current carrying wire is wrapped around the return current carrying wire, the overhead power line and the electric blanket have these wires well spaced. In one case it is to reduce
the risk of bad contacts causing hot spots and so a fire hazard. In the other case it is because the voltages are so high that the wires need to be well spaced to preclude arcing. The point nevertheless is that, if wires are well spaced, they do set up stray pulsating electromagnetic fields at the power frequency. They may be too weak to matter in normal physical terms but they may be too strong to be tolerated in biophysical terms! The reason for this is ‘resonance’. Now, I like to think that I am not stupid. I also have an aptitude for understanding something new, otherwise I could hardly have spent my working life in the world of invention. As a corporate patent attorney in the high technology world of electronics and power engineering one needs to be able to grasp what is new and find a rational way of explaining in terms meaningful to a patent examiner.

So, the obvious question, if resonance is involved, is why electric blankets and overhead powerlines have harmful effects in U.K. and in USA, where the electric power frequencies are 50Hz and 60Hz respectively. To answer this I asked myself what was different about the human body versus action in a metallic conductor when it came to reaction to a low frequency alternating magnetic field. Now, although I was experienced in patent attorney work, I happen to
have a Ph.D. for experimental research on the energy anomalies involved when metal reacts to such fields. I was aware of a kind of resonance in copper or iron when subjected to a magnetic field, what is termed a diamagnetic reaction which occurs even in a steady d.c. field. In copper or iron there are free electrons moving about
and setting up that reaction. In our bodies, in our blood, there are instead ions relatively much heavier than electrons set up that reaction. If there are two types of reacting ion present then, within a limited range, one can screen the field of the other to the extent needed to adjust the effective field to the optimum resonance of one or other of the ion masses. I knew this could explain the 50Hz-60Hz resonance question.

The expression ‘Aspden Resonance’ refers to my suggestion that the field oscillations in the Earth’s atmospheric cavity, as bounded by the ionosphere, are encouraged by cyclotron resonance involving ionized oxygen or ozone. Now, I say cyclotron resonance here, but I must qualify that statement. In physics there are two Larmor
formulae. The first, which is called the ‘Larmor formula’, is the one applied to the cyclotron. It applies to the effect of fields which pump energy into the ion motion. The second formula, that termed the ‘Larmor precession’, applies to an action in which the
motion in orbit is perturbed, with the result that the plane of the orbit alters the direction of the axis about which the ion moves. This sets up a radiated field disturbance at the precession frequency, which is half that of the cyclotron resonance frequency given by the ‘Larmor formula’. Now, owing to the Earth’s magnetic field, the resonant frequency of the ionized oxygen molecule, which comprises two oxygen atoms, would be about three times that attributed to the Schumann resonance. Also the ionized ozone, which comprises three such molecules would imply a resonance that is about twice the frequency of the Schumann resonance. In short, therefore,
there would be harmonics of the basic cavity resonance set up and the relative strengths of the components observed in the harmonic spectrum of radiation should tell us whether this interpretation is viable. To take this further I need to deflect your attention along different routes according to choice. You may choose to follow my account of the basic cyclotron resonance theme, which may hold the secrets of the hazards we risk from using electric blankets or living too close to overhead power lines. Alternatively, you may be more interested in the question of those brain waves and the Schumann resonance and Aspden resonance topics. The latter has a special interest from the viewpoint of my aether theory.

A feature of my theory is that there is a phase-lock throughout domains in space set by the range of gravity force. The phase-lock merely implies that electric charges are all moving in a common rhythm, keeping their separation constant and so not exchanging energy. I predicted long ago that this was an ongoing state in the
aether. As can be seen also from the pattern of electron field cavity resonance illustrated on page 51 of my book ‘Aether Science Papers’, the phase-lock action is at work in containing the electron’s energy in a way which explains what is known as the
anomalous g-factor of the electron. Therefore the Schumann resonance theme, which involves a phase-lock having a much smaller frequency than that of the aether or the electron, has a special significance in defining an enclosing boundary, not just for a weak form of radiation, but also for the aether system which is carried along by body Earth. See my Research Notes 03/97 on Cyclotron Resonance and 07/97 which expands a little on the Schumann Resonance theme. Alternatively see my Energy Science Report No. 10, which includes both of these Research Notes and also the paper I wrote in 1988 on the proton hazard theme referring to Dr. Rowe’s research.

I have decided to compile this Research Note as a diversion
from preparing a response to a U.S. Patent Examiner’s rejection
of my Patent Application Serial No. 08/579,991 which has a U.S.
filing date of 12/28/95.
The Examiner’s comment reads:

‘The applicant asserts that the motor receives more electrical power back than was input to the motor. The statement directly violates the Laws of Conservation of Energy. The applicant has provided a mathematical derivation as support for this claim. However, the equation is incomplete. It does not reflect any heat or resistance losses generated by the structure of the motor, nor does it show the reputed magnetocaloric cooling effects. Further proof and explanation is required to support this assertion.’

Now, to be strictly correct, I did not affirm in my
specification that ‘the motor receives more electrical power back
than was input to the motor’. I did, however, explain why it was
possible to take more electrical energy from an inductance than
had been supplied as electrical power input, but there really is
nothing clever or magical in that, because the process I referred
to involved pulling a magnet away from a soft iron core member
and that involves an input of mechanical work. Every dynamo that
incorporates a magnet generates electrical power output in that
way.

My real concern arises from the other comments by the
Examiner because that word ‘reputed’ implies that the Examiner is
unaware of what I mean by ‘magnetocaloric effects’.

I intend now to describe what I might term a ‘Magnetocaloric
Motor’ but stress that this motor is hypothetical and impractical
as a commercial proposition. It in no way corresponds with the
motor disclosure in my patent, but it does serve to educate those
who find it difficult to believe the principles of physics that
apply to the motor developments which I am pursuing. I stress
that the physics I use is standard physics which in no way
involves any breach of the law of energy conservation.

I want you to imagine a solid cylinder of a ferromagnetic
substance with a solenoidal winding wrapped around it. It is
positioned with its axis vertical and it has, underneath it, a
strong magnet held to it by its magnetic attraction. The magnet
is heavy and, if it were free from that magnetic hold, it would
fall under gravity. It could, for example, be part of a
reciprocating engine which supplies a drive torque to a flywheel
through a connecting rod and crank system.

Now, a ferromagnetic substance has a ‘Curie temperature’,
which is the temperature of transition at which it loses its
ferromagnetism and behaves as a normal metal to which that magnet
is not attracted.

My scheme is to supply heat as an energy input to my motor
and cause that cylinder to lose its ferromagnetic state. What
must then happen is that the magnet will fall from the top-dead
centre position to the bottom dead-centre position and turn the
flywheel and its shaft through 180 degrees. That delivers
mechanical work as output. Note that I could, if I wish, take
electrical power from that solenoid as the magnet falls. Indeed,
the solenoid has no other purpose.

After this half-cycle of my motor, or heat engine if you
wish to regard it as such, I allow the cylinder to cool. It
recovers its ferromagnetism and the magnet sees that change and
rushes to rejoin the cylinder owing to magnetic attraction. This
means that the magnet does work in recharging the gravitational
potential shed during its early fall. It also can deliver some
more electrical output by electromagnetic induction in that
solenoid and we recover heat energy owing to the cooling of the
cylinder.

Such an engine will work because there is nothing in what
I have said that defies either experience or any law in physics.
The energy deployment involves heat energy Q input and, as
output, four energy components, the heat energy Q’ shed by
cooling, the mechanical energy developing the motor drive torque,
the electrical output on the down stroke and the electrical
output on the up stroke.

Now, obviously, logic governed by the law of conservation
of energy says that Q must be greater than Q’ by the sum of the
electrical and mechanical power outputs. Friction is part of the
heat output.

I invite you now to consider a real motor in which there is
the usual heating attributable to core magnetization losses and
heat generated by current flow in the windings. If I were to
deploy some of that heat and convert it into electrical or
mechanical power in my motor, would that defy the law of
conservation of energy? Surely, it would not, but it might
enhance the efficiency of my motor and that was a feature I found
in my tests on the motor, the subject of the patent application
which the Examiner has rejected.

Now, I am going to go further in developing these ideas for
a magnetocaloric motor. First, I will suppose that there is 100%
balance between energy input and energy output. After all, just
as we cannot get energy from nowhere, so we cannot lose energy
into that ‘nowhere’ world. So, the electrical and mechanical
power that my hypothetical motor generates draws with 100%
efficiency on the heat input, assuming I have good thermal
insulation in my motor construction. I need, therefore, to
supply heat at a temperature sufficient to exceed the Curie
temperature of that ferromagnetic substance from which the
cylinder was constructed.

If it were of iron then that would be quite a high
temperature 770 degrees C. If it were of cobalt that means 1127
degrees C. Nickel offers better prospect at 358 degrees C, but,
as this is a thought experiment, I prefer to use gadolinium which
has a Curie temperature of 16 degrees C. That is virtually
normal room temperature, so, if I am working in a cold climatic
region, I can contemplate building a normal heat pump, which need
not be very efficient, to pump heat up to a temperature above 16
degrees whilst allowing ambient cooling to provide the
temperature reduction below 16 degrees. If I were in a hot
climate then the environment could provide the heating and I
would use the heat pump in reverse as a cooling system.

Now, as every professional engineer knows, heat pumps that
change heat through a temperature range of, say, 10 degrees in
the ambient temperature range can operate with a figure of merit
as high as 10 and more. In other words, for every unit of heat
energy fed into my motor at a little above 16 degrees C, I can,
using heat shed at a somewhat lower temperature as complemented
by environmental heat, supply 10 units of excess heat (Q-Q’) to
my motor.

The fact then is that, in theory, meaning standard physics
theory and practical engineering experience, I can expect my
motor to operate to deliver up to ten times as much electrical
and mechanical power output as I supply as electrical input to
operate that heat pump. There is no breach of the law of
conservation of energy because the heat energy balance accounts
for any difference.

So, I say to the U.S. Patent Examiner responsible for my
application, that this is what I mean by magnetocaloric effects
as a factor adding efficiency to the motor I disclose in my
patent specification. It did not incorporate gadolinium, nor did
it run on that very slow heat cycle implicit in the thought
experiment described, but it did harness physical principles akin
to those described.

Whoever may read this may wonder how they can begin to check
what I say about the phenomenon of magnetocaloric effects. To
assist the reader in that question, I direct attention to a book
authored by a leading expert on the physics of magnetism. He was one of the external examiners chosen by Cambridge University to
examine my Ph.D. thesis, which was, in fact, concerned with
energy anomalies in ferromagnetic materials. The book ‘Modern
Magnetism’, by Professor L. F. Bates, was published in its fourth
edition by Cambridge University Press in 1961.

Consult that book or any other of your own choosing and try
to establish whether the heat energy supplied to a ferromagnet
to cause it to transit through the Curie temperature is the same
as the heat energy returned by cooling through the same
temperature range. Try to find any hint that the specific heat
of the ferromagnet differs in dependence upon the proximity of
that magnet in my hypothetical motor. It would have to if it is
to satisfy the requirements of the law of energy conservation,
but this is one of those questions that may still await an
answer.

Certainly, I think the physics community will adhere to the
definition of specific heat as the amount of heat needed to raise
the temperature of unit mass through a unit degree, even though
they normally measure it by what amounts to techniques involving
cooling. That shows their faith in the belief that the specific
heat is the same for tests involving increase of temperature as
it is for decrease of temperature. Note that in my hypothetical
motor I supplied heat Q to heat the ferromagnet and received in
return heat Q’ upon cooling, the difference being used to run my
motor. The latter difference can be calculated in terms of the
weight of the magnet, range of stroke, and induction effects etc
but it has to be substantial. Yet, according to the standard
theory used by physicists, as implicit in those specific heat
measurements, Q’ should equal Q.

So there is an interesting problem. Certainly it causes me
to wonder if there is another source of heat energy, perhaps the
world of entropy in our underlying environment, but, I am here
expressing the views of an engineer, though using my in-depth
knowledge of electromagnetic and ferromagnetic phenomena.

I invite anyone to contact me and enlighten me if they can
point to an error in the case I put for the hypothetical
magnetocaloric motor I describe above. I am very interested in
knowing the truths of physics which are at work in these
processes, but, please, do not quote a law of thermodynamics as
a reason for non-operability. The laws of thermodynamics are
based on past experience and I am interested in future technology
which has to be well founded and based on something new. All I
can say is that I find in my motor experiments reason to believe
that heat is being regenerated as electrical power which assists
the output of the motor.

I may add that in my Ph.D. research I confronted the problem
of why far more heat was generated by eddy currents in
transformer steel than should be the case theoretically. I did
not at the time even think that it was because the heat generated
could itself cause additional EMFs which strengthened the
circulation of those eddy currents in the transformer
laminations. Looking back at the experiments reported in my
thesis I can now see that the excess losses had to be
attributable to regeneration of electrical power from heat in a
way which tended to escalate the loss, particularly in thin large
grain electrical steel.

In the book by Bates, chapter IX between pages 327 and 371
discusses specific heat measurements in ferromagnetic materials and in
particular discusses the experimental facts concerning the
magnetocaloric effect. There is a transitional increase in
specific heat over the transition range near the Curie
temperature. There is a discrepancy between theory and
experiment which is said to be of ‘unknown origin’ (page 330).
However, there is no suggestion that specific heat values could
differ according as to whether the temperature is increased or
decreased. I qualify that by observing that it was mentioned on
page 338 that, in weak magnetic fields, the relationship between
magnetic polarization and temperature did suggest a time delay
in adjusting to the measurement conditions, of which it was said:
‘In a way, this is merely another mode of stating that hysteresis
effects are playing a small part’.

There is no breach of the energy conservation law, that is
the first law of thermodynamics, whereas the second law of
thermodynamics does not even apply because the magnetocaloric
motor is not, in a strict sense, a heat engine responding solely
to the thermodynamics of an operating fluid. The magnetic factor
can, as is well known, serve as a catalyst in redirecting the
thermodynamic energy conveyed by electrons in metals so as to
generate EMFs. This is a thermoelectric property known as the
Nernst Effect and, as with the Hall Effect, it is not governed
by the Carnot limitations which apply to the second law of
thermodynamics. In saying this I am mindful that the use of magnets as a catalyst to deflect charged ions from a heated
gaseous flow so as to generate electrical output (MHD, the
magneto-hydrodynamic technology which had its heyday in the 1960s)
does comply with the Carnot efficiency limitations. That is
because the gas molecules enter as input at a high temperature
and all leave as output through an exhaust at lower temperature.
These are the conditions demanded by the second law of
thermodynamics, but electron flow in metal according to the
Nernst Effect has no output current that is fed into an
‘exhaust’, because no current flows into the cooler heat sink.

These comments may be of interest to readers. Just before Christmas I received a letter from Dr. George Egely who gave his address as Budakeski. P.O. Box 38, H-2092, Hungary. This letter, dated December 8th, was followed by a 156 page printed report (No. KFKI-1987-10/D) issued by the Central Research Institute for Physics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. The report had the title ‘Hungarian Ball Lightning Observations’ and the sub-title ‘Case 1 – Case 278’.

His letter to me read:

‘I have come across your paper submitted
to the Denver conference earlier this year, where you wrote about the
importance of rotations in vacuum or ether. I feel that it is an
important insight, though very sketchy at the moment.

The reason for this feeling is my numerous encounters with ball
lightning destruction. For over ten years I have collected material
evidence on destruction caused by ball lightning. I have spent my
whole adult life doing research on energy transport in nuclear energy
technology. I have a background in the calculation of conservation
laws.

To my surprise, in the case where ball lightning was involved,
sometimes apparently a million times more energy and electric charge
appeared than could be accounted for by our textbook physics. I have
a large collection of case studies on video I have collected in the
last 10 years. They clearly indicate an enormous energy and electric
charge output, house walls pushed apart (not explosions!), kilograms
of metal wires melted by ball lightning. These and other permanently
recorded features show that some unusual, unknown phenomenon takes
place there.

Unfortunately when I’ve tried to publish the results of my
observations and calculations they were turned down and I gave up
after many rejections. The raw data on photographs and video records
was there for everybody, but my fellow workers ignored it.

I tried to find some explanation and I came up with the idea of
four-space-dimensional ball lightning in order to circumvent the
apparent violation of charge and energy conservation.

Your model, however, offers in principle another, perhaps more
simple explanation for the severe violation of conservation laws.
Basically this is the reason for my letter.’

Dr. Egely’s letter then developed into an enquiry about my ‘rotational vacuum model’, what I have referred to elsewhere as vacuum spin. Dr. Egely also said:

‘I am a bit familiar with your views, as I bought one of your books, Physics Unified, in England. (I could afford only two books, one of them was yours, because it offered a new insight into some of my problems.)

So, there you have it. My talk at the New Energy Symposium in
Denver, which was aimed at supporting the Correa discovery by showing
why the excess energy was drawn in from the aether by the vacuum spin
process, had produced an echo in far away Budapest in Hungary. The
‘echo’ was amplified by Dr. Egely’s words:

‘A million times more
energy and electric charge appeared than could be accounted for by
textbook physics’.

The secondary echo, was more familiar,

‘Unfortunately when I’ve tried to publish the results of my
observations and calculations they were turned down and I gave up
after many rejections’.

I shall send Dr. Egely a copy of my Energy Science Report No. 8
concerning my interpretation of the Correa invention, especially as
this includes a version of my 1983 paper on the nature of the
thunderball as published by the Institute of Physics in U.K.

The above is the title of an article in the November 1996 issue of Physics World. Its authors are John Swanson, David Renfrew and Nigel Wilkinson, who belong to the Technology and Science Division of the National Grid Company in U.K.

They conclude that, though it would be:

‘arrogant and rash of physicists to argue that, because we have not yet been able to think of a possible physical mechanism, it is impossible for there to be an effect.. however, the absence of a mechanism and reproducible laboratory results inevitably means .. scepticism’.

I note that in their article they say that various resonant mechanisms involving the Earth’s static (magnetic) field have been proposed, for example ion cyclotron resonance of the calcium ion. Of this they declare that such cyclotron resonance cannot actually occur in a cell as the orbit of the ion would have to be more than 1 metre (in radius).

This shows that they have not understood the physics of cyclotron resonance as applied to ionised liquids. To pump energy from a pulsating electric field into a system of ions moving in a magnetic field the only governing condition is that the pulsating frequency is in or near to resonance with the natural frequency of the ion in orbit in that field. The cyclotron as used in high energy particle physics pumps energy into an ion by increasing its speed and so it orbital radius. If we are not seeking to put that energy
exclusively into an ion output stream, it matters not if there are collisions limiting the mean free path to sub-micron-sized dimensions. There is still energy transfer from that field to the ion system.

To understand this it may be that a mathematician will be required to supplement the “skills of physicists alongside those of biologists, epidemiologists and engineers” (quoted as the last words in the referenced article). You see, if there were no magnetic field, the ions in collision in the fluids in our body cells would merely move in straight lines between those collisions. A straight line is a curve of infinite radius! If, however, a magnetic
field is present, then that same rectilinear motion would apply if the system of ions in motion could be viewed from a reference frame rotating about the magnetic field axis at the cyclotron frequency. Each and every positive ion would share a motion as if the whole of the fluid in the cell were rotating at the same angular velocity. Collisions would not cause a clockwise moving ion to take up anti-clockwise motion.

It follows therefore that the superimposition of a 50Hz or 60Hz pulsating electric field attributable to an overhead power line
will act selectively in pumping energy into those ions moving with the field. The ions on one side of a cell will gain in speed in their cyclotron orbit (or rather, minute arcs of such an orbit), whereas those on the opposite side of the cell will reduce in speed. However, owing to the rotation, if there is a match between the cyclotron frequency and the frequency of the pulsating field, the
ions on one side of the system which gain energy will have moved around to the other side as the field reverses direction and so will continue to gain energy. This is an escalating effect in which the ions gaining in speed acquire more energy than is lost be those losing speed. Overall, there has to be energy transfer and a net heating effect concentrated by the cyclotron resonance process. Note further that, if a mathematician amongst those ions were to run
around in circles, speeding up on one side of the orbit and slowing down on the other side, but yet keeping a steady angular velocity about a central point, his mean position would have to be displaced in the plane of motion owing to that constraint of a fixed angular velocity.

Cyclotron resonance ensures that the angular motion has a constant rate, notwithstanding any changes in kinetic energy. Angular momentum of ions is not conserved in a cyclotron situation,
because as the ions are accelerated to faster speeds they spiral outwards.

Now, there is research in new energy physics which points to anomalous energy inflow from the field environment if electric charge can be held displaced in stable concentrations inside an electrically conductive medium. This is found in systems involving rotating magnets and in plasma discharge devices. There is clearly a scientific mechanism by which one can predict the setting up of electric fields in human body cells primed by the pumping of energy by cyclotron action. For my part I have, some years ago, addressed the more difficult question of why there can be similarly-harmful cyclotron resonance in U.K. and U.S.A. where the power frequencies are 50Hz and 60Hz, respectively. Explaining that is the primary question, but there is an explanation based on the dual presence of positive and negative ions of different molecular masses. Understanding how the cyclotron frequency adapts over a limited frequency range in such circumstances raises fascinating questions of
basic importance, but directly connected with the gyromagnetic reaction phenomenon found in ferromagnetic substances.

I shall be writing more on this subject in due course, but I emphasize here that the authors of the above Physics World article have not understood the cyclotron mechanism as it can apply to human body cells and they must rethink their views on the way in which weak electric fields from power lines can interact with a weak geomagnetic field to pump energy into the resonant ions in our body fluids.

I have decided to write this Research Note after reading Issue
No. 10 of ‘Infinite Energy’ (September-October, 1996). On pp. 67-69 there is an article by Michael C. Nicolaou which draws attention to the research discovery of Dr. Leonid N. Grigorov, a polymer physicist in Moscow. It concerns the high electrical conductivity of oxidized polypropylene and its prospective use in thermoelectric devices.

My interest arises owing to my involvement in an invention in
which a polymer film is used as a dielectric in a parallel plate
capacitor subjected to a thermal gradient. Heat input generates
current oscillations through the capacitor. Conversely, input of
current oscillations causes the device to act as a very efficient
heat pump, which means that the device operates as a refrigeration
unit. The power rating of such a device for a given weight can be
increased enormously if that polymer dielectric film is a good
electrical conductor in a direction lateral to its plane. I
therefore see great promise in the Grigorov discovery.

This Research Note, however, aims to highlight a few points
that I wish to share with those who may read this Web page. The first comment concerns Nicolaou’s reference to two warm superconductor compositions, both being yttrium, barium copper oxides. These YBCO compositions had the formulae YBa₂Cu₃O_9-x and YBa₂Cu₃O_7-x, where the terms in brackets represent the number of atoms of the related element in the molecular composition. The expression 7-x denotes a number of atoms slightly smaller than 7.

Now, for some years past, I have been drawing attention to the
fact that superconductivity is a phenomenon by which heat is
converted into electricity in a manner contrary to the second law of
thermodynamics. I have referred to the ‘supergraviton’, which my
theory of gravitation has shown to have a mass of 102.18 atomic mass
units. Resonance involving this mass quantum has a catalytic action
in the conversion of heat into electricity and this leads to the
superconductive property. [See my paper: ‘The Supergraviton and its Technological Connection’, Spec. Sc. Tech., v. 12, pp. 179-186 (1989)]. Reference [1989a] in these Web pages.

So, let us check whether the above YBCO compositions fit my
theory.

The atomic masses (carbon 12 scale) are Yttrium: 88.9,
Barium: 137.34, Copper: 63.54 and Oxygen: 16. So, the
YBa₂Cu₃
common component of the two compositions has a mass of 554.2 amu.
Now add 7 oxygen atoms, summing to 112 amu. The result is 666.2 amu.

I observe that a group combination of two such molecular forms
has a total mass of 1332.4 amu, which is 13 times 102.49. Now this
is close enough to 102.18 to assure superconductive resonance at a
temperature high enough to qualify as a ‘warm superconductor’,
especially so if, very marginally, the oxygen component in the
mixture is reduced (the x factor). The term ‘warm’ in this
connection means above 77K, the temperature threshold of liquid
nitrogen.

What I have found intriguing is the reference in the Nicolaou
article to a YBCO composition having nine oxygen atoms. Add 32 to
666.2 and the result 698.2 is not at all compatible with my 102.18
theory. This causes me to wonder whether those who fabricate these
warm superconductor compositions are merely forming composites in
which there are, in fact, different microscopic molecular groupings.

Suppose, for example, that the YBCO composition includes ten
oxygen atoms. 666.2 plus the 48 amu which allows for three oxygen
atoms is 714.2, which is 7 times 102.03. That means superconductive
resonance of one single molecular unit with an even closer value to
that 102.18 figure.

Now, in forming the YBCO superconductors, may it not be that
two YBCO units, each comprising 7 oxygen atoms, form in an aggregated
association with four YBCO units having 10 oxygen atoms. The mean
composition would have the 9 oxygen atoms, but there would be an even
better tuning of the superconductive resonance. The four heavier
molecular units, each of 7 times 102.03, plus the combination of the
two lighter units at 13 times 102.49, sums to 41 times 102.18, a
value identical to the ideal theoretical value provided by my theory.

Note that, in the abstract of the above-referenced paper, I
declared that:

“Technological implications are discussed with emphasis on the ‘warm’ superconductor phenomenon found in perovskite
compositions having molecular masses that are integral multiples of
95.18 GeV/c²“.

The mass-energy 95.18 GeV converts into amu by a conversion unit familiar to particle physicists. It involves relating the amu to the mass of the electron, their ratio being (1,660,540.2) to (910.939) and then multiplying by the mass-energy of the electron, which is 0.510999 MeV. This is 931.494 MeV and (95.18)/(0.931494) is 102.180. So, my point is that I drew attention to the supergraviton with this value in that paper which I wrote in 1988 and now I read that the progress in developing warm superconductors tends to confirm what I then suggested.

I also note that I am now fairly confident in my belief that,
as these warm superconductor compositions cool during their process
of manufacture, there will be cold spots local to molecular groupings
which suit the supergraviton resonance. This is because the
phenomenon involves transfer of heat into electrical energy fed to
sustain electron motion. Obviously if we are dealing here, not with a
zero resistivity but rather with a negative resistance property owing
to that regenerative effect, then there will be local current
oscillations in the material. These will be self-induced microscopic
eddy-currents in the material, which transfer that heat to the
regions not conducive to resonance. That means that there could be a
self-tuning element to the process and the proposition that the YBCO-7 oxygen molecules aggregate with their 10 oxygen counterparts in the
ratio of 1:2 to give the overall composition with a mean of 9 oxygen
atoms then makes good sense.

At least, that is the way I see it, and I do believe that the
New Energy publications such as ‘Infinite Energy’ are wise to report
on progress in the warm superconductor field, simply because the
phenomenon breaks the laws of physics by regenerating electricity
from heat and doing that with a 100% conversion efficiency.

I may also note that, in analyzing data from the thermoelectric
energy conversion devices involved in my research with Scott
Strachan, I could only explain the enormous thermoelectric EMF we
were getting from nickel-aluminium junctions in terms of the problem
we had avoided by not allowing cold spots to develop in filamentary
current flow paths through the cooled Peltier junctions. That is the
subject of Energy Science Report No. 2 in the series I publish and
the device first tested is described in U.S. Patent No. 5,288,336.
As an side comment on this, I will here draw attention to the fact
that bismuth telluride increases in resistivity with temperature
decrease. This is contrary to the situation in base metals. It
means that Peltier cooling prevents cold spots from forming in
thermocouples using that material and so prevents the setting up
filamentary paths through points in junctions which would cool
rapidly to temperatures too close to the lower heat sink temperature.
In base metal thermocouples such cold spot cooling chokes the
thermoelectric action, but we avoided that in our research by using
thin Ni-Al films on a polymer substrate and interrupting the current
flow at a frequency measured in kHz. You can view such a normal base
metal thermoelectric device as inherently monostable and in a
virtually incapacitated state. In contrast, by the technique
Strachan and I adopted using Ni-Al thermo junctions we contrived to
make our devices bistable in the conductivity sense. However, after
a while even our devices tended to become monostable again in a
magnetic sense and it is only now, after waking up to this
situation, that steps can be taken to remedy that so that this new
technology can move ahead.

Now, if you think what I say above about the 102 theme is all
speculative nonsense, let me ask you a simple question. Suppose a
substance comprises minute superconductive microcrystal forms
separated by thin insulating coatings. Might that substance be an
electrical insulator but yet be a thermal superconductor? My
question then is: ‘Can you name a material that is more thermally
conductive than copper but yet is a non-conductor electrically?’

Note that the oxidized polypropylene polymer discovered by Dr.
Grigorov is the exact opposite. It is a thermal insulator with
superconductive filamentary paths through the layer of film. That is
why it offers such promise in a Strachan-Aspden thermoelectric power
converter. It could well prove to be the refrigeration technology of
the future, besides serving as a solid-state electric power
generator. For details see my Energy Science Report No. 3.

Let us then consider the 102 factor with reference to oxidized
polypropylene. Its molecular formula is that of a chain of n units
of the molecule C₃H₆O, namely n times 3×12+6+16 or n times 58. Put n as 7 and the result is 406 amu or 4 times 101.5. This is close enough for superconductive resonance. It could be closer if the polymer chain is broken into finite lengths with the valency bond that would otherwise link the ends of the molecules being occupied by a hydrogen
atom. Add 2 amu to the 7 molecules in the molecular group forming
each chain unit and you get 408, which is 4 times 102. Allow then
for the fact that hydrogen has an atomic weight of 1.008 and that
there are really then 44 hydrogen atoms in that molecular group. You
will see that this converts that 408 value into 408.35, which is 4
times 102.09.

Then wonder why, as I believe is the case, the superconductive
property of oxidized polypropylene involves tiny filaments of
superconductive paths through the thickness of the film but not bulk
superconductivity. Can it be that one in two such groups has
nucleated one deuterium atom upon cooling rather than a basic
hydrogen atom? That would add 0.5 amu to the 408.35 to give 408.85,
which is 4 times 102.21. The 1 in 6,000 or so deuterium atoms per
normal hydrogen atom expected from isotope abundance data would imply
that the 1 in 88 concentration needed to support this latter proposal
arises from the cooling effect of filamentary currents through the
substance as it is fabricated. The property tends to be ‘frozen in’
along filamentary channels which form where there is the excess
deuterium presence.

Now, maybe I am going too far with these thoughts, but surely,
if that oxidized polypropylene composition really is a warm
superconductor at room temperature and well above, then something of
a self-tuning nature has to explain the phenomenon. I can only say
that I find satisfaction in the theoretical results I am obtaining
and my excitement is enhanced all the more because it all points to
my supergraviton theory and the underlying theory of gravitation
being well founded.

I see also that the Nicolaou article mentions the composition
SrTiO₃ as a high temperature superconductor. Strontium: 87.62 and titanium: 47.9, together with three oxygen: 16 atoms gives a mass of
183.52. A group of five such molecules sums to 917.6 amu, which is 9
times 101.96, another rather close value for superconductive
resonance which can be ‘tuned’ further by preferential merger of the
predominant isotope of strontium.

However, let us come back to that question I posed above. One
material I have in mind is synthetic sapphire. It was drawn to my
attention recently by Willard D. Nelson of Olympia, Washington State,
USA. I traced record of this substance in reference data at my local
university library and found that, in its single crystal form, it
exhibits an enormously high thermal conductivity, peaking, according
to temperature, at around 150 watts per sq. cm per degree per cm of
temperature gradient, albeit in the 25K region. Its molecular
composition is Al₂O₃, which is a unit mass of 2×27+3×16 or 102 amu! Surely then one must begin to wonder whether this substance might eventually be processed in such a way as also to become a high temperature electrical conductor which could rival those known at
present. Maybe minute crystals embedded in a metal would assure the
electrical superconductivity.

For my part, as I am now compiling the report on thermoelectric power conversion, I can but be optimistic at the prospects ahead for combining thermoelectric technology with superconductivity. The article by Nicolaou provides a very promising introduction.

To now conclude this Research Note I mention a reference to a paper by A. J. Bradley, H. J. Goldschmidt and H. Lipson [J. Inst. Metals, v. 63, p. 149-161 (1938)] also drawn to my attention by Willard D. Nelson in a communication dated November 18, 1996. It describes the crystal structures which can be formed by alloys of copper and aluminium. I was surprised to see mention of several specific compositions in that paper, especially as so many atoms were involved in their formulae. They were the compositions Cu₃₀Al₂₀, Cu₃₂Al₁₉,
Cu₉Al₄ and Cu₁₇Al₉. The cubic structure was emphasized. The range of composition bounded by the two latter formulae were said to form such a cubic structure.

When I read this, thinking that an alloy of copper and aluminium ought to be a good conductor of both heat and electricity, I was intrigued by that precise formulation of the alloy mixture. Why Cu₃₀Al₂₀ and not Cu₃Al₂? My thoughts then raced ahead to the analogy with that 7 molecule grouping I have just discussed in connection with oxidized polypropylene. Three Cu:63.54 atoms plus two Al: 26.98 atoms sums to 244.58 amu, which is not a multiple of my 102 figure. However, scale the composition up by a factor of 5 or 10 and you find the resulting combination is an integer multiple of
101.91. Here again, if supercooling owing to negative resistance effects of that resonant phenomenon is at work as these alloys crystallize, then that may explain some of the mystery I feel is aroused by this 1938 paper.

When I look at the other compositions mentioned, taking Cu₃₂Al₁₉ first, this has an overall composition having a mass that is an integer multiple of 101.84 amu, whereas Cu₁₇Al₉ has a mass that is an integer multiple of 101.77 amu. I have therefore been left wondering whether or not there is something special about the electrical conductivity of these copper
aluminium alloys.

There is much I still have to say about the 102 factor and the
supergraviton in the main Web pages that I shall be presenting in due
course, and especially concerning its role in magnet compositions.
Meanwhile, however, I do hope this Note will arouse some interest
amongst those who theorize about superconductivity. I reiterate that
my real goal is to command attention for my theory of gravitation and
I can assure readers who are deeply immersed in high energy
theoretical particle physics that the supergraviton has an
interesting connection with the neutral Z boson that features in
their deliberations. Finally, may I say that I intend this to serve
also as providing some feedback to Willard Nelson for his kindness in
sending me the alloy information referenced above.

As a footnote to this Research Note 01/97, it is appropriate to
mention a news item which appeared in THE TIMES (London, England) on
December 16, 1996. It was a Science Briefing report by Nigel Hawkes
and the subject was the discovery of a possible room temperature
superconductor. I quote: ‘The material involved is lithium beryllium
hydride LiBeH₃, better known as a potential rocket fuel. … The (French) team, which includes researchers from the National Institute of Applied Science in Lyons, the Atomic Energy Commission in Paris and the National Centre of Scientific Research in Meudon, have found magnetic anomalies suggestive of superconductivity. At roughly room temperature (25C) the powdered hydride exhibited an unusual
effect…This effect is also seen in copper oxide-based
superconductors.’

Again, upon reading this and applying my 102 test, I saw scope
for the following interpretation. Lithium has a valency of 3 and
beryllium a valency of 2, with hydrogen having a valency of 1. If
the Li bonds to Be, this leaves three valency bonds taken up by the
three H atoms. Now, suppose the chain filaments mentioned above can
form in this material by the hydride composition shedding two of the
H atoms. Hydrides can release hydrogen, just as they form by its
adsorption, so this is a feasible proposal, given then that the LiBeH
residue has free valency bonds that can link up to connect these
molecular forms in a long filamentary chain. Our ‘resonant’ mass is
then n times the 7+9+1 amu of each LiBeH component. We then see that
this can be 102 with n an integer.

Go further and seek to be more precise, given that room
temperature superconductivity is in prospect. The H atom is
virtually a single isotope species with a mass of 1.008 amu, the Be
atom is a single isotope species with a mass of 9.012 amu and lithium
has a 92% preponderance of the isotope of 7.016 amu. Assume that the
cooling during fabrication of the material freezes the filamentary
paths through chains of LiBeH comprising this heavier isotope of Li
exclusively. Then work out the result to find that the resonant mass
involved is n times 17.036 amu, so that, with n equal to 6, it
becomes 102.216. That is very close to the supergraviton mass of
102.18 amu.

I hope, in the light of this, that you will agree this footnote
was worth adding to the above text. What with oxidized polypropylene
needing 7 elements in a chain and now this lithium-beryllium-hydrogen
substance needing 6 elements in a chain, and both promising to be
room temperature superconductors, some readers may see this as a
somewhat arbitrary choice of numbers and regard it as mere indulgence
in number-play, rather than being true physics. In response, I say
that much of the research effort of physicists is indulgence as they
gamble with public money and, as with that money and its dollar
figures, if the numbers begin to tell you something, it pays to be
attentive, especially when all that emerges are scientific papers
full of mathematical symbols of little or no significance. I add
that none of my research in these curious features of superconductors
has been funded by anyone except my good self.

*

It was on the evening of 15th January 1997 that I received a
phone call from Richard Hill of Tonbridge Wells in England. He had
seen a T.V. programme on the subject of predicting earthquakes. A
Stanford University professor in California had discovered that the
sensing of magnetic disturbances could give several hours advance
notice of an impending earthquake.

He reminded me that we had both contributed articles to a U.K.
magazine circulated within the Home Office sector of the U.K.
Government ten or so years ago. I had suggested that the earthquake
phenomenon involved disturbances affecting the aether, meaning that
the aether itself could be subject to its own adjustments prior to
the earthquake event. My thought was that the signature of such a
phenomenon would be the generation of excessive noise in frequency
modulated radio transmission compared with amplitude modulated
transmission of the same signals. I pointed to the experimental
support for this which had aroused the curiosity of a researcher in
Switzerland, who had sensed an Italian earthquake in his radio system
some time before the arrival of the shock wave of an earthquake in
Northern Italy.

I refer readers to my paper: ‘Earthquake-Related EM
Disturbances’, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 28, pp. 535-536 (1987). Abstract [1987d] in these Web pages.

Now, to come to my Research Note theme, I want to suggest that
those who study earthquakes and wonder how they can be predicted are
missing something vital in not paying attention to the reality of the
aether. Bear with me for a moment on this and ask yourself how
physicists in California could have progressed on this subject if
they had held to the beliefs prevalent towards the end of the 19th
century.

The Earth rotates and the aether within body Earth rotates with
it, given that the Michelson-Morley experiment had shown that the
Earth’s motion around the Sun relative to the aether could not be
detected. In those days physicists suspected that the aether had a
mass density of the order of 100 gm/cc. It would therefore have a
very substantial spin angular momentum owing to its rotation with
body Earth.

Now, ask yourself a question. How does that aether affect the
Earth’s precession? The Earth’s spin axis is steadily changing
direction as it progresses during a 25,765 year cycle. What happens
to that aether spin? It must adjust to keep in step and adjust the orientation of
its own spin axis with the same 25,765 year cycle, but does it do
that in steps or at a very steady rate? If it does it in a jerky
fashion the aether will be disturbed and there are bound to be
physical consequences affecting body Earth.

For example, suppose the changes occur by concentric shells of
spherical sections of aether progressively adjusting in spin
direction as the disturbing adjustments ripple radially through Earth
from the ionosphere to its centre. That will certainly affect radio
signals. It will also affect gravity!

It was not 19th century knowledge but research in our 20th
century on offset precessing gyroscopes that revealed anti-gravity
effects. This is the research finding of Professor Eric Laithwaite
of the Imperial College in London, England. Note that, on this
latter point, as I proceed in compiling these Web pages, I will be
incorporating a copy of my paper entitled ‘Ghost Mass and the Unseen Energy World as Revealed by the Anomalies of the Gyroscope’ [The Toth-Maatian Review, v. 6, pp. 3169-3171 (1987)]. Web page abstract [1987j].

Reverting to my main argument, it follows that, since the Earth
itself precesses and affects the aether sharing its spin, so that
aether is subject to its own ‘forced precession’. If that brings
along a gravitational anomaly, a transient weakening of gravitational
attraction on parts of body Earth, then earthquakes will ensue along
fault lines where there are weaknesses in the Earth’s crust. The
trigger is the jerky migration of the spherical shells of aether in
bringing about the reorientation of the aether spin axis.

Now, if you do not want to believe in the aether phenomenon,
then you can contemplate strains in rocks setting up piezoelectric
effects and changes in induced magnetism occurring as the strain is
relieved. That occurs when the earthquake happens, but, accepting
the aether proposition, before that earthquake happens there might be
tell-tale signs beginning to develop in the aether itself. In the
latter case the sensing of radio noise in frequency modulated
transmission, as well as low frequency electromagnetic activity, can
but offer prospect of prediction of an impending earthquake.

In short, though I believe in the aether anyway, I would have
even greater reason to want to know more about the aether if I lived
in the danger zone in California.

Stanford University has the only book store in the world that
still regularly buys copies of my 1980 book ‘Physics Unified’ as a stock item. On its last page (p. 194), before the Appendix section, that book discusses earthquakes in relation to the aether and, as a footnote, includes the following references:
M. Markert, New Scientist, v. 70, p. 488 (1976). (This was the above
mentioned account of the prior detection of the Italian earthquake).
R. E. Hill, ‘The Radioquake Mystery’, Intercom, p. 17, December 1978.
H. Aspden, ‘A Perspective on a New Enigma’, Intercom, p. 21, December 1978. See [1987d].

These latter references came to mind when I received Richard
Hill’s telephone call of January 15th 1997 that I mentioned at the
outset of this Note. But now, having been reminded of the Earth’s coupling with spinning aether, I want to suggest a research topic that may interest the theoretical physicist. My objective is not to educate by offering all the answers myself. Even if I could do that, my lifespan is hardly likely to match up to what is needed! No, I want you, the reader, to convince yourself that there is (or there is not) an aether to consider.

The problem, one I could never solve, is the task of
calculating theoretically the time period during which the
geomagnetic poles migrate around their geographic counterparts. Now,
amongst my physics books there is one I received back in 1945 as a
school Physics Prize. It says that the cycle of polar movement takes
some 960 years. The angle of tilt between the two axes involved is
said to be 17 degrees. My tentative interpretation, for many years,
has been that this phenomenon was an indication that the aether spin
inside the Earth is about an axis precessing around the Earth’s spin
axis, but that 960 year time period has eluded my efforts to give
theoretical account of this figure.

Have you any idea why the Earth’s magnetic poles should be
ever-moving around the geographic poles? If you believe in
Einstein’s theory of relativity, then see how far you can get using
his mathematical abstractions in that quest! The aether looks a far
better bet, faced with that alternative. However, I will offer you something to work on, but point out that it is something that has only occurred to me during these last two days since Richard Hill contacted me. My energy technology pursuits have priority so I cannot take this proposal forward at this time. At this point I need to refer to the mass density of the aether, which I know is effective in its spin state. I cannot go into the details of the calculation here, but point to an easily available reference, namely my paper (jointly with Dr. D. M. Eagles) entitled ‘Aether Theory and the Fine Structure Constant’ [Physics Letters A, v. 41, pp. 423-424 (1972)]. This is reference [1972a] in the abstract section of these pages. There you will see that the reciprocal value of the fine structure constant, which is 137.036, equates to 36(s/d), where s is the Compton electron wavelength h/mc or 2.426×10^-10 cm. From this you can deduce the value of d as 6.373×10^-11 cm. That paper also shows that the mass of each aether particle in each site of a simple cubic aether lattice of side dimension d is (1/24.52) of the electron mass of 9.105×10^-28 gm. From this you can calculate the mass density of the aether lattice to find it is 143.53 gm/cc.

Now, concerning the Earth’s precession rate and the precession
rate of the geomagnetic poles, we can say that body Earth is locked
in a state of spin with the Earth’s aether lattice. If, together,
they are subject to a force couple C tending to twist their common
axis of spin, then there will be precession at the rate of: C/(A.M.)
rad/sec, where A.M. is their combined angular momentum. This will be
one revolution every 25,765 years, because that is what is observed,
but C and A.M. need evaluation to support our aether theory.

At this time I have not discovered how to determine C from
first principles. That is a challenge for the reader too, but (A.M.)
can be calculated from the data given above, noting that Earth has a
mean mass density of 5.6 gm/cc.

The feature of this Research Note which is worth noting is,
however, the thought that C might be an interaction couple between
the atomic substance comprising Earth plus its aether lattice system
and something else that sits inside the sub-quantum world within body
Earth.

I have in mind here that sea of leptonic activity that is not
structured but which accounts for the real power underlying all
regions of space, whether within or external to matter forms. It
comprises mainly virtual mu-mesons, muon pairs, which are the
building blocks forming protons in the creative and regenerative
activity of the vacuum medium. Amongst those leptons there are the
electrons and positrons, especially in the vicinity of matter, and
everywhere there are the gravitons, mainly the tau particles or taon
family of leptons. Particle physicists refer to the muon as the
‘heavy electron’, but they do not have a clue as to the role it
performs. The reason is that they have no insight into the aether
and the way the aether interacts to create protons from the muonic
background. Nor can they see those gravitons, which exist as virtual
particles in a ‘ghostly’ association with matter. These are the seat
of action giving us the force of gravitation and it is by reference
to the graviton form and its properties that G, the constant of
gravitation, is derived in the author’s principal writings on this
subject.

For our immediate purpose it is the graviton system in body
Earth, with that ‘ghost’ mass of 5.6 gm/cc dynamically connected to
the Earth’s mass, that we look to for a separate precessing system
within our Earth. The force couple C is the same as governs the 25,765 year precession, because these two systems interact magnetically
with one another. However, whereas the mass density contributing to
the A.M. quantity is 143.6 gm/cc plus 5.6 gm/cc, the mass density
effective for the graviton system is simply 5.6 gm/cc. In short, the
graviton system will precess at a faster rate, in the ratio
149.2:5.6, which, as you can work out, is a rate of one cycle per 967
years.

Now, given that I set out to cast some light on the precession
rate of the geomagnetic poles and took the 960 year figure as my
guide, I am rather pleased with this result. It is still only a
guide to the ultimate truths governing this phenomenon, but it is
something to work on. It suggests that the induction of the Earth’s
magnetic field is governed by a phenomenon involving a reaction
effect in those heavy leptons, at least in the way it is deflected
from the Earth’s axis of spin.

I cannot go further with this until I find new inspiration, but
think it worth mentioning the following further note. We know that the angle of 23.5 degrees represents the tilt of
the Earth’s spin axis in its precession cycle, whereas approximately
17 degrees is the angle of tilt of the geomagnetic polar axis with
respect to the Earth’s spin axis. Maybe there are further clues
here. In developing the theory for the strength of the geomagnetic
field and calculating its overall magnetic moment, using my aether
theory, I did have to factor cosine 23.5 degrees into my equations.
That analysis is in my published work dating from the 1960 book ‘The Theory of Gravitation’. Therefore, the following relationship may have some relevance: (1-cosA)=2(1-cosB), where A is 23.5 degrees.

You can deduce that B is, to the nearest whole unit, 17 degrees. My
early research led me to what I termed a ‘half-field reaction effect’
that is at work in the process of electromagnetic induction, so I may
come to see a connection here which justifies the equation just
presented. However, I must now end this Research Note and put it on
my Web pages.

Copyright, Harold Aspden, 2001

The author’s theory of the aether has, as its very foundation, a fundamental structure,
analysis of which in terms of the physics of electricity and electromagnetism, gives full account
of the nature of the photon, as verified by a theoretical evaluation of the fine-structure
constant in excellent accord with its measured value. The fine-structure constant is a
dimensionless physical quantity which plays a dominant role in the theoretical interpretation of
the radiation spectrum of atoms and so in the interpretation of cosmological data by the
astrophysicist.

The theory dates from the late 1950s and was first introduced in 1960 by the author’s
48 page publication ‘The Theory of Gravitation’, which showed how to derive the following
formula:

This is an expression for the inverse of the fine-structure constant, a physical quantity
dependent upon the Planck constant h, the speed of light c and the unitary charge of the
electron, all quantities which are characteristic properties of the aether. Note that h is the
fundamental parameter of quantum theory in that it governs the jitter motion that is associated
with Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty concerning the relationship between position and
momentum of matter in its interaction with the vacuum medium, the aether. The electric
charge e is the seat of the aether displacement currents we associate with electrical energy
storage in the vacuum medium and with electromagnetic wave propagation through that medium at
the speed of light c. The ratio r/d is a term that emerges from the author’s theory as the radius
r of a circular orbital motion, that jitter motion just mentioned, expressed in terms of the lattice
spacing d of a cubic structure seen as defining the sites of electric charges of magnitude e
permeating the whole of what we call space, namely the aether, which charge is neutralized
electrically by being set in a background continuum of a uniformly dispersed system of charge
of opposite polarity.

The author’s task in that late 1950 effort was that of deriving the theoretical value of
r/d, based on those lattice charges taking up positions of minimum, but positive, energy
potential and connecting the result to a disturbance of the aether lattice by causing a tiny 3x3x3 unit of that lattice to spin and so account for the setting up electromagnetic waves, the
frequency of which is proportional to the angular speed of the spin and the energy involved,
this being the phenomenon we term the ‘photon’. Contrary to the physicist’s orthodox
opinion that photons transfer energy by travelling at the speed of light, the theory indicated
that photons are standing events seated in the aether at points where energy is exchanged
between matter and aether and vice versa, whereas the communication at light speed is by
electromagnetic waves which signal the amount of energy by their frequency and control a
one-to-one energy quantum transfer by virtue of conveying a quantum of momentum between
the two events.

That, in summary, is what the author’s theoretical derivation of the fine-structure
constant meant and, that quantity having no alternative explanation in physics, the result was
clear evidence that we exist within a real omnipresent aether medium and that our future
progress in understanding cosmology and many of the outstanding mysteries of science
depends upon our accepting that the aether really does exist and not trying to evade reference to it, as one does
in following the doctrines of Einstein’s theory of relativity.

As the title of that 1960 publication implies, one spin-off from the theory was an
insight into how the force of gravity can be explained as an electromagnetic force set up in the presence of matter and acting between charges induced quantum-electrodynamically to provide a dynamically-balancing system in motion at that jitter frequency of the aether. More that this, however, even in that
1960 work, there was an insight into the solution of another major mystery in science, that of
what causes Earth and other astronomical bodies to spin and have an intrinsic state of
magnetization.

Not surprisingly, over the years since 1960, the author found that the theory developed
with time and, in respect of the fine-structure constant, this development concerned the
determination of the exact value of r/d. It was evident, as noted in that 1960 publication, that
the aether could not have its lattice charges precisely at positions of zero energy potential,
because that would preclude storage of what we call ‘field energy’ and deny scope for the
aether to shed energy at a seat of wave interception by a photon event. Accordingly, as
inspection of that 1960 publication will show, the author could but surmise as to the precise
state of lattice charge displacement by increase of that radius parameter r, looking at the tiny
difference, a very small fraction of one per cent, needed to bring the theoretical value of the
fine-structure constant into exact agreement with its measured value.

This problem persisted and, though the theory developed substantially, particularly
with regard to the theory of gravitation and the theoretical derivation of G, the constant of
gravitation, was still not fully resolved in 1969, when the author published his book ‘Physics
without Einstein’.

It was in 1972 that the key breakthrough emerged and the result was published in
‘Physics Letters’, 43A p. 423 (1972) under the title: ‘Aether Theory and the Fine Structure
Constant’ . This paper was co-authored with Dr. D. M. Eagles of the National Measurement
Laboratory in Australia, it being his initiative in having Dr. Burton of that laboratory’s
computer unit recalculate the author’s derivation of the fine-structure constant, to a higher
degree of precision, that led to a cooperative effort in interpreting the result. The key to the
exact evaluation of the free-space value of the fine structure constant was a kind of state of
resonance as between the form of the aether lattice charge e and that of the electron, the latter
having a much smaller charge volume. This ‘resonance’ was really a condition governed by
the conservation of the volume of space occupied by a unitary charge e, according to its mass-energy, in transmutations of state as between the lattice charge form and the electron-positron
form we associate with QED, quantum electrodynamics. QED is understood by theoretical
physicists as accounting for ‘vacuum energy fluctuations’ by which they interpret the observed
spin properties of the electron with very high accuracy. In electron charge volume terms, this
author’s theory implied a volume ratio of 1844.52 for the aether charges to be seated at
absolute zero electric interaction energy potential energy, but this quantity has to be an odd
integer and that brings into play the r-increase displacement needed to give the aether some
small level of energy priming, that ratio then becoming 1843.

The formula for the inverse of the fine-structure constant then becomes:

πe² = 108π(8/1843)^1/6 = 137.0359

which was in 1972, and still is in 2001, within 1 part in a million accord with the value as
measured today. The way in which the above formula is derived from the early formula above
is explained in that ‘Physics Letters’ paper. It is based on theory which applies the Thomson formula linking charge radius and mass to obtain a relationship between the radius of the electron charge and that of the aether lattice charge as the ratio
8(r/d)²/9, which, if the related charge volume ratio, is 1/N, means that the above formula
applies with N as 1843.

This theoretical derivation of the fine-structure constant was mentioned by B. W.
Petley of the National Physical Laboratory in U.K. in his 1985 book ‘The Fundamental
Constants and the Frontier of Measurement’, published by Adam Hilger Ltd. (pages 161 and
163). Petley discusses in his book (pages 42 and 43) the possibility that the fine-structure
constant might vary with time, by reference to observation of red shifts affecting the spectra of
distant QSOs (quasar stellar objects) only to conclude that it would seem that, if there is any
variation, it is no more that one part in 10¹² per year.

Now, the reason for writing this, some 29 years after that 1972 paper presenting the
above formula was published, is the fact that J. K. Webb et al, in ‘Physical Review Letters’,
87, p. 091301 (27 August 2001), present data to show that several distant QSOs exhibit a
fine-structure constant that is of the order of nearly one part in 100,000 smaller than that
applicable here on Earth.

This causes the author to wonder how this affects the theory outlined above. The first
point of importance is the fact that N has, on energy optimization criteria, a maximum value of
1843. This means that, for a more highly energized state of the aether such as might apply in
the locality of a QSO, the fine-structure constant, which decreases as N decreases, can only
have a smaller value owing to N changing with that energy activity. The theory, unless well-founded, had a 50% chance of meeting this test, since one could imagine N increasing or
decreasing. The evidence indicates a decrease of N and so the theory meets this test. The
question then arises as to the amount of the reduction in value estimated from the observation
data. The data, as shown in a diagram, included error bars, presented as a function of red
shift. The data revealed two groups, one of which has its error bars overlapping, but with centres close to, the
zero difference as compared with the Earth value and the other group of which includes four
sets of data all of which have error bars ranging about positions which imply a difference of
the order of 1 part in 100,000.

As to the latter the authors gave one estimated measure as -(0.76 +/- 0.28)x10^-5 but they
made the observation that ‘The only potentially significant systematic errors push (this
discrepancy) towards positive values’, a statement which says that the 0.76 term should really
be somewhat higher.

Now, concerning the scope of this author’s theory in adapting to this situation, it is
conceivable that in a region of very high energy activity, such as might apply for the QSO,
there could be an effective displacement which increases r to a level set by one lattice charge in
two having the next lower odd N value of 1841. The simple-cubic lattice structure of the charge
sites in the aether and, in particular, also in the 3x3x3 array of the photon structure, would
retain the three-dimensional symmetry for such a state. Therefore, one could argue that an
effective value of 1842 could apply instead of 1843 and so modify the value of the fine-structure constant as specified by the relevant expression above. One then finds that in such a
case the fine-structure constant would be reduced in terms of its value here on Earth by the
factor (0.904)x10^-5, which could well explain the phenomenon evident from the QSO data.

It is submitted that the new data strengthens, rather than weakens, the aether theory
advocated by the author. Furthermore, and in conclusion, it is noted that the author has
already discussed in LECTURE No. 6 the anomalous galactic
red shift data reported earlier by the astrophysicist W. G. Tifft [‘Discrete States of Redshift
and Galaxy Dynamics II: Systems of Galaxies’, Astronomical Journal, 211, 31-46 (1977)]
which implied that even lower N values can exist in certain cosmological regions of very high energy.

In this section of these Web pages I will be recording some thoughts on research topics which occur to me as I witness the rapidly evolving new energy scene. Some comments will be inspired by related scientific developments in physics generally, particularly where I see an aether connection. Also, this will be a way of addressing comments I receive on the subject of my Homepages.

01/01: The Fine-Structure Constant
This note relates to the discovery that the fine-structure constant as applicable in very distant QSOs (quasar stellar objects) has been found to be about 1 part in 100,000 smaller than the value measured here on Earth. The author’s aether theory has its basic foundations keyed to the theoretical derivation of the part per million level of precision for the value of this physical constant and so the author sees it as imperative to examine how his aether theory can explain this discrepancy. It is here shown that the aether model used is not found to be lacking in adapting to this discovery.

10/98: Geomagnetism: Shaky Ground but Solid Facts! This note came to mind after reading an item in The Times, U.K. newspaper, on December 16th, 1998. The report implies the discovery of new evidence showing that body Earth is solid right through to its central core. If that is so then the accepted explanation of geomagnetism is disproved and I can but remind readers of these web pages that my aether theory offers a comprehensive account of this phenomenon consistent with a solid Earth.

9/98: Inertia or Reaction? This note has been triggered by reading two items on pp. 7 and 9 of New Energy News, September 1998 issue. It is about the ongoing efforts of physicists to interpret what is observed concerning particles and photons in terms of fanciful theoretical physics, even though there exists in earlier published scientific papers a full and corresponding explanation, given that energy is conserved and that energy can find acommodation in the aether that permeates what we term the ‘the vacuum’.

8/98: Impressions Concerning Gravity This note has been written because I have received two quite separate communications, one suggesting that a change of gravitational potential is manifested in space as electricity, meaning that the very existence of electric charge is nothing other than a gravitational phenomenon, which in turn is attributed to space-time curvature. The other claimed that the phenomenon of gravitation is attributable to the aether having a temperature, gravitational potential being proportional to that temperature. These ideas warrant comparison with my account of gravity. Hence this Note.

7/98: The Tau Particle
This note was written in response to a challenge. The tau particle is a ‘heavyweight’ in the lepton family, just as the muon is a ‘middleweight’ and the electron a lepton of low mass. One of the greatest challenges in physics is that of understanding what determines the mass of the leptons, these being the active players in the world of quantum electrodynamics. I have claimed in my theory of gravitation that the seat of gravitational action is the heavyweight leptonic scene and gone one step beyond the present state of the art in particle physics by asserting that there exists a leptonic system that I have named the ‘supergraviton’, this being a cluster of leptons having a mass close to 102 atomic mass units. This note contributes to the evidence I am collecting in support of my case.

6/98: Electron-Positron Chaining
This note presents a brief analysis of the physical basis of some energy values assigned to the electron-positron chains or strings that feature in the Essay ‘What is the Neutrino?’ in the Question section of these Web pages.

5/98: Neutrino Mass
This note arises from having read a Science Briefing item by Nigel Hawkes, Science Editor of the British newspaper: The Times. The article was entitled ‘Mountain tests allow scientists to put weight on the neutrino’. It appeared at p. 10 in the June 5, 1998 issue of that newspaper.

4/98: Maxwell’s Equations
This note was necessary in view of a feedback item received from Dave Gieskieng on June 3, who had performed the experiments reported in Lecture No. 10: Appendix. It is important to discuss the question of whether Maxwell’s Equations as applied to wave propagation through space well removed from a radiating source are wholly valid. How can they set up magnetic fields by their wave oscillations? This is discussed.

3/98: Antiproton Mass
I am writing this after reading a Science Briefing item by Nigel Hawkes, Science Editor of the British newspaper: The Times. The article was entitled ‘It ain’t heavy, it’s a proton’. It appeared at p. 16 in the June 1, 1998 issue of that newspaper. This concerns a very important breakthrough in precision measurement. A question I put is whether one can now establish whether the electrostatic energy of interaction between electric charges exhibits mass or has no mass property. The answer should have bearing on the validity of Einstein’s theory.

2/98: Electron Spin? Schism or NIH?
This note was prompted by having read an article by Robert Metthews, a Science Correspondent for a British newspaper, who wrote under the title ‘Take a Spin’ in the February 28, 1998 issue of New Scientist’.

1/98: Renewable Energy: A Topic for Debate
This Note was prompted by an E-Mail message dated January 30, 1998 sent to me by Anje Anderson, introduced by the words: “I am a cross-examination debater at Ellison High School.” Here I record a few of my thoughts on that subject.

15/97: Marinov: A Note for the Record
The suicide of Stefan Marinov revealed his depression at the failure of his efforts to interest the scientific community in his work on electrodynamics and the violation of the laws of energy conservation. I seek here to reawaken interest in the electrodynamic theme and recall to memory my own contacts with Stefan Marinov.

14/97: Cincinatti Disclosure
This Research Note shows why it is that titanium and copper are created in the process developed by the Cincinatti Group for deactivating radioactive thorium in an electrolytic cell which converts thorium into these base metals in an hour even though its half-life is commensurate with the age of the universe.

13/97: E=2Mc:squared?

This Research Note is written to provide feedback to someone who has, for about 30 years now, followed developments of this author’s aether theory. It is written because that person, Peter McNeall, has suggested that the theory implies a formula E=2Mc² instead of the usual E=Mc², the reason being that the author, those 30 and more years ago, saw need to halve the mass of the aether lattice particles to account for their inertial reaction as part of the aether system. The response provided in this Research Note explains more fully the justification for that mass-halving assumption, but E=Mc² remains the governing mass-energy relationship.

12/97: Flywheels & Anti-Gravity

Some years ago a Scotsman named Sandy Kidd attracted attention by demonstrating a machine involving spinning flywheels which lost weight. This attracted media attention and led to an Australian entrepreneur taking Sandy Kidd under his wing to develop the invention. The highlight of that venture was the eventual verification of that weight loss when a machine was tested by independent researchers in a recognized test laboratory. Even so, onward commercial development was not without its problems and the backers could not go forward with something that was essentially a scientific curiosity best studied in a university environment. Now, several years on Ron Thompson a Scottish journalist who told the story in a book about the Kidd invention has stirred interest in the subject. This Research Note addresses that issue.

11/97: End of Science?

Every so often THE TIMES newspaper (London, England) contains a science report by writer Nigel Hawkes. We go up and down in being informed, first that discoveries are being made enhancing the exotic theories built on the Einstein and Dirac foundations and secondly that evidence contrary to those theories is emerging. Readers are buffetted between these two extremes and are supposed to marvel as they suffer from a kind of cyclic state of confusion. This Research Note gives vent to my feelings in reacting to an item published on May 5th, 1997. On the one hand we are led to believe that fundamental science is now virtually at its zenith, with nothing more to be learned, and, well, did you know that space can be chopped up into ‘slices’? It is all very wonderful and essential if we are to make sense of what we already know. Read this Research Note and begin your enlightenment!

10/97: Cosmological Dilemma?

One of the most surprising features of cosmology is the way in which scientists presume to understand how stars are created. They are now greatly puzzled by the problem of planets being created too close to their parent star. A star and its planet is like mother and child. They can dance around in near-circular orbits and cosmologists have fun just watching their performance. But how are those stars and planets born in the first place? Where, one may ask, is the father – the third but essential element in this happy picture? The ‘father’ is, of course, not to be seen. He is out there in space working away to sustain this cycle of Creation. His handiwork is to be seen also in the great energy machine which we can even study in our laboratories, but he must not be ignored! If you give him the name ‘God’ then that shows at least that you know he is out there somewhere, but if you give him ‘form’ then you are into the study of the ‘aether’. This Research Note takes note of a topical theme, a discovery reported by THE TIMES (London newspaper of April 26, 1997), and explains where to begin in connecting the aether with the creation of stars and planets.

09/97: The Pointless Electron

Physicists have been asserting for many decades that the electron is a point charge, meaning that it has no body form. Now it has been reported that a breakthrough discovery is emerging – the electron seems no longer to be all crowded into that mysterious ‘point’. Yet, it was common knowledge amongst scientists 100 years ago that the electron simply had to have a body form of radius somewhat above 10^-13 cm. So said J. J. Thomson, the man who discovered the electron! Of course, in those days scientists did believe in the reality of an aether, but our 20th Century scientists think otherwise. They like the ‘point’ electron, but, sadly for them, Nature has something different to say on this subject. Read this Research Note and see how they might contrive to invent another particle – the preon – in order to salvage something from the impending wreckage!

08/97: The New Energy Spectrum

This Research Note was written to mark a transition in this author’s efforts in the New Energy field. It had been planned to publish a sequence of Energy Science Reports and make these available along with the author’s books that remain unsold. However, with the growing importance of Internet as a means for disseminating scientific information, the author is now concentrating on these Web pages as the medium for such onward effort. The subjects planned for Reports No. 11 and 12 will now be incorporated in these Research Notes or in the Lectures. This Research Note 08/97 introduces those two topics but also draws attention to a U.S. patent granted to IBM, which provides experimental data showing how heat can be used to alter hydrogen gas pressure so as to generate electricity by affecting the magnetic state of a rare earth substance. Since no hydrogen is consumed in this process it warrants scrutiny as a heat-to-electricity converter with hidden scope for New Energy science.

07/97: Ionospheric Radiation

The Research Note develops from the Schumann Resonance theme of Research Note 06/97. It is also connected with the cyclotron resonance theme of Research Note 03/97. It is shown that ionized oxygen and ozone in the ionosphere can respond to perturbing field effects to set up a Larmor precession which radiates weak fields at frequencies which could be deemed to be harmonics of the Schumann resonance frequency of 7.8 Hz. This argument is supported by the experimental observation that the apparent second harmonic of the Schumann resonance is stronger than the first harmonic. It is not normal for higher harmonics of a primary signal to exhibit more power than the fundamental component of that signal unless there is some secondary resonant response backed by other power input. The anomaly warrants comment and attention.

06/97: Brain waves and Alpha Rhythm

We need to solve the mystery of why it is that your alpha rhythm, as measured by detectors sensitive to brain waves, has a frequency equal to that detected by the study of weak electric field oscillations in the atmosphere. We need to understand the physical causes of those weak field oscillations. Schumann resonance was deemed to be a phenomenon occurring as electromagnetic waves travel around the Earth in the concentric spherical cavity between the Earth’s surface and the ionosphere, the round-the-Earth transit time being about one eighth of a second. This Research Note suggests that there is a secondary resonance effect owing to cyclotron resonance in the ionosphere excited on ionized ozone molecules (approximately 16 Hz) and on ionized oxygen molecules (approximately 24 Hz). These could have been erroneously interpreted as second and third harmonics of the 7.8 Hz Schumann resonance.

05/97: Magnetocaloric Motor Power

This is a note prepared as briefing material in support of a U.S. Patent Application relating to a motor invention which the Patent Examiner regarded as breaching the Laws of Energy Conservation.

04/97: Hungarian Thunderballs

This is a note concerning information supplied by Dr. Egely who reports on ‘Hungarian Ball Lightning Observations’ in some of which a million times more energy and electric charge appeared than could be accounted for by textbook physics.’

03/97: Power Lines and Health

Physicists deny that cyclotron resonance attributable to the interaction of the Earth’s magnetic field and the low frequency electric fields set up by overhead power lines can be a health hazard. This research note explains why they are wrong.

02/97: Thermoelectric Superconductors

Learn how supergraviton resonance shows itself again and again in the thermoelectric superconductor. Heat converts into electricity, which is why there are warm superconductors!

01/97: Earthquakes and Geomagnetism

Earthquakes can be triggered by aether spin sharing the Earth’s rotation. As the spin axis of the Earth adjusts in the 25,765 year precession cycle, the aether has to precess as well. Its sporadic adjustments can affect EM wave propagation with possible radio or electromagnetic detection of the build-up of the conditions that prevail during the periods before an earthquake occurs.