These are science lectures in which you will learn about
gravitation, magnetism and begin to understand how the
universe was created. You will be introduced to a limitless
source of ‘free energy’ which we can harness to meet our
future energy needs without polluting our planet. It is
limitless because Nature conserves energy and, if we use the
energy Nature feeds to us in a consumable form, Nature has a
way of recapturing that energy as we shed it and reprocessing
it through its sub-quantum underworld to feed it back into
its original form. Yes, you will learn to question what you
read in contemporary textbooks which say that there are
man-made laws preventing Nature from working in that way. But, as
you learn, you will, I hope, become all the more interested
in what I have to say, because it affects your future and the
destiny of mankind.

Amongst the earlier Lectures that I shall be including in this section of my Web pages, you may find Lecture No. 5 of special interest as it will show you how the solar system and the Earth-Moon system was created. However, if you have the temerity to say, as do some scientists, that theories mean nothing unless they predict what has not been discovered, then go to Lecture No. 6 and see what is evolving on the cosmolological scene.

If you need to see technological consequences emerging from the Energy Science discussed here then, be assured, I will be moving more in that direction as I update the Energy Science Report section of these Web pages. These Lectures and those which will be added are for those having a general interest in science who want to see the orthodoxy being challenged.

LECTURE NO. 1

APPENDIX TO LECTURE No. 1

LECTURE No. 2

LECTURE NO. 3

APPENDIX TO LECTURE No. 3

LECTURE NO. 4

LECTURE NO. 5

LECTURE NO. 6

LECTURE NO. 7

LECTURE NO. 8

LECTURE NO. 9

LECTURE NO. 10

APPENDIX TO LECTURE No. 10

LECTURE NO. 11

LECTURE NO. 12

LECTURE NO. 13

LECTURE NO. 14

LECTURE NO. 15

LECTURE NO. 16

LECTURE NO. 17

LECTURE NO. 18

LECTURE NO. 19

LECTURE NO. 20

LECTURE NO. 21

LECTURE NO. 22

LECTURE NO. 23

LECTURE NO. 24

LECTURE NO. 25

LECTURE NO. 26

LECTURE NO. 27

LECTURE NO. 28

LECTURE NO. 29

LECTURE NO. 30

LECTURE NO. 31

LECTURE NO. 32

---

The sun is but a star; he will meet with the fate of his sisters; suns, like worlds, are born to die. … May we conclude, then, that in these successive endings the universe will one day become an immense dark tomb? No: otherwise it would have already have become so during a past eternity. There is in nature something else besides blind matter; an intellectual law of progress governs the whole creation; the forces which rule the universe cannot remain inactive. The stars will rise from their ashes. The collision of ancient wrecks causes new flames to burst forth, and the transformation of motion into heat creates nebulae and worlds. Universal death shall never reign.

LECTURE NO. 26

The Contemporary Aether

Copyright © Harold Aspden, 1996

---

This is the text of a paper written as a contribution to a conference held at the University of Perugia in Italy in 1996 to pay tribute to the memory of Rene Descartes.

It was later (1999) published at pp.291-307 of ‘La Scienza e i Vortici del Dubbio’, Pubblicazione dell’Universita degli Studi di Perugia (ISBN88-8114-996-6)

Introduction

Although 20th century scientific philosophy has sought to banish
the aether and outlaw it from our modern civilisation, that effort has
failed. The great contributions of philosophers of earlier centuries,
giving us recognition of the aether, and notably by Rene Descartes,
live on, nothwithstanding acceptance of the four-space notions of the
theory of relativity. The aether remains the essential fabric of
space, the canvas on which Nature has painted the glorious picture of
the world and the universe we see around us. This paper will simply
point to one scientific phenomenon which reveals a direct
manifestation of the aether and shows us how to tap into its power.
This paper also provides a bibliographic listing of this author’s 20th
century discoveries concerning the aether, this being research which
has been published in spite of the opposition by those who prefer to
accept the virtual reality images which stem from Einstein’s
doctrines. The key property of the real aether is its universal
rhythm, its universal time keeping, as enforced by a phase-lock
between its quantum properties. This property is manifested by aether
in rotation because the phase-lock involves one-way energy transfer
from aether to matter in company with an electric charge induction by
rotation, neither of which feature in Einstein’s vision of the
properties of space.

Descartes was the first to bring the aether into science, by
postulating that it had mechanical properties. Descartes assumed that
the aether comprises particles that are continually in motion, but as
there is no empty space, he inferred that those particles are
continually moving into places vacated by other aether particles which
are themselves in motion. Overall, the motion was that of vortices as
the particles were all part of a great machine, but one which we can
now examine at a microscopic quantum level and see as a kind of
universal clock mechanism.

Sadly, however, towards the end of the 19th century, the
mechanistic aether seems to have lost favour, because the aether came
to be viewed, not as a clock which kept everything in the universe
together in a rhythmic dance, but rather only as the ‘sea’ rippled by
light waves. The luminiferous aether concept became the dominant
consideration. The aether was not deemed to be the bonding agency
which wedded all matter in the universe together in an energy machine.
Electromagnetic waves and their finite speed were seen as the
signature that proved the aether existed and, once that signature
became blurred, there were those who broke away from the aether faith.

It was in the early part of the 20th century that a French
astronomer, Alexandre Veronnet, made a bid to arouse interest in an
‘etheron’ particle picture of the aether, bringing the Bohr magneton
into that ‘clock mechanism’, but wave mechanics had a different style
of presentation and the aether began to sink into its own sea of
oblivion.

Einstein was the champion who led the aether dissenters. As
philosopher Bertrand Russell explained:

”
Empty space, to Descartes, is as absurd as happiness
without a sentient being who is happy. Leibnitz, on
somewhat different grounds, also believed in the plenum,
but he maintained that space is merely a system of
relations. On this subject there was a famous controversy
between him and Newton. The controversy remained
undecided until the time of Einstein, whose theory gave
the victory to Leibnitz.”

History of Western Philosophy, 1961 Edition,
Published by Allen & Unwin, page 87.

Well, I now submit here that the controversy is far from over.
Space is not merely a system of ‘relations’. It is a real mechanism,
albeit one that is, as is all matter, rooted in the electrical form of
the constituent aether particles.

The way forward from the Einstein diversion requires that we
heed what another British philosopher had to say about Einstein’s
theory.

“The effects of rotation are among the most widespread
phenomena of the apparent world, exemplified in the most
gigantic nebulae and in the minutest molecules. The most
obvious fact about rotational effects is their apparent
disconnection from outlying phenomena. Rotation is the
stronghold of those who believe that in some sense there
is an absolute space to provide a framework of dynamical
axes. Newton cited it in support of this doctrine. The
Einstein theory in explaining gravitation has made
rotation an entire mystery.”

The above was quoted from p. 356 of ‘The Principle of
Relativity’ in the book ‘Alfred North Whitehead: An Anthology’,
published by Cambridge University Press, 1953. (A further quote at the
end of this text is from p. 357).

So, I introduce the subject of this paper by asserting that we
must look to ‘rotation’ to see how we can revive belief in the aether,
and I note that vortices and rotation are complementary aspects of the
universal mechanism that is tuned to the spirit of Descartes.

 Can the aether spin? If those ‘vortices’ or those aether
particles describing minute circular orbital motion, as part of that
universal clock we call the aether, can store energy, as by expanding
their orbits so as to move faster, then we have territory to explore.
If, further, those aether particles can, by analogy with matter, group
together to form structure, but by keeping their mutual spacing, then
we have the makings of a geometry which determines a dimensionless
physical constant connected with both energy quanta and that aether.
That gives us a larger aether form that we can explore in terms of
spin, a form which might set up pulsating ripples as surrounding
aether is disturbed by that structure in rotation. This suggests a
route to the photon, linked to the theoretical derivation of the fine-structure constant, the latter comprising Planck’s constant, the
fundamental unitary electric charge and the speed of light.

On a larger scale, maybe large spherically-formed expanses of
aether can be set in rotation, as with body Earth or the Sun, all
leading to interesting properties revealing the role of the aether.

On an intermediate scale, there are other possible spin forms of
aether. Remember that we can move through the aether, as if it does
not exist, and so aether in spin can move through a solid wall to
transport its action from one side of that wall to the other. Yes,
there is evidence of that to be seen in the thunderball phenomenon,
which becomes a candidate for research enquiry into the aether. There
are other mysteries connected with atmospheric electrical phenomena
and invariably there is something spinning, as in the funnel of a
tornado. Indeed, observers have seen the tornado travel one way when
the prevailing wind direction was in the opposite direction!
Rotation, therefore, offers the logical entry point for a fascinating
study of the aether.

Now, my main aim here is to interest the reader in my theory as
a whole, but that can only be by individual study of my many published
papers and other writings on the subject. The appended bibliographic
listing is, therefore, the primary contribution I make in presenting
this paper.

In 1977 I was invited to explain my aether theory to the
students and staff of the Physics Department at Cardiff University in
Wales [113]. My argument was that the aether contains electric
charge, as needed to sustain displacement according to Maxwell’s
theory. Charge has the dimensions of mass M, length L, and time T,
taken together with the electrical dimension of the dielectric
constant k. The question at issue was that of understanding how, if
the aether could develop spherical pockets that could rotate inside
enveloping aether, its angular rotation or spin would relate to
electric charge. If I assumed that a uniform charge density would be
induced in proportion to the angular velocity of vacuum spin I found
that the aether would need to exhibit a uniform mass density to keep
the dimensions to balance. In fact, I developed the relationship
between vacuum spin, the radial electric field and the angular
momentum of aether spin, together with their energy connection.

charge density σ	……….	M1/2L-3/2T-1k1/2
angular velocity ω	……….	T-1
mass density ρ	……….	ML-3
(σ2/ω2ρ)	……….	k

I was aiming at the objective of showing that the energy added owing to that rotation would be both the electric field energy stored by charge displacement and an equal amount of kinetic energy.

The easiest way in which to explain this ‘vacuum spin’ induction is to imagine that all space exhibits a quantum activity as if everywhere there is electric charge keeping in universal phase in minute orbital loop motion at the same frequency. Here we need to picture large spheres of aether as capable of spin at an angular frequency ω and see every charge in that aether as a quantum unit having a microcosmic orbital spin motion at a very high frequency compared with ω. This latter frequency is the Compton electron frequency (Ω/2π) and it corresponds to the photon energy needed to create an electron. Quantum mechanics involves linear harmonic oscillations and that tells us that the controlling medium has a linear restoring force rate when displaced. An electric charge e in the aether, as needed in Maxwell’s displacement theory, complies with a force rate of 4πNe², where there are N charges e in unit volume of space, all neutralized overall by a universally-constant density of background charge of opposite polarity. Here I use the c.g.s system of units, in which an electric field of strength E stores energy density E²/8π in vacuum of unit dielectric constant, owing to Ee being equal to 4πNe².

This restoring force rate determines the jitter frequency of
the vacuum state by the equation:

where ρ is the effective mass density of the aether, which is
proportional to N. In the equation 8π has replaced 4π because, to
assure dynamic balance, the orbital radius of the motion is half of
the displacement, which spans the orbit diameter.

Now consider the superimposed effect in a sphere of aether which
spins at the angular frequency ω. If the spin is in the same sense (parallel axes of spin) as the quantized orbital motion, then to keep the phase-lock as between enveloping aether and aether in spin, the
equation (1) becomes:

where ρ/N is constant.

From (1) and (2) we can deduce the relationship:

This means that δN charges e per unit volume of that aether
sphere are displaced from it owing to spin ω.

Conversely, if we can feed electrostatic energy into that sphere
to displace that amount of charge, the phase-lock asserted by the
external aether will promote the spin at ω. Or, if we can get the
aether sphere to spin by other means, the phase-lock asserted by the
external aether will promote charge induction. Once the external
aether has to assert itself to hold that phase-lock as between
different regions of aether, it does work and that is our ‘free
energy’ input!

Suppose we can contain some positive ions into a small sphere.
The aether will see this as producing a radial electric field from the
centre of that sphere and it will develop a charge displacement to
neutralize that core charge and effectively transfer the charge effect
to the surface of the sphere. Now, this means that N has been changed
in that sphere and so the natural frequency of quantum jitter will
change. The aether charges lying outside that sphere will, however,
not allow this loss of synchronism and very powerful electrostatic
forces are asserted to ensure that the synchronism holds. The vast
amount of energy sustaining the quantum jitter at the Compton electron
frequency in the aether of enveloping space will be pooled with that
of the rotating aether sphere to keep that state of synchronism. The
relative frequency is what is held constant. Thus, if N increases in
the sphere to cause the local value of Ω to increase, then the offset of ω, will assure that synchronous condition. In other words, rotation at ω follows as a consequence of the phase-lock constraint.

This imports energy from the aether.

Owing to the linear harmonic motion properties of the quantum world, there is equipartition of energy in the sense that for every unit of electric field energy stored there is an equal unit of kinetic energy stored. Therefore, by adding one joule of energy in one pulsation of the ‘vacuum spin’ state we receive ‘gratis’ one further unit of energy drawing on the universal energy priming of the aether activity at that jitter angular frequency Ω.

It has therefore become an interesting task, technologically, to
reiterate this action at a rapid pulse rate, given that we can, in
fact, set up that priming radial electric field or the spin in an
effective way. This is what now takes this aether subject from the
realm of oblivion and, without stopping in the arena of philosophical
debate, progressing directly into the field of technology, where the
aether can be seen to serve us as an energy source.

As long ago as 1960 I published my first account of this ‘vacuum
spin’ induction theory [107] and evaluated the spin charge density in
relation to spin angular frequency ω. The formula gave the charge
density as 4.781 esu/cc per rad/s of spin (page 32 of that reference).
In terms of coulombs, one micro-coulomb per cc would correspond to
aether spin at 6,000 rpm. I note that one micro-coulomb per cc.
squeezed into a sphere of 7 cm. diameter corresponds to an energy
density of the order of 109 J/m³.

I now note that the experimental data of record in recently
granted U.S. patents [116, 117] concern a method of holding 500 J in
an abnormal glow discharge which is trapped between electrodes, close
to the cathode, and probably confined to a volume of a fraction of 1
cc, which also corresponds to 109 J/m³ of energy density.

In my 1977 lecture paper [113] I explained how the Sun was created by gravitational attraction between protons setting up a positive core charge which produced a radial electric field. That charge had the density of (G)^1/2 times the 1.4 gm per cc mass density of
the Sun. Put G as 6.67×10^-8 in c.g.s units and one obtains 3.6×10^-4 esu/cc, which develops a vacuum spin of 7.5×10^-5 rad/s or one revolution every 23 hours. If the whole angular momentum of the solar system as it is today were to be put back into the Sun, then, as that paper [113] shows, the Sun would spin at 8.3×10^-5 rad/s or one revolution every 21 hours. My 1980 book ‘Physics Unified’ [112] put on record a more formal account.

This is close enough to explain how the solar system got its angular momentum from the phase-locked aether and support the proposition that energy can be shed by this ‘vacuum spin’ activity of the aether and transferred to matter. Our experiments can tap the aether energy in the same way, simply by setting up a radial electric field inside a conductive medium that can sustain the build up of the charge displacement.

In 1983 I presented the theory of ‘vacuum spin’ at a conference
held by the U.K. Institute of Physics at Oxford University. See pages
179-184 of reference [29]. I explained how the known facts about the
energy density of thunderballs pointed to an aether in which there
could be energy storage by spin.

I referred to Altschuler et al. of the High Altitude Lab. in
Boulder, Colorado (1970) and their suggestion in Nature [114] that
thunderballs might be nuclear powered because they all had an energy
density in the range 2 to 5×10⁹ J/m³. This is the same energy density as mentioned above!

My 1983 paper went further because I knew that if the Earth shared its spin with the aether then that would involve two systems each neutralizing one another in electric charge terms but in a way
which would still produce a magnetic field. The Earth’s magnetic
field is seated in the charge displaced in, and rotating with, the
Earth, but the vacuum charge involved in that aether spin cannot
develop a magnetic field because it is the reference against which
magnetic action is measured.

From knowledge of the strength of the Earth’s magnetism I could
calculate the Earth’s vacuum spin charge and it was found to have a
value which would constrain vacuum spin, whether in thunderballs,
tornadoes or in our motor experiments, to have an energy density
estimated as being 2.37×10⁹ J/m³. See page 183 of reference [29].

If we can get energy from vacuous space, energy in excess of that we can store by setting up electric or magnetic fields, then that proves there is something in space that stands apart from matter. That ‘something’ is the aether.

Now, I know of several ways in which this ‘free energy’ scenario
can be demonstrated. Indeed, it is the subject of my primary research
interest at this time. However, I will take up the theme that follows
from my 1983 paper [29]. It refers in its penultimate paragraph to
Nobel Laureate Kapitza’s efforts to produce thunderballs for
application in triggering fusion reactions [121]. Then, in the last
sentence, I declared in my paper that:

”
It remains to devise and conduct experiments aimed at
inducing this (vacuum) spin condition by using radial
electric fields, so as to verify and perhaps apply the
phenomenon to useful ends.”

That was my outlook in 1983. I can now quote the research achievement of Dr. Kiril Chukanov. He reports [119]:

”
I first produced experimental proof that artificially
created ball lightning could produce energy for practical
needs in 1987 in Bulgaria.”

After describing his experimental set-up, which involved an
ionized gas discharge in a quartz tube, he wrote:

”
I experienced great difficulty in evaluating the amount
of power produced by the quantum plasma macro-object, but
my rough estimation was three to four times more power
output than that being supplied by the (input of the high
frequency signal-generating) lamp.”

By 1990 he had taken his research project into Sunnivale,
California and his onward reporting on his production of excess energy
showed that he had measured heat generated in a water jacket enclosing
the evacuated glow discharge chamber used in his tests. In his 1994
book ‘Final Quantum Revelation’ he reports a 900 watt rate of excess
energy generation using electrodes of some 3 cm separation. The
vacuum, or rather, aether spin in a filamentary discharge region
having a volume of, say, 3 cc, drawing in ‘excess’ energy at the rate
of 109 J/m³, would need to take about 3 seconds to regenerate each action cycle to give the 900 watt excess output.

Chukanov mentions a 3 second duration of the burst discharge before the discharge, in writhing like a snake, spread to the sides and touched the walls of the containing tube and caused overheating.

Professor Chernetskii and his team of researchers in Russia have
also produced excess energy at power levels in a self-sustaining
plasma discharge device, claiming 4 to 5 times electrical power output
compared with power input. This was reported in 1989 in a Novosti
Press Agency Press Release [115].

Dr. Wingate Lambertson at a conference in 1994 in Denver, Colorado reported similar levels of power gain from a solid-state discharge device formed as a specially-fabricated thyristor [120].

Recently reported Canadian research in 1995 by Dr. Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa [116 & 117] has established a sustained excess power generation of 500 J per pulse in a cold-cathode discharge confined to an abnormal glow region, with a prospective 40 megawatt-hour electrode lifetime. The Correa technology delivers electrical d.c. output steadily at several hundred volts and a power gain that is also of the order of 5:1 over d.c. input at similar voltage level.

The Correa technology will undoubtedly lead us forward on the quest to
exploit energy sourced in the aether, especially as it is already
well-patented in the USA.

Several other reports of excess energy production are now of record in the scientific and patent literature and one needs, therefore, to be prepared for the aether to reappear into our scientific philosophy, as being the only source that can supply that excess energy.

When the consequences of these developments and onward research
on this new energy theme become generally known and accepted, the
aether will reclaim its rightful place in physical science and then
acquire a stature which will dwarf its early role in history.
Meanwhile, we need to be a little patient and watch events as the
interest grows and conferences on the subject as well as new journals
devoted to these matters escalate in numbers.

In conclusion, it is submitted that science has lost its
methodology. Technology has needed science to point the way forward
towards new sources of energy that are non-polluting, but science has
faltered. Sensible methodoloy would have been tolerant of retention
of the aether as the foundation on which to build the material world.
Even though it is academically interesting to see how far we can go
without using a word meaning the ‘aether’, it was not at all wise for
science to reject the concept totally and without reservation. Now,
in the present circumstances, too many of the scientists who build
their hopes on physical theory are committed to the denial that there
is a universal timing mechanism governing everything. They deny the
possibility that energy can be delivered to us by an aether, which, if
seen at all, is deemed wholly passive in its role. As a result,
instead of leading our thought processes and guiding us forward into
a new technological era, building on knowledge of the aether, the
scientific philosophers of today have crippled the mental agility of
younger generations and made progress so much more difficult.

For my part, in writing this paper, my main objective is to draw
attention to the bibliographical record of papers I have written in
connection with aether theory. I say there is an aether and I use it
throughout my research to explain much in physics that has otherwise
remained unexplained.

I have been obstructed in my efforts by the prejudice of orthodox belief and have had many more papers rejected than have been accepted, especially in my earlier years of endeavour, from 1955 to 1975.

I here acknowledge my gratitude to the Italian Institute of Physics for their more tolerant review of several of my papers that were published thereafter in Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, that is, until the demise of that periodical. I think it was a great pity that the Italian Institute of Physics ceased publication of their Letter periodical at the end of 1985. Indeed, I almost wonder whether there was any special significance in the fact that two of my papers, referenced [46 & 47] in the appended list, featured together at the end in that last issue!

The future ahead now rests, not with reason and philosophy, but
with the forces of new technology, because pursuit of reason and logic
is claimed as the exclusive province of those who insist on inventing
descriptive language alien to Nature’s own method of revelation. In
physical science we now destined to witness a slow reformation as
technology leads the field and those amongst us who are wise enough to
seek recovery of lost ground will hopefully do so by paying more
respect to those who have pioneered a belief in the aether. We need
to pay homage to the memory of Rene Descartes and, again quoting the
words of philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, words he used by
reference to Albert Einstein:

The worst homage we can pay to genius is to accept uncritically formulations of truths which we owe to it.

In my writings I have not criticised Rene Descartes. Indeed, in
my book ‘Modern Aether Science’ [110] published in 1972, I have
developed my theory on the basis of Descartes’ work, but as further
advanced by that early-20th-century French astronomer, Alexandre
Veronnet [118]. He quantized the aether particle motion in units of
the Bohr magneton and partly anticipated what I was later to discover
from my research as an analogy between aether and the ferromagnetic
state. I go much further, even including the domain aspect of
ferromagnetism. I came to picture each individual star nucleating
within its own space domain as gravity appeared, akin to ferromagnetism appearing when a crystal inside iron cools through the Curie temperature.

There is always the need to be critical as, so often, revision
of one’s ideas and formulations is necessary, but, progressively, so
long as we keep the main uncertainties in science as our target, we
will solve all problems. The need for the phase-lock on a universal
scale has been my main target, because it brings together magnetism,
gravitation and the quantum connection as encapsulated in the fine-structure constant and from that flows the photon and the problem of
duality with electromagnetic wave theory.

I leave it to my papers, as listed in the following bibliography, to tell their own story and to prove that many of the
secrets of the aether are now exposed.

Papers by H. Aspden

[1] ‘The Law of Electrodynamics’, Journal of the Franklin Institute, 287, 179-183 (1969).
[2] [Jointly with D. M. Eagles] ‘Aether Theory and the Fine Structure Constant’, Physics Letters, 41A, 423-424 (1972).
[3] [Jointly with D. M. Eagles] ‘Calculation of the Proton Mass in a Lattice Model for the Aether’, Il Nuovo Cimento, 30A, 235-238 (1975).
[4] ‘The Fresnel Formula applied to Empty Space’, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 15, 263-264 (1976).
[5] ‘Inertia of a Non-radiating Particle’, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 15 631-633 (1976).
[6] ‘A New Approach to the Problem of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Electron’, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 16, 401-404 (1977).
[7] ‘Electrodynamic Anomalies in Arc Discharge Phenomena’, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, PS-5, 159-163 (1977).
[8] ‘Energy Correlation Formula Applied to Psi Particles’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 1, 59-63 (1978).
[9] ‘Crystal Symmetry and Ferromagnetism’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 1, 281-288 (1978).
[10] ‘G Fluctuations and Planetary Orbits’, Catastrophist Geology, 3-2, 1-2 (December 1978).
[11] ‘Ion Accelerators and Energy Transfer Processes’, U.K. Patent Specification No. 2,002,953A (Published 28 February 1979).
[12] ‘The Spatial Energy Distribution for Coulomb Interaction’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 25, 456-458 (1979).
[13] ‘Energy Correlation of Radiative Decays of psi(3684)’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 26, 257-260 (1979).
[14] [Jointly with D. M. Eagles] ‘The Spatial Distribution of the Interaction Contribution to the Magnetic-Field Energy Associated with Two Moving Charges’, Acta Physica Polonica, A57, 473-482 (1980).
[15] ‘The Inverse-Square Law of Force and its Spatial Energy Distribution’, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 13, 3649-3655 (1980).
[16] ‘Speculations in General Plus Some of My Own’, Specculations in Science and Technology, 3, 114-116 (1980).
[17] ‘UFOs and the Cosmic Connection’, Energy Unlimited, 8, 37-40 (1980).
[18] ‘A Theory of Neutron Lifetime’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 31, 383-384 (1981).
[19] ‘Atmospheric Electric Field Induction’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 4, 314-316 (1981).
[20] ‘The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Electron’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 32, 114-116 (1981).
[21] ‘Electron Form and Anomalous Energy Radiation’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 33, 213-216 (1982).
[22] ‘A Theory of Pion Lifetime’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 33, 237-239 (1982).
[23] ‘The Correlation of the anomalous g-Factors of the Electron and Muon’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 33, 481-484 (1982)
[24] ‘Mirror Reflection Effects in Light Speed Anisotropy Tests’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 5, 421-431 (1982).
[25] ‘Charge Induction by Thermal Radiation’, Journal of Electrostatics, 13, 71-80 (1982).
[26] ‘The Aether – an Assessment’, Wireless World, 88, 37-39 (October 1982).
[27] ‘Relativity and Rotation’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 6, 199-202 (1983).
[28] ‘The Lamb Shift for a Cavity-Resonant Electron’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 36, 364-368 (1983).
[29] ‘The Thunderball – an Electrostatic Phenomenon’, Institute of Physics Conference Series No. 66: Electrostatics 1983, pp. 179-184.
[30] ‘The Determination of Absolute Gravitational Potential’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 37, 169-172 (1983).
[31] ‘The Nature of the Muon’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 37, 210-214 (1983).
[32] ‘Theoretical Resonances for Particle-Antiparticle Collisions based on the Thomson Electron Model’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 37, 307-311 (1983).
[33] ‘Meson Lifetime Dilation as a Test for Special Relativity’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 38, 206-210 (1983).
[34] ‘Planar Boundaries of the Space-Time Lattice’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 38, 243-246 1983).
[35] ‘The Mass of the Muon’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 38, 342-345 (1983).
[36] ‘The Assessment of a Theory for the Proton-Electron Mass Ratio’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 38, 423-426 (1983).
[37] ‘The Scope for First-Order Tests of the Light Speed Anisotropy’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 38, 568-572 (1983).
[38] ‘The Finite Lifetime of the Electron’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 7, 3-6 (1984).
[39] ‘Electromagnetic Reaction Paradox’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 39, 247-251 (1984).
[40] ‘The Muon g-Factor by Cavity Resonance Theory’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 39, 271-275 (1984).
[41] ‘Boson Creation in a Sub-Quantum Lattice’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 40, 53-57 (1984).
[42] ‘The Steady-State Free-Electron Population of Free Space’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 41, 252-256 (1984).
[43] ‘Don’t Forget Thomson’, Physics Today, 15 (November 1984).
[44] ‘The Nature of the Pion’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 8, 235-239 (1985).
[45] ‘The Maxwell-Fechner Hypothesis as an Alternative to Einstein’s Theory, 8, 283-289 (1985).
[46] ‘Unification of Gravitational and Electrodynamic Potential based on Classical Action-at-a-Distance Theory’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 44, 689-693 (1985)
[47] ‘The Paradox of Constant Planetary Mass as Evidence of a Leptonic Lattice-Structured Vacuum State’, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 44, 705-709 (1985).
[48] ‘The Exploding Wire Phenomenon’, Physics Letters, 107A, 238-240 (1985).
[49] ‘A New Perspective on the Law of Electrodynamics’, Physics Letters, 111A, 22-24 (1985).
[50] ‘Theoretical Evaluation of the Fine Structure Constant’, Physics Letters, 110A, 113-115 (1985).
[51] ‘The Proton Enigma’, American Journal of Physics, 53, 938 (1985).
[52] ‘More on Thomson’s Particles’, Americal Journal of Physics, 53, 616 (1985).
[53] ‘Weak Violation – a New Concept in Relativity?’, Nature, 318, 317-318 (1985).
[54] ‘Earnshaw’s Theorem’, Nature, 319, 8 (1986).
[55] ‘Anomalous Electrodynamic Explosions in Liquids’, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, PS-14, 282-285 (1986).
[56] ‘How to Test Special Relativity’, Nature, 321, 734 (1986).
[57] ‘Classical Relativity’, Nature, 320, 10 (1986).
[58] ‘Electron Self-Field Interaction and Internal Resonance, Physics Letters, 119A, 109-111 (1986).
[59] ‘The Mystery of Mercury’s Perihelion’, The Toth-Maatian Review, 5, 2475-2481 (1986).
[60] ‘Flat Space Gravitation’, Physics Education, 21, 261-262 (1986).
[61] ‘Fundamental Constants derived from Two-Dimensional Harmonic Oscillations in an Electrically Structured Vacuum’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 9 315-323 (1986).
[62] ‘The Theoretical Nature of the Neutron and the Deuteron’, Hadronic Journal, 9, 129-136 (1986).
[63] ‘Meson Production based on Thomson Energy Correlation’, Hadronic Journal, 9, 137-140 (1986).
[64] ‘An Empirical Approach to Meson Energy Correlation’, Hadronic Journal, 9, 153-157 (1986).
[65] ‘The Theoretical Nature of the Photon in a Lattice Vacuum’, pp. 345-359 in the Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Quantum Violations: Bridgeport, Connecticut 23-27 June 1986, published by Plenum in NATO ASI Series B: Physics vol. 162.
[66] ‘A Causal Theory of Neutron Diffraction’, Physics Letters 119A, 105-108 (1986).
[67] ‘On the Creation of the Sun’, The Toth-Maatian Review, 5, 2609-2612 (1986).
[68] ‘The Case for the Sub-Electron’, The Toth-Maatian Review, 5, 2827-2833 (1987).
[69] ‘Ampere’s Law: Comments on a Discussion by Milnes’, The Toth-Maatian Review, 6, 2981-2984 (1987).
[70] ‘Derivation of the Electrodynamic Force Law’, The Toth-Maatian Review, 6, 2985-2987 (1987).
[71] ‘The Exploding Wire Phenomenon as an Inductive Effect’, Physics Letters, 120A, 80-82 (1987).
[72] ‘Earthquake-Related EM Disturbances’, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 28, 535-536 (1987).
[73] ‘A Note on the Silvertooth Experiment’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 10, 9-12 (1987).
[74] ‘Earnshaw’s Theorem’, American Journal of Physics, 55, 199 (March 1987).
[75] ‘The Physics of the Missing Atoms: Technetium and Promethium’, Hadronic Journal, 10, 167-172 (1987).
[76] ‘Synchronous Lattice Electrodynamics as an Alternative to Time Dilation’, Hadronic Journal, 10, 185-192 (1987).
[77] ‘Steady State Electrodynamic Induction – A Feature of the General Law of Electrodynamics’, Progress in Space-Time Physics 1987, Editor J. P. Wesley, Benjamin Wesley, Blumberg, Germany, pp. 137-155 (1987).
[78] ‘Tests of Photon Theory in Terms of Precision Measurement’, Problems in Quantum Physics; Gdansk ’87, (Conference Proceedings), Editors L. Kostro et al., World Scientific, New Jersey, pp. 353-373 (1987)
[79] ‘EM Wave Interference’, American Journal of Physics, 56, 103 (February 1988).
[80] ‘Ghost Mass and the Unseen Energy World as Revealed by the Anomalies of the Gyroscope’, The Toth-Maatian Review, 6, 3165-3171 (1987).
[81] ‘Instantaneous Electrodynamic Potential with Retarded Energy Transfer’, Hadronic Journal, 11, 307-313 (1988).
[82] ‘The Theory of the Proton Constants’, Hadronic Journal, 11, 169-176 (1988).
[83] ‘A Theory of Proton Creation’, Physics Essays, 1, 72-76 (1988).
[84] ‘Do We Really Understand Magnetism?’, Magnets, 1, 19-24 (1988).
[85] ‘The Vacuum as our Future Source of Energy’, Magnets, 3(8), 15-18 (1988).
[86] ‘A Modern Test for the Ether?’, Physics Today, 41, p. 132 (March, 1988).
[87] ‘The Proton Factor and its Unknown Effects’, The Toth-Maatian Review, 7, 3725-3734 (October 1988).
[88] ‘Anti-Gravity Electronics’, Electronics & Wireless World, 29-31 (January 1989).
[89] ‘Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation and Biological Effects’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 12, 17-20 (1989).
[90] ‘Conservative Hadron Interactions Exemplified by the Creation of the Kaon’, Hadronic Journal, 12, 101-108 (1989).
[91] ‘The Theory of the Gravitation Constant’, Physics Essays, 2, 173-179 (1989).
[92] ‘A Theory of Pion Creation’, Physics Essays, 2, 360-367 (1989).
[93] ‘The Supergraviton and its Technological Connection’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 12, 179-186 (1989).
[94] ‘Standing Wave Interferometry’, Physics Essays, 3, 39-45 (1990).
[95] ‘The Harwen Energy Radiation Regenerator’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 13 295-299 (1990).
[96] ‘Maxwell’s Demon and the Second Law of Thermodynamics’, Nature, 347, 25 (1990).
[97] ‘Switched Reluctance Motor with Full A.C. Commutation’, U.S. Patent 4,975,608 (4th December 1990).
[98] ‘Thermal Power Device’, U.K. Patent Specification 2,239,490A (Published 3rd July 1991).
[99] ‘The Theory of Antigravity’, Physics Essays, 4, 13-19 (1991).
[100] ‘Power Lines, Cancer and Cylotron Resonance’, Electronics World and Wireless World, pp. 774-775 (September 1991).
[101] ‘Magnets and Gravity’, Magnets, 6(6), 16-22 (1992).
[102] ‘Electricity without Magnetism’, Electronics World, 540-542 (1992).
[103] ‘The Law of Perpetual Motion’, Physics Education, 28, 202-203 (1993).
[104] ‘The First Law of Thermodynamics’, Physics Education, 28, 340-342 (1993).
[105] ‘Retardation in the Coulomb Potential’, Physics Essays, 8, 19-28 (1995).
[106] ‘Vacuum Spin as a New Energy Source’, Proceedings: International Symposium on New Energy, Denver, Colorado, pp. 1-19, April 25-28, 1996.

Books by H. Aspden

[107] ‘The Theory of Gravitation’, pp. 48 (1960), Sabberton Publications, P.O. Box 35, Southampton SO16 7RB, England.
[108] ‘The Theory of Gravitation’, 2nd Ed. pp. 132 (1966), Sabberton Publications, P.O. Box 35, Southampton SO16 7RB, England.
[109] ‘Physics without Einstein’, pp. 224 (1969), Sabberton Publications, P.O. Box 35, Southampton SO16 7RB, England.
[110] ‘Modern Aether Science’, pp. 165 (1972), Sabberton Publications, P.O. Box 35, Southampton SO16 7RB, England.
[111] ‘Gravitation’, pp. 78 (1975), Sabberton Publications, P.O. Box 35, Southampton SO16 7RB, England.
[112] ‘Physics Unified’, pp. 206 (1980), Sabberton Publications, P.O. Box 35, Southampton SO16 7RB, England.

Other publications by H. Aspden

[113] ‘Space, Energy and Creation’, pp. 24 (1977) Sabberton Publications, P.O. Box 35, Southampton SO16 7RB, England.

Other references

[114] Altschuler, M. D., Howe, L. L. & Hildner, E., ‘Is Ball Lightning a Nuclear Phenomenon?’, Nature, 228, 545 (1970).
[115] Samokhin, A., ‘Vacuum Energy – a Breakthrough?’, Press Release No. 03NTO-89071CM04, Novosti Press Agency, Moscow (1989).
[116] Correa, P. & Correa, A., (1995). ‘Electromechanical Transduction of Plasma Pulses’, U.S. Patent No. 5,416,391.
[117] Correa, P. & Correa, A., (1995). ‘Energy Conversion System’, U.S. Patent No. 5,449,989.
[118] Verronet, A., Comptes Rendus, 188, 1380-1381 (1929).
[119] Chukanov, K. B., ‘Final Quantum Revelation’, General Energy International, Salt Lake City, Utah, pp. 220-221 (1994).
[120] Lambertson, W. A., ‘History and Status of the Win Process’, Proceedings of the International Symposium on New Energy, Denver, Colorado, May 12-15, 1994, pp. 283-288.



LECTURE NO. 25

THE MARINOV MOTOR

Copyright © Harold Aspden, 1998

---

INTRODUCTION

Stefan Marinov was a man who set his sights on becoming a legendary figure in the future chronicles which will report on the history of the ‘free energy’ revolution. That revolution began in recent years and is gaining momentum as we approach the dawn of a new millennium.

This Lecture is my way of recording, as much for my own benefit as for others who see this, my personal impression of some aspects of Marinov’s efforts that have come to my attention. I am doing this partly because of a letter I have just received (dated October 19, 1998) from Dr. Eugene Mallove, Editor of the magazine Infinite Energy (Web site: http://www.infinite-energy.com, which was accompanied by a video recording showing, in Dr. Mallove’s words:

“Some Marinov motor demos done by Jeff Kooistra – April through June 1998. Superb work! I would appreciate your comments on what you can see. There appears to be a violation of Newton’s third law – quite remarkable, if true. Many strange things visible.”

I will, in this Lecture, tell you what that tape illustrated and my reaction to what I saw, but first I will indulge in a little reminiscence about Stefan Marinov, who, sadly, committed suicide in a way which declared his desperation at having failed to convince the scientific community that what he had to say demanded their attention.

My first encounter with Stefan Marinov was some time in the 1970s. I had, in 1969, published a book entitled Physics without Einstein. It bore the caption:

“A confrontation with the anomalies of electromagnetism which reveals a unified explanation for the physical phenomena of the universe.”

That book disclosed a new law of electrodynamics, wholly supported by empirical evidence, a law that was consistent with the Lorentz force law as applied to electron current flow in closed circuits but one that allowed unification with the theory of gravity. It was explained that the law gave scope for generating forces in breach of Newton’s Third Law. That could only mean that the aether could assert or absorb force and the book delved into the structure of that aether to show how it put action into quantum mechanics and provided a quantum theory of gravitation by incorporating gravitons having a mass-energy of 2.587 GeV, thereby allowing G, the constant of gravitation to be derived by pure theory. Empirical evidence was referenced to show that such gravitons do exist. The case presented was aimed at showing that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity had been overtaken by something better, something that meant revival of the aether theme, but in a modernized form.

I had, in my wife’s maiden surname, Sabberton, founded ‘Sabberton Publications’, expressly to be of record as publisher of my book, so as to be sure I had control of its disposition.

Marinov entered into the picture one day by writing to ‘Sabberton Publications’. He declared that he was in search of a publisher for his work, which also stood in defiance of Einstein’s Theory, and that his recent experimental investigations were sure to earn him the Nobel Prize in physics within a year or so, once his experiment became known. His claim was that the measurement of the speed of light in a special way proved there was a preferred frame of reference through which the Earth is moving, so contradicting Einstein’s Theory. His suggestion was to travel to U.K. immediately for discussions as he was impressed by the quality of my book, could see that the publisher was willing to promote work which challenged the Einstein doctrine and so he felt sure that his work would prove acceptable and could be completed and put in order for publication during such a visit.

Naturally, being fully occupied with my management role in IBM, and regarding my publishing venture merely as a hobby, one devoted to my own efforts in my spare time, I certainly did not want to become embroiled in such a proposal. I duly explained my position to Marinov and declined to entertain such a visit, but wished him well in his pursuit. It was evident he was serious in thinking his finding did merit a Nobel Prize and, amused though I was at the suggestion, I avoided expressing my feelings about his audacity.

That said, it was a while later, early in 1977 I believe, when I saw a large notice published, if I remember correctly, in the journal Nature, announcing an ‘International Conference on Space-Time Absoluteness’ to be held in Bulgaria. The main attraction of that conference was to be the announcement of details of Marinov’s experiment revealing the detection of the Earth’s motion through space by optical tests conducted in an enclosed laboratory. It seemed, again if I recall correctly, that Dr. Sakharov, a distinguished Russian scientist, would be a patron of this conference, the implication being that this conference had official blessing by the Bulgarian authorities and would be well attended.

I declared my intention to attend and offer a paper, conscious that I would need to avoid my IBM affiliation being recorded, except as necessary in the procurement of a visa. My position with IBM was that of Director of IBM’s European Patent Operations. It would have been inappropriate to imply that what I had to say about the ‘aether’ had any endorsement from the scientific fraternity in IBM. Indeed, my ‘hobby’ interest in that subject was only known to my IBM colleagues in the patent function and higher management to whom I reported. I had, in that IBM position travelled to iron curtain countries such as Poland, Hungary, Romania etc. by co-ordination with IBM’s facilities in Vienna, but this was to be one trip that was for my own private interest and, the conference being for 5 days or so, I knew it would have to eat up a week of my regular vacation. So, you see, I was genuinely interested in the subject and I was curious about Marinov’s claim, especially as he presumably had acquired official endorsement in his country.

In the event, and at the time travel arrangements had to be put in place, I made a point on one of my business trips to London of calling in at the Bulgarian Tourist Office to ask about flight arrangements and visa procedures pertaining to the holding of that conference. The conference was to be held at a Black Sea resort location Varna, which made me think that the Tourist Office enquiry was warranted. I also reasoned that the conference would have to be of record in their diary of forthcoming events. When I made my enquiry by showing the copy I had of the conference announcement, I sensed some alarm in that they had no knowledge of that planned event and, indeed, I then got the measure of the situation very sharply. I decided on the spot that I would not be going to Bulgaria and so I went about my IBM business.

It was not long thereafter that a young London University student of Greek nationality, doing a Ph.D. on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, visited me to talk about my theoretical work and my book Physics without Einstein. Incidental to that our exchange of information came around to the Bulgarian conference. Professor Pappas, to use his later title, had in fact attended the Varna venue only to find himself greeted by Marinov and told that the conference had been cancelled. Pappas said that he went with Marinov to Sofia, where he there saw the laboratory equipment that Marinov had used in his speed-of-light experiment by which he claimed to have sensed the Earth’s motion through space. He was one of a handful of people who had somehow not received information that the conference had been cancelled, obviously because it lacked approval from the Bulgarian authorities.

An interesting insight into the circumstances is afforded by Marinov’s own commentary in his book: The Thorny Way of Truth: Part IV: Documents on the Violation of the Laws of Conservation. On page 248 of that work, published in 1989, some 11 years after the intended Bulgarian event, but just one year after a different conference on a similar subject but held at the Imperial College in London, one reads:

“The organizer (i.e. of that London conference) is Dr. Duffy who intended to visit the International Conference on Space-Time Absoluteness which had to meet in 1977 in Bulgaria but was prohibited by the Bulgarian government and 20 days before its beginning I was imprisoned in a psychiatric clinic where, after a bargain with representatives of the Bulgarian Academy of Science and the Bulgarian KGB, I ‘bought’ my freedom by consenting to cancel the conference because of ‘fear for an earthquake’.”

The above is quoted from a section of Marinov’s book entitled: ‘MARINOV TO THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE AETHER CONFERENCE’, and, only now (October 25, 1998), as I come to write this text concerning the Marinov Motor have I, such a ‘participant’, come to read this part of Marinov’s book. It is introduced by a few words preceding what has just been quoted above:

“The Conference ‘Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory’ sponsored by the British Society for the Philosophy of Science will meet on 16-19 September 1988 at the Imperial College, London. All members of the organizing committee are people supporting the aether concepts and there is no single orthodox relativist who categorically denies its existence.”

You will understand that here Marinov was giving vent to his feelings and endeavoring, by rebellious tactics, to force his scientific views upon a more orthodox but questioning group of scientists interested in clarifying doubts concerning relativity and aether philosophy. He goes on to explain that, in seeking to participate in that London conference, his letters to Dr. Duffy and Professor Kilmister, of the organizing committee, were not answered, but that a telephone call to Dr. Duffy elucidated the response that there was no time for Marinov on the programme.

I said: “You, Dr. Duffy, know very well that I am the world’s patriarch in space-time absoluteness. It is an absurdity that now when a conference will meet, where the word ‘aether’ will no more be pronounced with the same hatred as the word ‘trotzkist’ in the Soviet Union, I am deprived of the opportunity to speak as this was always the case at conferences of the orthodox relativists”

I personally was unaware of all this when I attended that 1988 London conference. I was not involved with its organization, but I happened to be close to the reception desk in the lobby of the conference not far from Dr. Duffy when in came Stefan Marinov. I had known him from a meeting earlier that year (May, 1988) in Bologna. It was a disturbing situation. Dr. Duffy refused Marinov’s entry to the conference. I withdrew in silence, remembering a scene at the Bologna conference where Marinov had rather rudely interrupted a keynote speaker Professor H Bondi to tell him he was wrong in what he was saying about our inability to detect the existence of a background frame of reference by measuring our motion relative to that frame.

I remember that occasion well because I had gone to Bologna in Italy to be a speaker at an academic event organized contemporaneously with the one at which Professor Bondi spoke. I went there with E W Silvertooth and Marinov sat next to us in the audience. At that other event Silvertooth spoke about his own experiment by which he had detected motion through space by optical means and I spoke about my interest in the aether. I later referred to the Silvertooth experiment in the paper I gave at that 1988 conference organized in London by Dr. Duffy. See my paper: ‘Four Questions Concerning Relativity’ [1988g]

I was destined to meet Stefan Marinov again, on visits to USA, the first being as attendees at a conference held in Denver, Colorado, Marinov and I being amongst a group of invited speakers, also participating in a ‘think tank’ forum, concerned with new methods of energy generation.

Ever enthusiastic, Marinov aroused our interest by demonstrating odd effects concerning setting things in motion, using magnets and electrical currents, but I saw nothing in his proposals that warranted a commercial interest. Over the years, Marinov had taken to heart what I had been advocating in my book Physics without Einstein concerning the fallacies of the conventional form of electrodynamic law, as indeed had Professor Pappas. Indeed, both Marinov and Pappas made their own contributions in challenging The Lorentz force law. This is a subject which relates to the way in which electric motors work and it has implications where setting up forces as between matter and aether are concerned. This is where Newton’s Third Law, the balance of action and reaction, enters into the picture, the issue being the question of whether we can set up forces on a machine by which it pushes against the aether to develop drive power. Forces asserted between the aether and a machine can further imply transfer of energy from the aether to the machine, a fascinating prospect and one which comes into perspective once we see scope for challenging, not just the Lorentz force law, but the earlier Ampere form of law.

So it is here that we come to the theme of prime importance. It is a topic I have discussed from my perspective elsewhere in these web pages, but I am here concentrating attention on the Marinov motor theme. Both Pappas and Marinov became absolutely convinced that the Lorentz force law is incorrect, as applied to interactions involving an unclosed electrical circuit, meaning, for example, one where the action arises from current flow around a circuit path is that of current flow through wire in one circuit segment and that of displacement current through the aether in a another segment of that circuit. If action balances reaction as between current in the different parts of that circuit, then action and reaction forces are asserted between matter and aether and that means that one can devise a machine that moves itself by pushing against the aether.

At pages 126-135 of his book The Thorny Way of Truth: Part IV, Marinov introduces us to an ‘Extremely Easy Experiment Demonstrating Violation of the Angular Momentum Conservation Law’ and his concluding sentences read:

“With Ampere’s bridge one can set artificial satellites in orbit about a planet without atmosphere by ‘shooting them from a canon’. In the flying Ampere Bridge, however, the driving force can act during the whole flight and the force which is needed has only to overwhelm the Earth’s gravitational attraction.”

Now here I would interject a word of caution. There is certainly scope for developing interaction forces as between a machine and aether, given an environmental ‘capsule’ of aether containing that machine, and we may find that the machine can wobble about by pushing against that entrained aether, but that is no warranty that the machine can push itself clear of the capsule and go off into outer space by pushing against aether in its path. It all depends upon what determines the frame of electromagnetic reference applicable in the locality of the machine.

To proceed on this theme, I will now limit my discussion in this Lecture to three experimental topics. Firstly, I shall mention the Pappas-Vaughan experiment by which the Lorentz force law has been disproved. Then I will give my opinion of what I saw demonstrated on that video tape I mentioned at the outset, Kooistra’s April-June 1998 experiments on the ‘Marinov Motor’, and thirdly, I will revert back to the so-called ‘Ampere Bridge’ experiment which Marinov describes in his book, as referenced above.

THE PAPPAS-VAUGHAN EXPERIMENT

In the Pappas-Vaughan experiment the circuit was that of a dipole antenna powered from its centre. It was not a standard straight dipole configuration but one bent into a kind of Z shape with the angles being right angles. It was termed a ‘stigma’ antenna owing to that shape, but in essence the experiment amounted to setting up a current oscillation at radio frequency in that antenna laying in a horizontal plane and it suspended from its centre and watching to see whether switching between power on and power of would develop a torsional oscillation in that suspension.

According to the Lorentz force law there should be a turning couple developed when current flows as current in the middle section interacts with that in the end sections. No such couple was in evidence. That meant that the Lorentz law is wrong and so is disproved experimentally. It left open the question of whether the action-reaction balance applies, owing to forces communicated through the centre of mass of the antenna, this being consistent with Ampere’s old formula or whether, consistent with my own law of electrodynamics, there is simply no aether reaction that can permit an out-of-balance couple, this not precluding a linear out-of-balance force in the general case, but such a linear force not being in evidence owing to the specific geometry of the antenna. Note that my law has such an action when applied to the problem of gravitation. This is evident from Tutorial No. 4 in these web pages.

The Marinov book (1989) includes at pp. 158-168 a paper on the ‘Stigma’ antenna experiment, its authors being Professor P. T. Pappas and Tim Vaughan. Much the same paper appears also in Physics Essays, v. 3, pp. 211-216 (1990). A fully illustrated description of the apparatus is presented. This was highly original work, born out of the suspicion that the Lorentz force could be wrong, something very few establishment physicists would ever dream as being a worthwhile venture, yet it has to be seen as a major contribution to the subject of electrodynamics. Keep in mind the fact that Lorentz himself was confounded by the null result of the famous Trouton-Noble electrodynamic experiment reported in 1903. That experiment put the Lorentz force law to the test by switching the charge of a suspended parallel plate capacitor in time with the natural torsional oscillation period, the object being to see if the electrodynamic effects of the charges parallel moving charges carried along with body Earth would allow that motion through the aether to be measured.

The same result was obtained as in the Pappas-Vaughan experiment, that is there was no turning couple. This could be interpreted two ways. Either there was no charge motion relative to the aether or the Lorentz force law was wrong. Lorentz in his famous 1904 paper, which predated Einstein’s efforts in 1905, chose the option which kept his law in place. Pappas and Vaughan, however, have performed a similar test with charge assuredly moving relative to the local aether frame and their result proves conclusively that Lorentz chose the wrong option! That will show you why their experiment is so important. Lorentz in 1904 had paved the way for acceptance of Einstein’s theory using paving stones that were cracked! They could offer no secure foundation for Einstein’s theory.

I will move on now to the issues raised by the Kooistra video.

THE KOOISTRA VIDEO

The Kooistra video recording first demonstrated how one could make a test apparatus comprising a composite assembly of magnets, which form a cuboidal structure suspended on a length of what I understood to be cords of the kind used on fishing reels, ‘fish line’, the magnet thus supported being centrally located and free to turn inside a copper ring. On diametrically opposite sides of that ring one could position the tips of two probes connected by wires to a d.c. voltage source. The experiment involved, beginning with the magnet in its rest position, and then connecting the probes to the ring so as to allow current to flow into it on one side, divide in its onward flow either way around the ring and merge again to flow out through the other probe. Upon such connection one could see that the composite magnet began to rotate about its vertical suspension.

The mystery question was: “Why should the magnet rotate?”

The video illustrated sustained rotation for a period of several seconds, but did not, so far as that test using that apparatus was concerned, imply that continuous rotation was possible for an indefinite period. Indeed one must assume that the suspension would progressively become more and more twisted, meaning that eventually rotation must cease as the twist torque became strong enough to stop and then put the motion of the magnet into reverse rotation. That sustained rotation was probably illusory anyway, amounting to an impulsive action to set the suspended magnet system rotating and then, given its inertia and little resistance to rotation from the suspension, it could describe several revolutions.

Indeed I understand from a witness to a live demonstration of the Kooistra experiments that Kooistra there also showed how the residual external field of the magnet assembly could interact with the currents in the ring to give a 90^o rotation to a stable position. This is to be expected since the division of the current flow around two semicircular segments of the ring would have the effect of creating a closed magnetic field somewhat similar to that produced by the magnet assembly and the effect of superimposition of the two field systems would be a function of the angle between the two field systems as seen looking vertically downwards from above. That angle would tend to adjust to bring the magnet assembly and the terminal connection points to the copper ring to the optimum energy state in which the system becomes stable.

The assembly of the magnet amounted to taking a plurality of small magnets and fitting them together so that this structure was equivalent to mounting two rectangular block magnets side by side, with the north pole of one magnet being adjacent to the south pole of the other, the magnetic axes of the two magnets being vertical. This would set up magnetic leakage flux in a vertical direction at the encompassing ring position and the strength of the leakage flux would diminish rapidly with distance from the axis of suspension owing to the compensating magnetic effects. The magnet stack was elongated, being at least twice the length in its vertical dimension as each of the two side dimensions, so as to be, overall, in geometrical terms, a rectangular parallepiped, otherwise known as a ‘cuboid’.

I suspected at first that the cuboidal configuration meant that the assembly would exhibit, in effect, several axes of magnetization, meaning that an externally-applied magnetic field could hold the magnet stable in several different angular positions, depending upon the direction and presence of that field. However, on further consideration I realize that the system amounts to a kind of composite magnetic compass element with a horizontal N-S field at its upper portion and an opposed S-N field at its lower portion, though producing a fairly strong leakage magnetic field in a vertical direction at the radius where the copper ring is located.

Now, before commenting further on the Kooistra demonstration, I will ask you to consider what you would observe if you took a small button magnet and suspended it from, say, a door frame using a length of cotton thread but provided another separate length of thread separately attached to that button magnet and just left dangling below it. You would see the magnet swing from side to side like a pendulum for some time before it stopped swinging and it would spin about its vertical suspension for quite a while, first one way and then the other, until it finally came to rest. In its rest position it would have an orientation determined by the direction of the Earth’s local magnetic field. After all, all you have done is to assemble what amounts to a kind of magnetic compass.

Then, however, once it has stopped moving, take hold of the lower end of that dangling thread and, very carefully and gently, pull it downwards using very little force. You will find that the magnet begins to rotate once again about that vertical suspension.

That downward force you have exerted will pull on that upper section of thread and cause it to stretch by untwisting itself a little, an action which converts your linear pull into a turning couple. This has nothing to do with magnetic fields and currents in wires. It is simple mechanics involving the theory of elasticity and the frictional effect between the strands of that cotton thread which preserve its twisted character. It would work if you replaced the magnet with a small copper ring but the magnet provides the means for exerting an influence on it without pulling on that dangling thread. You can slide a piece of iron under a magnet and find that it is attracted towards it, putting extra force on the thread, in addition to the weight of the magnet. That will promote rotation too. Alternatively you might just suspend a paper clip on the thread and hold your button magnet underneath it, raising your hand up or down to lift and lower the magnet and so alter the tension applied to that thread.

You might not then be surprised if you happened to see the advertisement at page 6 in New Energy News, September 1998 issue, headed ‘Mysterious Magnetic Spinner’ and referring to a video by John Searl. It has a paper clip supported from one end of a tube with a magnet located at the other end but spaced from the paper clip which it attracts. It says “Here is a device invented by Lee Trippett to demonstrate ‘The Mysterious Magnetic Spin’” and that the “key point of this device is that college professors cannot tell us how it works. They will tell you that it is a simple magnetic motor action – a force is produced on a coil that is moved through a magnetic field. Now just try it with a coil of copper. No spin!”

Well, I am not a college professor but I guess it works because the supporting filament is a length of twine, a twisted thread which turns about its axis when stretched, but if it works just as well with a thin single filament of copper wire, albeit with that steel (not copper) paper clip attached, then I bow to the world of mysticism and join the ranks of those who do not understand the phenomenon.

With that in mind I was rather suspicious about the significance of the Kooistra demonstration. However, it did pose some perplexing questions and engendered considerable interest. This brings me now to a further demonstration shown in the Kooistra video, one where the copper ring and the magnet were both suspended on separate cords in very close proximity. The application of current, the flow bifurcating in its passage through the ring, had the effect of causing both to turn a small angular distance as a unit and that added mystery to that presentation, because this seemed to be action without reaction.

In one experiment Kooistra arranged for the copper ring to be able to turn in its horizontal plane with the magnet assembly locked against rotation. He reasoned that the currents in the ring and the magnet were the seat of any interaction and proceeded to demonstrate that if he applied the current to the ring by having both the probes on the outside rim of the ring then the ring itself would rotate one way, but if both probes were making contact with the inside rim of the ring then the ring would rotate in the opposite sense.

Here, seemingly, is a genuine mystery. However, I have my doubts, because when current flows into or from the ring it must have radial component in the horizontal plane in finding its distribution channel through those semicircular segments. That radial component of current will interact with the vertical field of the magnet assembly adjacent to the probe positions. So, if the two probes connect to the outer rim of the ring, the current flow will be radially inwards adjacent one probe but radially outwards adjacent the other problem, where the vertical field is of opposite direction. Keep in mind that split N-S, S-N configuration of the magnet assembly. What that means is that the field will interact with those radial current components to set up Lorentz forces that will apply an impulsive turning couple to the ring in the same sense adjacent both probes. When current flows the ring will begin to rotate in a horizontal plane. However, should the probes be put in contact with the inner part of the ring then the radial currents will be in the opposite direction and the turning impulse will also be in the opposite direction, which is what Kooistra observed.

This action is illustrated in the figure below:

This is a view of the magnet assembly and the ring as seen from above. The ring can turn about its centre. The north (N) and south (S), segments of the magnet assembly, being the upper poles, will produce, by the N pole, a downwardly directed magnetic field on the left hand segment of the ring (depicted by the + symbols to show the tail end of an arrow), whereas the S pole will produce an upward field on the right hand segment of the ring (depicted by the point symbols). When the current i flows through the probes and into the ring then it will divide between upper and lower semi-circular paths, but only one such path is shown. The Lorentz force law tells us that only the radial component of current in the ring can develop forces circumferentially around the ring as needed to set up rotation. Accordingly the action of the magnets on that short radial component of current in the body of the ring will develop the anticlockwise rotation.

There will, of course, be forces as shown exerted on the probes and, if the magnet were free to rotate as well we could expect it to rotate owing to its action-reaction interaction with the probe current. The direction of rotation must depend upon the direction of the current flow through the probe circuit.

Note also that if the probes were extended radially inwards in the above illustration so as to have contact with the inner part of the ring then the radial current components in the two ring segments would be opposite to the directions shown and so the ring would rotate in the opposite direction. This is what Kooistra demonstrated.

Note that if the vertical leakage field from the rare earth magnets as effective at the ring radius is, say, 100 oersted, then a radial current of 10 amps even in just a few millimetres will develop a turning force of 100 dynes at the ring radius, which is ample to promote the rotation of the suspended copper ring in the Kooistra apparatus.

Now suppose that the magnet assembly and the ring are both free to turn and current is applied to the ring. The ring will still tend to turn and I see no problem even if they do both turn together in the same direction, provided that rotation is through a limited angle. The interaction of a magnet and a current in a wire is an interaction between the seat of a magnetic field and that current. The magnetic field acting on the ring is strictly a state of the aether, a field condition of space. However, here I can but begin to wonder about an analogy with the operation of a magnetic reluctance motor, where I can see the Earth’s magnetism as providing the stator poles.

The idea that angular momentum is conserved and action balances reaction does suggest that if the magnet rotates one way the ring must rotate the other, but all that is based on energy conservation in systems that are subject to central forces, such we see for the gravitational interaction between Earth and Sun. Once you bring in forces that act differently on different components of a system, particularly magnetic forces, then the standard principles of mechanics are not wholly reliable as a guide to what happens. Furthermore, in the Kooistra experiments, though he did assert that the reaction forces on his current probes would be swamped by the forces promoting rotation of the ring and the magnet, that statement needs clarification. There must be forces developing a turning couple on those two probes and they will have their reaction counterpart in the magnet and ring arrangement.

Reverting to his experiments with the ring fixed in position and the magnet rotating, I still would keep in mind the notion of a magnetic reluctance motor with the geomagnetic field serving as a stator pole system and having its action modified by the current supplied to the ring. The cuboidal magnet assembly would have, owing to its opposed configuration of magnets, a residual relatively weak polarization, perhaps to some small extent resulting in a plurality of effective magnetic poles, perhaps one on each side face of the assembly. Now when a multipole rotor sits inside a stator in a small magnetic reluctance motor, the application of a sudden starting torque, such as a manual flick of an attached flywheel, can, if there is no load on the motor, result in the rotor spinning through several revolutions as it clicks on from one in-register pole position to the next. This is called a ‘cogging effect’. A little consideration will show that, if the rotor has an appreciable moment of inertia but is subject to very little ‘bearing’ resistance and can turn easily but for the magnetic ‘cogging’ action, then the initial energy input to turn it through one cogging step plus just a little extra impulse can cause it to rotate through many revolutions before coming to rest. Indeed there is no bearing as such, just the very slight frictional resistance involved in twisting that suspension cord.

So consider what we have in the Kooistra demonstration. A relatively weak magnet assembly which can, if at rest, be held stable in one or more orientations with the Earth’s magnetic field providing that cogging feature and serving as the stator of the motor. Then we have that bifurcated conductor positioned in a horizontal plane and in which a current of a few amps flows through two parallel connected paths, thereby setting up a weak magnetic field which, depending upon the vertical position of the magnet assembly, can act on that assembly in a horizontal direction. That field can easily outweigh the Earth’s field in its strength and so, with current on, it can reorientate the suspended magnet. If that current is applied suddenly it can, given a little prior adjustment to set its magnitude and choosing the probe positions so as to get an optimum effect, cause that magnet to turn and so move through one of its ‘cogging’ positions. Once turning, however, its inertia, given the energy impulse that initiates its motion, will cause it to rotate through many revolutions as it builds up a reaction torque in the suspension by twisting it and so, in effect, winding it up as the kinetic energy transfers into the potential energy set by the elasticity of the system.

This, I submit, can explain what seems to be a short duration state of rotation of the magnet assembly in the Kooistra demonstration, limited in duration because of the build-up of the twist reaction torque.

In short, if my interpretation is correct, then one must be dubious in regarding the Kooistra experiments as being anomalous. I will qualify this, however, by saying that, to my way of thinking, there is nothing anomalous about a motor developing torque by pushing on a magnetic field, which, because that is a state of the aether, implies a push against the aether itself. I say this because there are experiments in physics where a cylindrical ferromagnetic rod housed within a concentric solenoid can be set in spin by passing current through the solenoid.

If this latter statement is surprising then, guided by the following quoted sentence from a physics book in my possession, look up what is meant by the ‘effects’ mentioned:

“Thus rotation should accompany magnetization, a phenomenon known on the continent as the Einstein-de Haas Effect and in England as the Richardson Effect.”

Here I draw attention to the fact that any effect of a magnetic field on the current path through the solenoid will develop forces that are radial from the axis of rotation and so should cause no rotation attributable to reaction torque. Yet rotation can occur. However, I appreciate that the phenomenon underlying these physical effects is quite weak in comparison with that seen in the Kooistra demonstration, so I just mention this as being relevant and as being something to keep in mind.

In the later section of his video presentation Kooistra goes on to show a ‘Marinov Motor’. This did have bearings allowing the rotor to spin about a vertical axis. It had current supplied through a commutator system and did rotate continuously. The purpose of this commutator was to act as a switch by which d.c. current fed to the copper ring could be switched on an off according to the orientation of the magnet assembly rotor. Ostensibly the only stator component was the copper ring and so this motor posed its mystery as to how it operates, given that the Lorentz forces acting on a circular ring carrying current in its arcuate sections can only act at right angles to the current and so radially, and perhaps also parallel, with respect to the motor spin axis. The issue raised is the question of how a reaction force can be set up which causes the rotor to spin.

Well I suggest the answer is quite simple. The motor operates because it uses the Earth’s magnetic field as the ‘stator’ and the rotor spins by pushing against the frame of body Earth. That circular copper ring carries currents of the order of 10 amps in its arcuate segments. Such a current will produce a magnetic field acting on the rotor and having a strength of the same order as that of the geomagnetic field, about 0.5 oersted, given that the magnetized rotor sits about one inch away at the centre of the copper ring. Remember that the Earth’s magnetic field is subject to an angle of dip. It has a vertical component and a horizontal component. To put this explanation in perspective ask yourself if you think it possible to take a magnetic compass, put a wire close to it and get the compass needle to turn steadily by switching current on and off in proper timing related to the rotation of that needle. I think I could build such a device, but all I would have is a very weak magnetic reluctance motor if that current merely neutralizes the Earth’s magnetic field. If I pulsed the current to higher levels I would have a d.c. motor with a magnetized rotor not particularly sensitive to the Earth’s field, but I would not see anything special about that or any anomaly concerning electrodynamic theory.

In summary therefore I am not excited by having seen the Kooistra video. I admit that there is the initial impression that something is anomalous, given that Kooistra takes pains to build into his devices a kind of symmetry which, in theory, should imply cancellation of normal force action. However, he could hardly avoid there being some residual asymmetry and a weak residual magnetism and it needs very little power to set a rotor spinning about an axis when subject to no load. Also, had he used a strong magnet and not provided a compensating feature, the rotation of such a magnet in the close vicinity of a thick copper ring would have implied eddy current damping which would have a drag effect leading to an unimpressive demonstration.

That said, however, I would be pleased to be proved wrong by events. Given that Kooistra can demonstrate a motor action the task ahead is that of measuring its efficiency to see if, in pushing against the aether, assuming that is the seat of a balancing reaction torque, that aether is merely a passive catalyst not contributing to the energy balance or whether there is also an energy anomaly attributable to aether involvement.

Concerning Marinov and his efforts in demonstrating anomalous motor effects, I will now complete this Lecture by commenting now on his Ampere Bridge motor, as described in his The Thorny way of Truth: Part IV.

MARINOV’S AMPERE BRIDGE MOTOR

When electric current flows around a closed wire circuit we well know that its action balances its reaction as one part of that circuit pushes against another. If you cause that current to flow around a circuit and over one short segment of that circuit the flow is that of displacement current in a dielectric, part of that displacement current is ‘aether’ charge displacement. In other words, the force balance can be between the aether and that wire. That is, or should be, self-evident and I was well aware of that once I embarked on challenging electrodynamic theory in the latter half of the 1950s.

Obviously one can ask whether one can get a motor to rotate by developing an angular push against the aether or, as I had in mind, ask the question of whether the anomalous rotation of stars and the one-way rotation of solar system meant that that rotation had been set up by pushing against the aether itself. It raised the question of ‘aether spin’. My theory developed on those lines.

It was in 1980 that I saw an article in the journal Nature announcing the experimental evidence that the field medium (in fact the ‘aether’) can provide a reaction force to quasi-static fields. G M Graham and D G Lahoz described their experiment in Nature, v. 285, p 154 (1980). I note here that Stefan Marinov referenced that paper on page 132 of his book, the one mentioned above. It was in his account of his experiment on ‘The Violation of the Angular Momentum Conservation Law’.

Meanwhile, however, I myself had already ventured out in this field. It was upon the eve of my opting for early retirement from IBM to indulge myself in my research pursuits as a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the University of Southampton, close to my home. I got myself into a conference programme held by the U.K. Institute of Physics at Oxford University, the subject of the conference being ‘Electrostatics 1983’. My subject was ‘The Thunderball – an Electrostatic Phenomenon’. I started out by referring to the Graham and Lahoz paper and went on to discuss ‘vacuum spin’, the spin of the aether! I explained how the Earth’s magnetic field depended upon that spin and how thunderballs could form and exist in a quasi-stable state, simply because they were spheres of aether set spinning and slowly dissipating their energy by ionization of coextensive air. The paper was duly published in the conference proceedings [1983a].

I well knew that an angular force, a turning effect, could be set up to act on the aether, either by developing a radial electric field about a spin axis or by configuring two or more current circuits to assert electrodynamic linear forces acting on the aether but offset from that spin axis so as to develop a couple. A single current loop will not exert a turning effect. Indeed, that was the essential fact that had led me in the late 1950s to derive the law of electrodynamics that was in accord with the law of gravitation.

However, I have to applaud Marinov for his valiant effort in applying this apparent breach of Newton’s Third Law to the construction of a demonstrable motor. It was, in a sense, merely a version of the physics involved in that Nature article by Graham and Lahoz, but it was presented more boldly as a theme setting the stage for controversy in the context of new technology which defies orthodox physical law.

His motor used a plurality (four) offset wire loops and provided for circuit closure through a capacitative segment in each of the loops which was radial to the motor spin axis. Out-of-balance for acting on a radial arm means a turning effect and hence rotation. The dielectric used was barium titanate, which has a very high dielectric constant, thereby allowing the current path through the dielectric to be large enough for the field interaction to involve the aether in a significant reaction. Power frequency was used and the circuit was designed to provide resonant tuning at that frequency. However, even then, with that use of barium titanate, to use his own words on p. 131 of his book, Marinov’s resulting ‘Rotating Ampere Bridge’ motor, with 50 Hz a.c. voltage input of 220 V and a current of 9 A, Marinov was only:

“able to set the bridge in slow motion of one revolution in a couple of seconds.”

His ‘motor’ was essentially a means for demonstrating that rotation by asserting a push on the aether is possible, seemingly in defiance of the law that requires action to balance reaction, but so far as I see that law must hold true for electrodynamic actions given that it can only having meaning if applied to a complete system, one which recognizes the aether as part of that system. Physicists err, however, if they ignore the aether and think that fields produced by matter are some kind of extension rigidly attached to matter, rather than being a conditional state impressed on the aether and causing it to react by storing the energy involved.

I would, however, venture to say that a very substantial unbalance of angular momentum, as between aether and matter, can occur if the action developing aether spin is that of a radial electric field such as I see in the induction of thunderballs and the spin induced in astronomical bodies by initial coalescence of protons ahead of the neutralizing electrons. That offers greater promise in ‘new energy’ technology than what has been described by Marinov. Those radial electric fields can be induced in homopolar machines but there is something eluding those who work in that field and the subject warrants more research.

In conclusion, you may wish to refer now to Research Note 15/97 which I added to these web pages shortly after Marinov’s decease and which, albeit by repeating some the above, will enlighten you further on the aspects not relating specifically to the motor topic.

---

LECTURE NO. 24

THE ETHER – AN ASSESSMENT

Copyright © Harold Aspden, 1998

---

INTRODUCTION

The above is the title of an article of mine which appeared in the October 1982 issue of Wireless World. I wrote it because I had noticed that the Editor of that popular periodical was not averse to the idea that radio waves might well be waves propagated through the ether. He was not intent on suppressing opinions that put the ether on the winning side of the ever-ongoing debate concerning the relative merits of ether theory versus Einstein’s theory.

Unlike so many editors of physics periodicals, who see it as a duty to censor all that they publish to ensure at all times an absolute adherence to the Einstein doctrine, here was an Editor who saw that those who read Wireless World enjoyed witnessing and indeed participating in the contest, the object of which was to glean the truth concerning the medium in which radio waves propagate.

After all, Einstein’s theory is of no practical use in technology, but the technology of radio communication and the energy transfer processes which are involved in high frequency wave transmission has been developed by those who saw Maxwell’s theory as a foundation on which to build.

Here, the operative word is ‘build’, not ‘destroy’, and it is no comfort to be told that Einstein developed his mathematical, but abstract, picture of ‘space-time’, in just such a way as to leave Maxwell’s equations intact, notwithstanding the distortions introduced by ‘four-space’ transformations.

How can it be that those involved in the early days of radio technology, just as they were getting the measure of what was involved in radio propagation, were suddenly expected to deny their belief in the existence of the ether and adjust to a new philosophy? This was a philosophy which said: “If you cannot understand why something you think should happen but yet does not happen, then think about it in a different way and pretend it does happen! Transform your viewpoint and look at the problem from a different angle, one where you are the governing authority from which all physical action takes its reference, so that you will always see things in the same light and with reference to that something wiser beings once called the ‘ether’.”

Well, thankfully, the Editor of Wireless World, saw the ‘world’ as one in which one can communicate by acting collectively by allowing the electromagnetic waves which they generate to be pooled in the common sea of energy that constitutes the real ‘ether’ medium. Given that as one’s foundation then one can take Maxwell’s equations and think about building on the common foundation that supports those equations, rather than destroying the foundation and then saying that Maxwell’s ghost is still there asserting influence – subject, of course, to that ghost not doing anything contrary to Einstein doctrine.

So it was that I came to pay attention to three articles which appeared in Wireless World and I saw my chance to offer the Editor my paper of the above title: The Ether – An Assessment. Now let me say at the outset that I wrote the paper, not intending to play an old classical tune, but rather to show where opportunities had been missed when it came to interpreting the observed facts which feature in this scenario.

I could see how there was error in deriving the Larmor formula for energy radiated by the accelerated electron. I could see that there was error in deriving what is known as the ‘Poynting Vector’. I could see that there was error in explaining how electric currents set up actions which inject energy into the vacuum as a so-called magnetic field, energy which is 100% recoverable, but yet letting the explanation ride exclusively on empirical formulations without giving any physical causal basis justifying why those equations work. I could see there was error in assuming that the ether could not sustain distortionless signal propagation, an assumption relied upon at their peril by cosmologists who interpret Hubble distances on such false assumptions. In this latter context I could but assume that they had not heeded Heaviside’s success in inventing the distortionless transmission line and so had not seen that Heaviside was merely replicating something Nature had provided as a feature of the ether. I could, further, see where Lorentz had erred in interpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment incorrectly and with it the Trouton-Noble experiment, an experiment of far greater importance, thereby opening the door for Einstein. I could see that those of us interested in electromagnetic waves, as real ether waves, and in learning also about the properties of stationary waves, as set up by reflections, had been left in the dark by physicists who did not trouble to apply standing wave theory to their opinions concerning the Michelson-Morley experiment. I could see that here Michelson and Morley could be forgiven for not taking such standing wave effects into account in setting the theory for their experiment. The reason was that Wiener, the scientist who first discovered the effect set up by standing waves, namely the phase-lock connection with mirror surfaces, did not make that discovery until some years after Michelson-Morley completed their experiments. However, how can we excuse those who let these facts pass them by as if they were irrelevant when set alongside the Einstein notion that light speed takes its reference, not from a mirror to which its standing wave energy is locked, but from an observer sitting outside the test apparatus and just looking at the light patterns of interfering waves?

That, in summary, was why I decided to write the article of the above title. I will now work through that article step by step and will amplify the points made, by introducing links to other pages on this Web site, so as to leave the reader in no doubt that the case against the Einstein doctrine is formidable indeed. Conversely, the case in favour of a belief in the ether is overwhelming in view of the enormous vista of new physics and, hopefully, new technology, that one can then see.

THE DYING PATIENT

I hold firmly to the opinion that Einstein’s theory is defunct. It will, however, only pass away with the natural passage of time as the diehards who are committed to the Einstein doctrine themselves pass on to other pastures.

With that I introduce the cartoon that the Editor of Wireless World commissioned based on my outline format and a caption I worded. I have received permission to reproduce that cartoon and it features also in the few copies of my work I had printed under the title: Aether Science Papers.

THE ASSESSMENT BEGINS

Does the ether exist? Dr. Aspden shows that Oliver Heaviside’s insight could have pre-empted Einstein’s success with the General Theory of Relativity and encouraged investigations into the properties of the ether.

Though ‘Relativity’ has very little bearing upon the practical problems of radio transmission, it does preclude belief in the ether and wave propagation as contemplated by Maxwell, leaving us with no tangible alternative. Until we have a better understanding of the vacuum medium and the way in which it regulates electromagnetic wave motion, it is likely that Einstein’s ideas will be questioned.

Essen, writing about relativity and time signals (Wireless World, October 1978), and Wellard, writing about the work of James Clerk Maxwell (Wireless World, March and May, 1981), both evoke this controversy.

In fact, special relativity, which dates from 1905, has very dubious support, because alternative explanation of E = Mc² and mass increase with speed is available from textbooks on classical electromagnetism [1]. Besides, the transmutation of mass and energy, the
basis of E = Mc², was recognized by Jeans, writing in 1904, one year before Einstein introduced his theory [2]. How, then, can we have confidence in relativity, when Essen demonstrates so convincingly the absurdity of expecting time to pass at a different rate when perceived by different observers in relative motion?

What should be stressed here is the fact that Dr. Louis Essen was not one of those crackpot scientists that many physicists think of when the belief in an ether is in issue. No, Dr. Essen was a Fellow of the Royal Society who had earned recognition for his research on the measurement of time and his invention of the atomic clock. He served at the National Physical Laboratory in U.K. and, though it must have been somewhat embarrassing for that government institution to see Dr. Essen going out of his way to deride Einstein’s notions about time dilation etc., he nevertheless persisted in stating his opinions on that subject. So many academic physicists dare not express a dissident opinion on the Einstein theme for fear that the funding attracted by their universities would be put in jeopardy.

Einstein’s theory really depends, for its acceptance, principally upon the success of the later 1916 General Theory of Relativity, which brought a slight modification to Newton’s Law of Gravitation. The successive elliptical orbits of the planet Mercury were known to have a progressive advance, part of which was anomalous, as judged from Newton’s Law. Einstein’s law gave the right answer and relativity was thereby acclaimed.

Einstein made no reference to an earlier paper by Paul Gerber [3], entitled ‘The Space and Time Propagation of Gravitation’. It appeared in 1898 in a leading German scientific publication. So, one assumes that if Einstein had acquired some background knowledge concerning the anomalous precession of the orbit of the planet Mercury, he is likely to have seen Gerber’s paper. If he did not, then it is very curious to find that, some eighteen years after Gerber’s paper issued, when Einstein did write on the subject, he gave precisely the same formula for the advance of Mercury’s perihelion as that presented by Gerber. Now, by ‘precise’ here I mean not just the same in mathematical terms, but precise in the choice of parameters, their alphabetic notation and the case, upper or lower, that was used by Gerber. I cannot believe there is coincidence in that choice, unless it is that someone before Gerber had already published the formula in that form and that had been seen by both Gerber and by Einstein, which means that there would have to be an even earlier publication of the ultimate formula for rate of planetary perihelion advance. Note that Einstein never acknowledged the prior work of others. He was a genius in the eyes of some, but did they know where his ideas came from?

Gerber’s paper explained how the anomalous perihelion motion of the planet could be explained by recognizing that gravitation propagated at the speed of light. When Einstein’s paper appeared in Ann. d. Phys. in 1916, a colleague of Gerber arranged for the publication of an updated version of Gerber’s work in the 1917 issue of this same journal. Note that Gerber, a schoolmaster, was then deceased, and so was unable to defend his theory against attack. Given the challenge it posed to Einstein at the time, it is no wonder that it attracted criticism. Sadly, in its detailed derivation of the ultimate formula, it was in error; the direct propagation of gravitational action between sun and planet at the speed of light, which Gerber assumed, only gives a partial account of the anomaly. Even so there were several exchanges recorded as Letters to the Editor in Ann. d. Phys. concerning that Gerber proposition, and there were two sides to that debate.

Meanwhile, even before the Gerber 1898 publication, as we may read from the opening passage of Leon Brillouin’s book , Relativity Reexamined [4], Heaviside, in 1893, had pointed out that ‘to form any notion at all of the flux of gravitational energy, we must first localize the energy’. If this is taken to heart, it leads us to recognize that the flow of gravitational energy is not directly along the line between sun and planet, but is, of necessity, via a longer route. The energy must flow from one of these bodies to the surrounding field and then from the field to the other body. This modifies the resulting retardation of gravitational action, as calculated in that 1898 Gerber paper, and affects the perihelion motion accordingly. The result, as this author [5] has shown, is in exact accord with that originally predicted by Gerber. In fact, Gerber had the right answer but his paper combined a mathematical error with a slightly incorrect assumption, whereas the adjusted assumption plus correct mathematical analysis gives the same and correct answer, all without regard to the nonsense introduced by Einstein’s theory.

The above diagrams show the distribution of the field energy E involved in the field interaction between two bodies as a function of distance x from either body. The electric field energy [1979a] is not deployed in the same manner as gravitational field energy [1980b]. The retardation in the action of gravity, as two bodies move relative to one another, can therefore be calculated and its effect on the motion determined. Based on conventional field theory, the corresponding diagram for the magnetic field energy distribution [1980a] is extremely complicated as it is a function of how the direction of motion of charge may vary as well as their separation distance. It does not afford meaningful results and is deemed irrelevant to the gravitational case, thereby explaining why scientists adhering to the Lorentz force law have not been able to unify the field actions of electromagnetism and gravitation. Bear in mind that E in the gravitational case is really an energy deficit, owing to gravitational potential being negative. One interesting way of then interpreting the implications of the above two diagrams is to say that the energy seeks deployment in the field away from the interacting bodies. This means that the electric interaction between two charged bodies, deemed to be of like polarity, develops a mutual repulsion. On the other hand, in the gravitational case, the field energy, in trying to move away from the bodies, brings the negative form closer to them and this implies mutual attraction.

Einstein’s Law of Gravitation, the only significant consequence of his General Relativity Theory, can be deduced by a simple classical analysis, which exploits the intuitive remark of Oliver Heaviside dating from 1893.
This, in itself, does not prove that Einstein’s theory is wrong. We do, however, have viable alternative theory which is quite simple, and one must wait for the experimental evidence to direct us on the right course. This evidence is likely to come from measurements evidencing the properties of the ether. Already, in 1980, we have the experimental data of Graham and Lahoz [6] showing that the ether can assert a force, and supporting Marwell. Burrows (Letter to the Editor, Wireless World, October 1981) asserts that this is a one-off measurement needing verification. It is nevertheless backed by the discovery that the Earth’s cosmic motion through space at a speed of some 400 km/s can be detected by measuring anisotropy in the intensity of the 3K background radiation. (See article entitled ‘The Cosmic Background Radiation and the New Aether Drift’ in Scientific American, May 1978). Furthermore, as we shall see below, it is supported by other evidence on electromagnetic-wave propagation suggesting that the Earth’s West-East motion due to its rotation can be directly measured as a linear velocity by optical techniques.

A further note is interjected at this point to draw attention to the very important evidence that has emerged from the experiments of Dave Gieskieng on electromagnetic wave propagation involving a special radio antenna [Lecture No. 10: Appendix]. I believe that his findings show that the ether is essential in that it accounts for the absorption and dissipation of the propagating magnetic component of wave energy whilst sustaining a standing wave electrical oscillation. Such findings further lead us to a symmetrical form of Maxwell’s equations, thereby providing a more plausible basis for energy deployment activity in the ether itself. This is where justifiable criticism can be levied at the theory of the Poynting vector. Onward analysis on that theme will be necessary, but it is more important that physicists should rethink their interpretation of what they call the ‘photon’. As stated elsewhere in these Web pages [Tutorial No. 8], it is not a particle, being merely an ‘event’, that of an energy transaction as between ether and matter.

On such a course, the ether is destined for reacceptance and Einstein’s theory will have to yield ground. There is, therefore, purpose in reassessing the ether and its properties, and in this quest we will again be mindful of Heaviside. It is to his great credit that he discovered how to design a telegraph line capable of propagating signals without distortion. The inductive and capacitative properties of a telegraph line cause the speed of propagation to depend upon frequency. By appropriate matching of these properties, as well as resistance and leakance, the attenuated signal can propagate without distortion. Now, electromagnetic waves propagate through the ether without distortion and, though the ether is not subject to resistance and leakance, it does have inductance and capacitance, because there are magnetic fields and electric fields in the vacuum.

Nature, anticipating Heaviside’s contribution to telegraphic communication, has provided that extra something in the ether to secure distortionless signal propagation. This becomes an important clue in our quest to understand more about the ether.

Here I interject the comment that, if Heaviside had not invented the distortionless transmission line and the physicists of this world had drifted on in ignorance, as they have concerning the propagation properties of the ether, then the natural philosophical assumption is that a transmission line that can convey distortion free signals is not really there as a real physical form. Evidently, since we know that there is distortion, meaning frequency dispersion, when high frequency signals propagate through real media, then the non-dispersion indication must be an indication that wave energy is travelling through something that is not there. Einstein’s theory would then have had to be embraced by those who are interested in telegraphic communication and it would, one must assume, have served as an obstruction to technological advance. Fortunately, however, thanks to Heaviside’s discovery, that obstruction has been limited to the interpretation of signals from the remote galaxies in the universe, seen erroneously as exhibiting a redshift indicative of an expanding universe, rather than the action of an intervening medium in space which attenuates signal strength.

However, thanks to Heaviside, we were saved from that situation. Unfortunately, however, even though Heaviside declared that one could not explain how gravity acts across a distance without first localizing the energy involved, his message concerning gravitation was not heeded. That message dates from 1893, some three years after Wiener discovered those standing waves, but somehow physicists of the 1900 era missed their opportunity to solve the gravitation mystery hidden in the anomalous motion of Mercury’s perihelion and they feel prone to the Einstein doctrine and the new faith which then evolved.

For my part, there were other reasons which convinced me that the ether is a real medium. Indeed, the Wireless World article included an inset box, which contained my photograph together with a few words about my background. These words included the following:

“Shortly after embarking on a career in the patent profession, some 28 years ago (i.e. 1953), he (Dr. Aspden) had an idea on electromagnetic reaction which intrigued him and led to the firm belief in the need for an ether. Dr. Aspden has had success in his chosen career, having directed IBM’s European Patent Operations for the last 18 years, but his ambition is to achieve success in his private quest to bring the ether back into favour. The very substantial potential which Dr. Aspden sees in an ether is evident from his book ‘Physics Unified’, published in 1980.”

I retired from IBM in May, 1983 seven months after this Wireless World article was published, in order to concentrate on the latter effort.

WHY STUDY THE ETHER?

According to its dictionary definition, ‘ether’ is ‘a medium, not matter, that has been assumed to fill all space and transmit electromagnetic waves’. With such definition, the ‘ether’ remains valid terminology. The problem which some scientists have in accepting the existence of the ether arises from a further assumption that the ether cannot adapt to its environment and so must regulate the constancy of the speed of fight in a universal frame of reference. When motion of the Earth about the sun could not be detected by speed of light measurements in the laboratory frame, the very existence of the ether came under challenge. Yet what logic is there in saying that A is believed to have property B, but we cannot detect property B, so A does not exist? Surely, the only valid conclusion is that A may still exist but it appears not to have property B.

Why bother? We have Maxwell’s equations and we have relativity. The latter tells us not to expect to detect anything at all except according to physical laws which adapt to the reference frame of an observer. Without an observer, whether real or hypothetical, there can, in relativity, be no definitive physical phenomena. Hence we are supposed to live in a somewhat abstract world and are encouraged not to seek to understand the universal and uniform nature of whatever it is that permeates the vacuum and regulates electromagnetic wave propagation.

I have good reason for believing that a great deal of opportunity is being missed in scientific and technological research by accepting doctrinaire theory and not keeping an open mind on this ether question. For example, it is to the credit of those engaged in precision measurement in fundamental physics that some constants can now be determined to a few parts in 10¹². Such precision defies imagination if related to the measurement tasks we undertake domestically or in industry. Yet, what is really fascinating is that Nature is actually able to regulate physical quantities universally and hold them stable to such accuracy, notwithstanding environmental fluctuations, wherever we in the universe. This surely suggests a fundamental mechanism and a reference or control medium, having a universal metric binding all matter together as part of a common system. To me,this is the primary role of the so-called ether, with the light propagation characteristic assuming secondary importance.

By postulating an electric but neutral medium of the simplest possible kind and analyzing its structure, as if it were a kind of invisible and elusive crystal extending throughout space, the author [7], in collaboration with Dr D M Eagles of the National Standards Laboratory in Australia, has found it possible to deduce fundamental constants, notably:

to the measured accuracy of less than one part per million. It is this that has committed me to a course of scientific enquiry founded upon a positive belief in the ether rather than a passive acceptance of a rather sterile theory of relativity [Tutorial No. 8] and [1972a].

In the above expression, c is the electric charge of the electron, h is Planck’s constant and c is the speed of light in vacuo. Hence the dependence of the fine structure constant upon the metric of the ether medium is very closely linked to electromagnetic wave propagation, because:

This is Planck’s radiation law. It signifies that the energy propagated as electromagnetic disturbances at the speed of light is packaged in units which have energy E, given that the frequency is E/h.

It is a relatively simple task to show that this structured vacuum medium which allows the precise value of that fine structure constant to be determined theoretically and which, of course, delivers the two physical formulae just presented, can accommodate to the propagation properties of electromagnetic waves, and particularly on two basic counts. These are: (a) the fact that the speed of propagation is referred not to an absolute frame but to one which can adapt to the reference frame of an Earthly observer and (b) the equally important fact that light travelling in true vacuum suffers no dispersion resulting from its speed varying with frequency.

From the optical characteristics of ionic crystals it is known that there is dispersion, significant at frequencies in the vicinity of the natural resonant frequency of the crystal. One should than bear in mind that energy quanta of sufficient strength can induce the creation of electron-positron pairs in the vacuum. This suggests that the ether sets a critical frequency threshold (the Compton electron frequency) and so may have an electrical structure conforming with this resonant frequency. Thus, in proposing a kind of crystal structure for the vacuum medium and establishing, as I have [7], that it has a natural frequency given by:

one is led directly into the question of frequency dispersion.

Before dealing with this, consider first the other problem. Michelson’s experiments towards the end of the 19th century have shown that the Earth itself determines the local frame in which light has a speed c independent of direction. This is not in the least surprising if we admit the vacuum medium to be electrically-structured. Lorentz has shown that, according to classical electron theory, the speed of light in matter depends upon electron density and the oscillation period of such electrons in such material media. Electron density does not depend upon rotation, nor is it a vector. therefore, the speed of light (as opposed to its direction) should be unaffected by rotation. Hence, if there is any theoretical connection or analogy between this situation in matter and what may govern the speed of light in vacuum, the expectation must be that, in the laboratory vacuum, the speed of light is referred to the Earth’s inertial (non-rotating) frame. An experiment aimed at detecting the Earth’s rotation using optical techniques referred to the vacuum should give a positive result.

Such an experiment was performed by Michelson in 1925, confirming the classical expectation from ether theory by sensing the Earth’s rotation. Earlier, Sagnac had sensed the rotation of optical apparatus by speed of light measurement, a technique now applied in the ring-laser gyro. It is assumed that detection of speed of rotation accords with relativity, owing to parts of the rotating apparatus having motion relative to other parts. On the other hand, if such experiments permit comparison of the speed of light East-West versus West-East and afford linear speed difference, it is relativity that is in difficulty. With the advance of optical measurement techniques, it should soon be possible to resolve this question.

For translational motion with the Earth, the vacuum structure acquires a linear displacement. Clearly, any displacement of electric charge in the vacuum must be transitory and oscillatory, unless it is balanced by a matching counterflow or reverse displacement of some of the charge present. Otherwise there would be a steady build-up of charge and an ever-increasing electric field. One may, therefore, visualize the vacuum as having two charge structures capable of moving through one another in opposite directions. This is quite possible because there are no rigid bonds between the chargers, just electric field interactions.

It is this dual structure for charge displacement that is the key. The primary structure moves forward with the Earth. The secondary structure moves through the primary structure in the reverse direction and, by analogy with an optical effect named after Fresnel, we expect this reverse flow to affect the speed of light through the primary structure. Fresnel’s theory explains why the speed of light increases in proportion to:

where u is the velocity of the disturbing medium. This can be deduced from electron theory, but it has been verified by experiments in which the speed of light through moving water is measured.

Applying this same theory to the vacuum itself, and recognizing the counter displacement, it is an easy matter to arrive at the result discovered experimentally by the Michelson-Morley observations.

We do not need to appeal to relativity for an explanation of this basic observation. The Michelson-Morley experiment verifies that Maxwell’s electric displacement theory can be a dual and reciprocal phenomenon. Oscillations of the electrical structure of the vacuum can occur at the resonant Compton electron frequency with no reverse motion of the secondary structure or counter-displacement. However, we may expect light propagation at lower frequencies to involve counter-displacement and it is this that brings a new and important dimension to Maxwell’s theory. With it comes a solution to the dispersion problem.

Note that the frequency of an electromagnetic wave has no meaning at a point in space and time. Frequency concerns rate of change and this information implies comparison of signal strengths at two points in time or two points in space. However, given dual displacement at a point in space, as we now have in the theory just presented, the frequency can be codified by the relative strengths of the two displacement parameters.

The frequency of the signal is, in fact, preserved in transit through the vacuum medium, because the medium propagates two electric displacement signals in anti-phase, and the relative amplitude of the signal strengths determines the frequency. As we shall now see, this involves the vacuum adjusting to the signal in transit to adopt a locally-tuned condition having the resonant frequency of the signal. The frequency at which electron-position pair creation occurs is the limit frequency beyond which there is no counter-displacement. However, the interesting point is that there is no forced oscillation and so no dispersion characteristic in the vacuum, since the vacuum adapts to any frequency and exhibits the properties of a tuned LC system.

Such analysis assures us that the vacuum medium does not forcibly respond to the dynamic frequency characteristics of a signal. It propagates the primary and secondary displacements and the local vacuum resonates at the optimum frequency set by these displacements. In this way the signal frequency is preserved over vast distances.

The dual electrical displacement suggested above greatly strengthens the base on which one can develop a phenomenological ether theory supporting Maxwell’s equations. More important, however, it opens the path for new avenues of research into the effects of energy absorption from electromagnetic waves and their mutual interference. Meanwhile, note that Einstein’s E=Mc², the keystone of special relativity and his law of gravitation, the basis of his general relativity, have both succumbed to alternative explanation [5-8].

It is likely to be in the optical measurement field, involving speed of light tests in relation to Earth rotation, that we may see the determining experiments, crucial to relativity. The Ether will surely survive.

References

1. H. A. Wilson,’Modern Physics’, 2nd. Ed., Blackie, 1946.
2. J. H. Jeans, Nature, v.70, p.101 (1904).
3. P. Gerber, Zeitschrift f. Math. u. Phys., v.43, p.93 (1898).
4. L. Brillouin, ‘Relativity Reexamined’, Academic Press, 1970.
5. H. Aspden, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., v.13, p.3649 (1980).
6. G. M. Graham and D. H. Lahoz, Nature, v.285, p.154 (1980).
7. H. Aspden and D. M. Eagles, Physics Letters, v.41A, p.423 (1972).

8. H. Aspden, Int. Jour. Theor. Phys., v.15, p.631 (1976).

---

LECTURE NO. 23

MENTAL INERTIA AND NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

Copyright © Harold Aspden, 1998

---

INTRODUCTION

These comments were compiled as an aide memoire some two to three days prior to my participation in a discussion meeting on new energy topics held in London on May 10th, 1998.

They constitute a brief summary of points which I feel need to be made in a general debate on how to progress in the task of awakening interest in new and revolutionary energy conversion techniques which, at this time, challenge orthodox science and so are not welcomed by those who advise on research funding.

CONCERNING THE TITLE

In the above title I refer to ‘Mental Inertia’. What is meant by this is the difficulty of deflecting the thought processes of the vast majority of physicists concerning heat and power generation, which seem to move forward relentlessly following a single track, that which conforms with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Heat dispersed into space is somehow lost forever. It has no destiny except infinity. As a result, the minds of those who ponder upon such questions, drift off themselves into that wilderness of infinity. Why not pause and surmise that, notwithstanding what we do achieve by building and testing heat engines, which spend energy, Nature has her own secret ways of processing spent energy and forcing it into a temporary holding condition, a ‘quantum dance’, before it can be packaged as a proton and released back into our real world. We see matter all around us. It is built from protons and electrons. Somehow it was created, necessarily from energy. Where did that energy come from? If you think the universe is a one-off product that came off God’s production line some ten or so billion years ago, then you are not thinking as I do. I think each and every proton is created by an ongoing mass-production process fed by energy tapped from that dispersed throughout space. If those who advise on energy research know otherwise, then they should explain how they know! It is an important issue warranting debate.

Apart from that issue I am also suggesting that scientists have developed a mental block by relying too heavily upon their Second Law of Thermodynamics. They suffer from ‘mental inertia’ and it is to the detriment of progress on the ‘New Energy’ front.

THE ENERGY SOURCE

Energy cannot be ‘created’. It can only be converted from one form to another. Ignoring the usual energy sources, whether oil, gas, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric power, wind power and even solar power, there is new energy territory to be explored. There are two sources latent to our environment. One is the ambient heat, the energy stored in our atmosphere and the other is the energy stored locally in the quantum underworld of the vacuum state.

Concerning the first of these sources, physicists reject the notion that exploitation of ambient heat is possible, because they live under the spell of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As to the second of these sources, they refuse to believe that there is any energy in space other than that which is an extension of the matter form owing to what they term the ‘fields’, the electric and magnetic action of matter upon nearby space. Whether it is Einstein’s theory that has brushed the aether aside or quantum theory that provides them with pacifying answers, they choose not to recognize these two important sources of energy.

Now, for the purpose of these notes I can only comment briefly on the major source, that vested in space, so I will do that first.

Simply put, that source of energy hidden in the quantum underworld is the power house which creates the protons and electrons from which all matter in the universe is formed, whether as hydrogen atoms or as transmuted atoms formed from those protons and electrons. I can prove that proposition by showing how an understanding of the process involved can explain the precise value of the mass of the proton in terms of the mass of the electron. By precise I mean fully in agreement with the degree of its precision measurement, a part or so in ten million. However, that is mere theory.

When we come to view this in the context of the real world, we can look at the phenomenon of ‘cold fusion’ and ask how it is that two atomic nuclei, that of hydrogen and that of heavy hydrogen, namely the proton and the deuteron can come close enough together to combine or transmute their forms in such a way as to shed energy. You might say that all those atoms were created long ago in something called the ‘Big Bang’ which is an event far removed from what can be happening here and now in the space local to body Earth. However, in that case you too would then be indulging in mere theory.

In the obituary of Sir Charles Frank, reported on page 25 of the British newspaper THE TIMES of Monday, April 27, 1998, there is the statement that he was ‘an inspirational physicist who worked in a wide range of fields, from earthquakes to cold fusion’. There was a later comment in the obituary which referred again to cold fusion, by saying that:

“Charles Frank was the first scientist to think of the idea of cold nuclear fusion. In 1947 he suggested using an elementary subnuclear particle, a muon, to catalyse the fusion of deuterium and tritium. It would take the electron’s place and allow the nuclei to approach some 200 times closer than usual, and so help produce fusion.”

The problem with that idea is that the muon, which is otherwise known as the ‘heavy’ electron, just as the deuteron can be said to be the ‘heavy’ proton, is a mystery in itself. In fact, it has a ‘ghostly’ existence, to my way of thinking, because it is the primary ‘stuff’ which accounts for the energy of space, but that fact is not appreciated by the world of science. I know that to be a fact because my explanation of the creation of the proton involves the combination of those aethereal muons!

So the evolving cold fusion scene will, I expect, one day make us appreciate the existence of that energy source in space. Meanwhile, however, I shall myself pursue another route aimed at gaining access to that sea of energy in space, namely by the process of magnetic induction designed to involve ‘magnetocaloric cooling’ of the vacuum medium. That introduces my interest in certain forms of magnetic reluctance motor, but to explain that in detail is also just a little too specific for the immediate purpose of these notes. So, apart from referring below to the problem of testing ‘over-unity’ performance, I shall here restrict my onward comments to the somewhat related subject of extracting energy from ambient heat in defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

THE SELF-GENERATING HEAT ENGINE

It is not ‘perpetual motion’ in the sense of a machine that runs on no power but delivers power. No, it is simply a machine which absorbs heat from the atmosphere and generates an electrical power output. It is the ideal of a kind of air-conditioning system which cools but yet uses the heat extracted to produce useful power as output, sufficient power in excess of that needed to run the cooling system, so that the surplus is provided as ‘free energy’ output.

That might seem to be an impossible ideal, but it is possible, given two heat engines connected back-to-back, if one is a conventional engine operating as a reverse heat engine, namely as a heat pump, and the other is an engine which feeds on heat but is not governed by Carnot efficiency limitations.

I may add here that I have even secured grant of a U.S. Patent which includes the description of such a system and has a claim pertaining to that very proposition. It is the last claim of my U.S. Patent No. 5,101,632. It is noted that the subject of that patent has been introduced earlier in these Web pages as Lecture No. 17.

To implement an energy generating process such as this, however, the main requirement is to have a device which does convert heat into electricity without the Carnot restraint imposed by compliance with that Second Law of Thermodynamics. The structure proposed in that U.S. patent would need extensive development of a technique of fabrication of a cellular mirror structure that deploys internal heat radiation.

An alternative which warrants development is a technique based on the fabrication of a laminar structure composed of ferromagnetic metal films or plates. This is also described in the patent literature (U.S. Patent No. 5,288,336 and U.S. Patent No. 5,376,184) but it is felt that scientists generally need to be enlightened concerning the technical reason why the device functions, notwithstanding that Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Now, instead of describing such a device in detail, I will point my finger at something that is occurring throughout the energy world everywhere, namely a phenomenon present in every electrical power transformer. This is the fact that there is an electrical power loss in the transformer that is a complete mystery to those who design them, including the university professors who teach those designers.

Every power transformer that has a laminated steel core is subject to what is called ‘iron loss’, the magnetization losses which are ongoing when the transformer is connected in the power transmission circuit. There is a component of that loss which is attributable to magnetic induction of currents which circulate in each core lamination. Those currents involve higher losses than one expects from theoretical calculation based on a knowledge of the resistivity of the steel. For that to be the case there has to be something wrong with the theory underlying the calculation. Yet the electrical theory involved is a fairly exact science and errors of calculation as such can be ruled out, which leaves us having to face up to the fact that some physical phenomenon is present but not taken into account.

That phenomenon is the fact that heat flowing from the transformer by passage through those laminations is being regenerated as electrical drive power which augments those circulating eddy currents and increases the loss which develops that heat!

Now, the temperature difference between the centre of a transformer core and the surfaces across which it cools is little more than 10 or 20 degrees C. A conventional heat pump can elevate heat through such a temperature and require only one tenth as much energy as input to power the heat pump as is transferred between those temperatures. So one might suspect that the opposite applies when it comes to heat regenerating electricity, meaning that, at best, only one tenth of the normal heat loss could be converted back to electricity to augment that eddy current flow. In that case the eddy current anomaly factor, meaning actual eddy current loss, as measured, in relation to the theoretical eddy current loss would be a factor of ten or so per cent above unity.

However, if that were the case, the ‘eddy current anomaly’ would never have been significant enough to be noticed. The overall eddy current anomaly factor came to attention when the technology of fabricating electrical steel laminations developed to the point where attempts to reduce eddy currents were confounded by the measured anomaly factor being 2 or 3 and sometimes higher, though 1.5 was the tolerable norm. In my own experiments as part of my Ph.D. research on this subject in the early 1950s I measured factors as high as 5 and 6. That is an additional loss of 400% or 500% and not a mere 10% extra loss.

That can only mean one thing, now that I can see the evidence in retrospect, some 48 years on, and am no longer blighted by science orthodoxy pertaining to that Second Law of Thermodynamics. The heat generated is, in part, indeed for the most part, being regenerated as electricity inside the metal lamination. There can be no doubt that the conversion efficiencies involved exceed by far those set by the Carnot criteria which govern the conventional heat engine. I would suggest also that the so-called ‘warm superconductors’ are highly conductive because they are, internally, regenerating as a forward electrical action 100% of any heat shed by resistance effects.

Based on such evidence those interested in new methods of generating energy must surely see the scope for exploiting the phenomenon. Its underlying cause is known in physics as the Nernst Effect, the thermoelectric effect by which heat flow through a magnetic field develops an electric EMF at right angles to the heat flow and the field direction.

A device which I believe worked on this principle, has been demonstrated by John Scott Strachan. It is the subject of that U.S. Patent No. 5,288,336 mentioned above. It was shown to be able to run an electric motor, the only input being the temperature differential of a melting ice block such as one might put in one’s whisky glass. It was shown to operate in reverse, freezing water efficiently and rapidly when fed by an electrical power input.

TESTING OF ‘OVER-UNITY’ DEVICES

One of the major problems experienced by inventors of energy devices which exhibit anomalous power generation properties, is that of convincing an observer viewing a demonstration.

Investors and those who advise investors and corporations who might develop the invention need absolute proof of viability of the technology. Demonstrations are suspect. Consider, for example, the problems confronting Dr. Paulo Correa and his wife Alexandra who have invented a glow discharge tube which delivers d.c. power output in pulses in amounts exceeding the electrical d.c. input power. The proof, so far as the inventors are concerned, resides in the fact that a battery of many electric cells supplies the input power and the output power charges an exhausted, but similar, battery of electric cells. This takes time and, if measurements are made for short interval runs, the energy involved, whether as input or output, is dependent upon simple d.c. calculations based on measurements of d.c. voltages that change by a small amount and a prior calibration of the cells to determine energy stored as a function of voltage.

Ideally, one needs to measure the instantaneous energy activity to compare input and output in an ongoing manner. However, the pulsatory nature of the output, even when monitored by oscilloscopic means, makes it difficult to have trust in such measurements.

A similar situation arises where one tests an electric motor that needs input energy to keep it operational but develops its output power mechanically by feeding a load, which, however, may be an electrical generator. That compounds the measurement problem because much depends upon the efficiency of the generator, rather than that of the motor. This applies, for example, to the motor developments of Dr. Robert Adams in New Zealand. It applies also to my own motor measurements, where to satisfy myself that ‘over-unity’ performance was in evidence I had to calculate the heat loss generated by pulsing the drive windings of the motor.

Note that where input or output power involves transients and pulses one cannot rely on normal measuring instruments to give the relevant reading on a dial. One has to be sure that an energy anomaly is in evidence and one really needs a way of demonstrating that fact to others who witness the tests.

For this reason I think it worth suggesting that tests in such circumstances can suffice as a demonstration if the power input to the machine is d.c. as drawn from an electric battery source, or normal a.c. if the source waveform is not distorted, whilst the output is all converted directly into heat. Then, by encasing the machine and/or the load in a thermally insulated enclosure, albeit one that does convect the same rate of heat from its surface without acquiring too high a temperature, one can monitor the internal temperature of that enclosure to see how it depends upon machine operation.

Suppose, for example, that the test machine draws 100 watts of input power when delivering electrical output power to a load located outside that enclosure. It will, after a short period have settled to its operating state, meaning its own temperature will have stabilized. Meanwhile, by controlling the delivery of a calibrating power input to a heating resistor inside that enclosure one can see what stable temperature is reached by precisely the same amount of power, 100 watts, as is being fed into the test machine.

Then the test consists of switching off the calibrating power input and switching the output from the test machine to supply heat input to the enclosure. If now the temperature being measured increases one has ‘over-unity’ operation as between test machine output versus input, not allowing for operational heat loss from the machine itself. To allow for the latter, the test machine needs to be located within the enclosure as well.

In summary, therefore, with such a test procedure, given that one can measure electrical power input with little difficulty and the test then only depends upon watching a thermometer to see if its temperature goes up, I can see no reason why demonstrations of ‘over-unity’ performance cannot be made convincing. Besides that, such tests would not involve the need to disclose know-how or design details or even the principles of how the machine or device under test operates. The test could be adapted to estimate the degree of over-unity once its existence has been proved. For example, if the device delivers twice as much power output as it takes as input, then the calibration could be at 200 watts to see if the test temperature can be held with the 100 watt device input.

On the other hand, if, to convince investors, the demonstration is intended to display a commercially viable working prototype ready for market production, then that is another story. I tend to believe that the real problem is one of convincing academic scientists and development engineers that ‘over-unity’, in the sense of generating excess power, as if from the environment alone, is a real possibility. If the test protocol I propose would not suffice for that purpose then that problem I call ‘Mental Inertia’ is worse than I could have imagined.

---

LECTURE NO. 22

THE RABBIT AND SCHROEDINGER’S CAT

Copyright © Harold Aspden, 1998

---

INTRODUCTION

Physicists enjoy debates concerning quantum theory, ever confident that in championing that theory they are always on the winning side in any contest. They do not enjoy being drawn into debates concerning the reality of the aether or suggestions that one can build operable machines that can generate electrical power by tapping energy from that aether. Their version of quantum theory does not incorporate equations consistent with such a possibility.

One of the most bizarre notions in science is the proposition that physical events depend upon an ‘observer’. To be registered as occurring an event needs an observer. Can one then say that, without an observer being present and looking at a region of space, there can be no physical happening in that space region?

This introduces the subject I wish to discuss here, which is the outrageous state of affairs prevailing in physics, where practically-minded people are expected to believe in the nonsense which has been devised under the pretence that it is true science.

THE RABBIT

Before I introduce the role of Schroedinger’s cat, I will digress a little and talk about my ‘rabbit’. I imagine a high stone wall with a rabbit sitting on one side of that wall. That is what I can see in my imagination, but it could equally be that I can see a real rabbit in such a real situation. A short period later I look again and the rabbit is missing. I look over the wall to see it now sitting on the other side. How did it get there? The wall was too high for it to have jumped from one side to the other.

Well, the simple answer is that it got there by burrowing underground. It tunneled its way from one side of that barrier to the other.

Now, in physics there is a similar situation which involves the electron. In theory, meaning a classical theory based on the teachings of real life situations, an electron cannot penetrate an electric potential barrier unless it has enough dynamic capability to surmount that barrier. Just as the rabbit could not surmount the high wall, because it could not muster enough energy in its hind legs to make such a high leap, so the electron cannot be expected to penetrate through a high potential barrier if it lacks the necessary energy. That, at least, is what the physics teachings of the pre-quantum era suggest. However, our modern textbooks tell us that electrons can, in fact, penetrate such barriers by ‘tunneling’ their way through.

They have, notionally, become rabbits, or perhaps it is more to the point to say that the authors of those ideas have adopted the ‘rabbit mentality’. Electrons do not ‘tunnel’. They are governed by energy criteria and only do what the available energy dictates as possible!

Let me now suggest another scenario. The wall I mentioned is on rock solid foundations which cannot be penetrated by that rabbit trying to tunnel underground. Instead of there being one rabbit on one side of that wall there are 10 rabbits and, indeed, there are also 10 rabbits on the other side of that wall as well. When I look a little while latter there are only 9 rabbits on one side of that wall and 11 on the other side. Now, how might this be explained in real life?

Well, one answer could be that a new rabbit has been born on one side of the wall and an old rabbit on the other side of the wall has been eaten by a fox. The idea of any ‘tunneling ‘ by the rabbits is then in error. Applying this line of argument to the analogous situation involving the electron, well, we know that when we talk about electrons we normally mean millions, billions or indeed trillions of electrons as they are seldom seen in a free state in isolation. Then you may say that, unlike other fundamental particles in physics, apart from the proton, an electron has no finite lifetime. It does not exhibit a natural decay. So the analogy with rabbits dying and being born is not feasible.

In reply I say that physics has embraced the notion that electrons and their positive counterparts, positrons, can annihilate in pairs and be reborn in pairs close by. That is a feature of quantum electrodynamic theory. So I might need to say that the numbers of rabbits on one side of the wall became 8 whilst the 10 on the other side became 12, a pair having been ‘born’ and an older pair having been swallowed into oblivion, whether by that fox or by being absorbed into the aetherial background. Certainly, however, I can argue in this way my case that electrons do not penetrate a potential barrier, but rather they decay on one side of that barrier and their energy is reincarnated as a new electrons on the other side of that barrier.

To turn this into a meaningful account I need to declare that electrons do have a finite lifetime, even when standing alone in isolation, well removed from a positron, but that if they suffer decay, their energy is absorbed into our energy underworld and promptly repackaged as a newly created electron. The electron therefore never seems to decay, but it does. It is just that we cannot tell the difference between the new electron and the old electron!

It would, of course, help if one can estimate the lifetime of the electron using theory which gives reliable estimates of the lifetimes of other particles which do exhibit decay. That I have done and the answer is close to 10^-13 seconds. It then gives me satisfaction to see that there is a measurable time lag of just this value in observations of the phenomenon which physicists have chosen to term ‘electron tunneling’ as their explanation of how an electron can overcome a high potential barrier.

The message of all this is that matter in the form of electrons is being created throughout our environment by deploying energy from the aether’s own sea of energy, but energy must first be shed to upset the prevailing equilibrium and trigger electron creation. There is a related message which applies also to protons.

In summary, therefore, whereas quantum theory offers you mathematical symbols and curious notions about what is observed and what is not observed, the alternative of probing how energy is deployed in the equilibrium of the quantum underworld will expose the truth in a more meaningful way.

There is every reason, therefore, to predict that, by using the right techniques, we should be able to intercept energy from the turmoil of upsets of that equilibrium, after it is shed by decay or spent as radiation and before it is reincarnated as matter in the form of protons and electrons. That is the quest I see as warranting attention and the entry point is the quantum connections manifested in interactions involving ferromagnetic materials.

However, let us now consider Schroedinger’s cat.

SCHROEDINGER’S CAT

Theoretical physicists interested in quantum theory do not relate their interpretation of how electrons can tunnel through potential barriers to the behaviour of rabbits. No, they talk instead about wave functions and probabilities of particles appearing somewhere by virtue of the ‘reduction’ of the wavefunction. However, they do, sometimes, refer to Schroedinger’s cat.

Is it dead or is it alive? It depends on who is looking!

I shall quote here from a book by Euan Squires entitled ‘The Mystery of the Quantum World’. It was published in 1986 by Adam Hilger Ltd of Bristol and Boston, the publishing house of the U.K. Institute of Physics.

Chapter 4, Part 3, had the heading: ‘Does wavefunction reduction require conscious observers?’ Squires introduces this section of his book by writing:

“Here we shall examine more closely the possibility that external reality consists of a wavefunction and that this wave function only reduces when an observation is made by a conscious observer. It is the existence of consciousness that introduces the probabilistic aspects into
the quantum world.”

Soon thereafter Squires notes that “wavefunction reduction is an inexplicable phenomenon associated with quantum theory.”

Eventually, after further noting that quantum theory denies that the external world possesses the properties we observe, until we actually observe them, he comes to the ‘cat’.

“The paradox of ‘Schroedinger’s cat’ is an example of the sort of problem we can get into here. We suppose, for example, that the right-hand detector in our potential barrier experiment is a trigger that fires a gun and kills a cat as soon as a particle reaches it. After one particle has passed through the apparatus the wavefunction thus contains a piece in which the cat is dead and a piece in which the cat is alive. Only if the cat is conscious can we say that one of these represents the truth. What however could we say if the cat was asleep? If, on the other hand, a cat is not conscious, or if we used instead a being or a thing that is not conscious, then it remains in a state of being part-dead/part-alive until some conscious observer forces the wavefunction to go to one state or the other. Like Schroedinger himself we probably consider this as an unlikely picture of reality.”

So, there you are! Quantum theory never fails – it always gives the right answers! It depends upon wavefunctions and observers, but what is meant by such notions and how the universe ever got started before someone other than God was around to observe that event is open for imagination. Will those electrons really be able to tunnel through a potential barrier if the observer has fallen asleep? If you want to dream there are better things to dream about than the world of the quantum as portrayed by those who teach physics today. Whether your slumbers are aided by counting sheep, rabbits or cats that may be dead or alive according to your perception of their ‘wavefunctions’ I cannot say, but I can say that it is due time that physicists concentrated on the energy issue. Whether a particle is at A or B can only be ascertained by locating the seat of its energy and that is not a function of who happens to be around as a conscious observer!

CAN PHOTONS THINK?

Quantum theory is the realm of the photon and the electron, it having emerged from the study of processes occurring in the atom. The photon is characterized by an event which occurs when an atom absorbs or radiates a quantum of energy and that concerns the changes of the energy state of an electron.

Science writer Anjana Ahuja, writing in the INTERFACE section of the British newspaper, THE TIMES, on July 30, 1997, chose as the title: ‘Great photons think alike’, and explained how it had been discovered that pairs of photons travelling through optical fibre could communicate at a speed 10,000 times faster than the speed of light.

What, I wonder, is meant by that word ‘communicate’? The discovery by Dr. Nicolas Gisin involved feeding pairs of photons down optical fibres, sending them in opposite directions. As each photon neared the end of its journey to a Swiss village, one north of Geneva and one south of Geneva in Switzerland, ‘it was forced to decide between several alternative routes’. The experiment indicated that there had to be some communication between those photons when they made those decisions, because they made matching decisions instantaneously, even though they were then located seven miles apart. It was said that this is ‘a distance record for this type of experiment. Dr. Gisin is at the University of Geneva.

So here was action-at-a-distance, something that runs contrary to Einstein’s theory, and the article describing that discovery went on from there to tell us that this discovery heralded the technological prospect of a form of cryptography that could provide absolute security for data transmission.

So you are invited to believe that photons can ‘think’, but that they can communicate by a form of telepathy that is instantaneous action-at-a-distance.

In my opinion those who suggest such ideas have no real notion concerning the nature of the photon. The photon is not a particle. It is merely an event that happens when energy is exchanged between matter and aether in a certain way, a way which involves aether spin, which in turn sets up or is set up by electromagnetic waves that do travel at the finite speed of light. However, action-at-a-distance is physically possible so far as it concerns the Coulomb interaction as between electric charges. Indeed, I have build my whole account of the physical basis of gravitation and electromagnetism on a picture of the aether that has charges sharing a synchronous motion as if coupled by actions that are instantaneous.

The point to remember, however, is that, when two photon events are linked by their twin-creation, they each not only initiate propagating disturbances in the propagating medium, but they also impart momentum to the aether background. That momentum is imparted to a hidden structure that has a kind of rigidity owing to that synchrony and coupling provided by the Coulomb interactions in the charge structure of the aether. So, when physicists talk about the ‘wavefunction’ they are referring to the data encoded in the momentum pattern that has been generated by the events they are describing. They seem able to picture discrete ‘wavefunctions’ amongst the numerous trillions of overlapping ‘wavefunctions’ that exist everywhere in space. Yet, when it comes to experiments, they somehow create a concentration of ‘wavefunctions’ of the same form, so that they can avoid the confusion of deciphering how they interact.

Given that the aether absorbs momentum shed by photon creation and it works to recreate photons to rid itself of that momentum, there is a coordination between photon events thanks to the role played by that real aether. It all seems very complicated, but it makes far more sense than the notion that nothing happens in the universe unless someone is watching the spot where it happens.

No doubt, there will be some who read this and conclude that I do not know enough about quantum mechanics to form any valid judgement. Well, my answer to that is that there has to be something wrong when one is told that quantum theory always gives the right answers but yet informed physicists write books on the subject drawing attention to its uncertainties and its mysteries.

As to my modest contribution to the subject I will mention, by way of a conclusion to this Lecture, one final point that may be of some interest.

QUANTUM UNCERTAINTIES

In 1986 I was invited, with all expenses paid, to participate in a NATO-sponsored Advanced Research Workshop on the subject of ‘Quantum Uncertainties – Recent and Future Experiments and Interpretations’. It was held at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut, USA from June 23-June 27, 1986.

The book recording those proceedings had that same title and was published by Plenum in the NATO ASI Series as Series B: Physics Vol. 162. My contribution was my paper ‘The Theoretical Nature of the Photon in a Lattice Vacuum’ and it appeared at pp. 345-359.

It was at that meeting that I heard a great deal about anomalous correlations between photons, but what occupied my thoughts during my return journey home to England was what I had heard about neutron diffraction. I was perplexed by the apparent wave-like behavior of neutrons – but not for long! Indeed, I had the answer before I arrived home and I promptly recorded my thoughts in a scientific paper and mailed it off to Physics Letters.

If you look up that paper, which was published in Physics Letters 119A, pp. 105-108 (1986), you will see that it was received by the Editor on July 7, 1986. It is entitled A Causal Theory for Neutron Diffraction.

A single neutron in finding a route for passage through a test apparatus can experience diffraction, as if it is capable of generating wave interference which somehow governs the route it takes. It seems therefore that a neutron, as a particle, rather than a wave or ‘wavefunction’, travels as if subject to some kind of constraint, seemingly governed by statistics, but yet that neutron is not one of many that is seen as a statistical mean position.

My paper approached the problem by analyzing first the corresponding circumstances governing electron diffraction. The electron is a particle, not a photon, but when in motion relative to the aether it develops energy associated with that motion and that energy involves interplay with the aether. It gives rise to a sequence of photon events and an associated ongoing statistical electron-positron pair creation and annihilation activity. I discussed then the way in which the aether acts as an energy sink preserving overall equilibrium. I stated, for example, that ‘When a photon unit stops spinning at the photon source, its angular momentum is balanced by a transfer of energy E, (as determined by the equations specified), from the two-dimensional mode of oscillation to a linear oscillation.’ The important step then was to regard this latter event as part of a collective action of all photons present.

This led to a showing that four photon units, all collaborating in an ongoing association, involving creation and annihilation in vacuum energy exchanges, served to hold the kinetic energy of the electron, whilst trapping what is, in effect, a standing wave oscillation as part of a system moving bodily with the electron. In summary, I was saying that an electron is a particle, a discrete unit of charge, moving with an entourage of four photons, but that the photons were aether spin states that were created and annihilated cyclically at progressive positions along the electron path. Travelling freely and without obstruction the package of energy and its standing wave system would shed no radiation.

In some respects it is as if each electron is part of a miniature Michelson-Morley apparatus in which mirrors trap radiation as standing waves so that the energy is carried along through space at the speed of the apparatus and not at some notional fixed speed relative to something called absolute space. I have explained elsewhere in these Web pages that the orthodox interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment takes no account of energy transport by standing waves, the reason being that the standing wave phenomenon had not been discovered in the 1881-87 era when Michelson and Morley devised their experiment.

As to why an electron is diffracted, I quote from my Physics Letters paper:

When the electron is diffracted the waves produced by the photon units interfere and the units can regroup in a new configuration to contain the residual wave energy in a new standing wave system following the diffraction. Wave interference from the multiple-photon unit system therefore determines the redirection of the electron, because its kinetic energy is wholly that of the photon spin units. single electron diffraction is possible simply because the four spin units can each develop their own waves.

So, I was saying that there is wave interference where a single electron is concerned because there are four wave-generating sources associated with the electron and, unless disturbed, these interact to contain wave energy by their standing wave interference and collectively offset one another so far as external radiation is concerned. I was saying also that the energy we assign to an electron as kinetic energy flips in form as it is exchanged between those photon spin units and the aether.

Now, I do not seek to get too deeply into the processes involved, but I can say, as I have shown in that contribution of mine in those proceedings of that Bridgeport NATO workshop, that a photon spin that generates the Compton electron frequency has the unit angular momentum of h/2(pi) that we see as the quantum used in Bohr’s theory of the atom. Those photon spins, in their interchanges with aether energy as part of their forward migration with the electron motion, are involved in electron-positron pair creation and annihilation as well.

In summary, therefore, I feel that whatever mysteries there are concerning quantum theory, these mysteries can only be resolved by a belief in a real aether having structure and electrical form. They can only be resolved by separating the actions which occur in the Coulomb gauge from those which occur in the electromagnetic gauge, this being a line of demarcation as between instantaneous action-at-a distance and actions propagated at the finite speed of light.

I will not go further here and describe how my paper extends to show the basis of the wave diffraction of the neutron, save to say that if you think the neutron, meaning the particle form one can test in experiments, is an electrically neutral particle you are indulging in fantasy. It is a cluster of component electric particles which move together for a while before experiencing decay. I referred to quarks in my Physics Letters paper in order disguise my true opinion and use terminology that would introduce my picture of the neutron in a way that would find referee acceptance. The neutron is nothing other than a fluctuating cluster of charged particles that comprise electrons and positrons along with a proton or antiproton. The electrons are essential as they bring with them those photon spin units which set up the waves that give the neutron its diffraction properties.

The Physics Letters paper advances the case by showing how the photon spins develop the deBroglie wavelength applicable to the neutron. The frequencies involved are much smaller than those applicable to the electron and the argument used is based on that momentum exchange as between matter and aether, the overall conservation of which accounts for the seemingly unretarded coordinated interplay of photons.

---

LECTURE NO. 21

THE EXPERIMENTAL PATHWAY TO NEW SOURCES OF ENERGY

Copyright, Harold Aspden, 1998

The following is the full text of the author’s notes for a talk delivered to the Society for Scientific Exploration, Second European Conference, August 24-26, 1994 in Renfrew, Scotland.

However, in the latter part of July 1994, after these notes were prepared, we heard about the collision with Jupiter of the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. It caused the author to add a few extra items to show by the overhead viewer during the initial stages of the presentation. The viewgraphs used are those presented below in block form. The case presented was that the evidence adduced from the collision of that comet with Jupiter helped to confirm that the aether plays a role in powering the energy conveyed by a comet. The author sees scope for gaining access to some of that energy locked in aether spin, a feature of all astronomical bodies, but one that appears also in plasma research in our laboratories. The initial set of block illustrations used as viewgraphs and pertaining to the subject of the comet will, therefore, be presented ahead of the ‘introduction’ in the main text, appearing in the sequence in which they were shown at the Renfrew meeting.

INTRODUCTION

The author discusses the scope for experimental exploration of the role which the aether can play in the energy science of the future. Under three headings concerned with exploration of (a) the ‘past’, (b) the ‘unknown’ and (c) ‘bench space’, attention is drawn (a) to the misinterpretation of an early experiment, (b) to the ‘unknown’ experiment that is decisive on the aether question and (c) to the experiments that are now needed to tap into the energy resource of the aether in the space environment of the laboratory bench.

EXPLORING THE PAST

A century ago it was generally accepted that space was filled with an aethereal medium. This invisible medium was regarded as having two important properties. It limited the speed of passage of electromagnetic waves and it contained electrical charge in some neutral mixture which could develop electric fields when oscillated by the passage of those waves.

Science confronted two problems, one of a theoretical nature and one that had been encountered by experiment. Aether theory needed to model the medium as both a fluid and a solid and that seemed illogical. Experimentally, Michelson and Morley, in their efforts to detect our Earthly motion through space, found that they could not sense that from the speed differential of reflected light waves.

Today most scientists know about the latter experiment and have heard of that Einstein’s theory came to the rescue by telling us that Nature requires us to adapt our experimental frame of observation when moving in such a way that we cannot detect motion through space using apparatus sharing that motion. They go further and will tell you that the ‘aether’ is a figment of past imagination, not needed by modern science and having no real existence. The mathematically abstract formulation of the ‘space-time’ manifold, with its four-space dimensions, is the accepted model.

Now, very few scientists really care enough about the fundamental truths concerning space and aether to give voice to their doubts about the Einstein doctrine. It is easier to accept what they do not really understand, because those who profess superior knowledge seem satisfied with the theory. Yet, there are, in fact, numerous individuals who dabble in matters scientific and struggle to build their own alternative picture of that ‘aether’ medium.

I am one such individual and, having shown my interest, I have become the recipient of accounts of many such theories, but I have yet to see a consensus developing on anything but the common belief that Einstein’s theory is wrong and should be replaced by something better.

So, I well know that I would be wasting my time to devote effort here into presenting my theoretical ideas and this is why I seek now to urge my case forward by experiment.

The problem with this is that experiments need funding and those which are devised to explore science along lines that manifestly go against standard teachings are non-runners in the contest for funds and even the proposal can brand the proponent as a heretic. As a result the only really challenging experimentation that one expects to see in this field is that which is undertaken by the so-called ‘crank’, the individual who has time and his own personal resource to embark on research to test his or her own hypothesis.

Now, in devising a new experiment one must first question whether that experiment has already been done by others. There are important experiments of historical record that are not mentioned to us in textbooks because they do not fit in with the teaching of standard principles.

Since my subject is an interest in the ‘aether’, I draw attention to one such experiment, the 1903 Trouton-Noble experiment. This was an experiment which argued that, if the accepted teachings in electrodynamics were correct, two opposite electrical charges carried forward through the aether should set up a turning couple in their mutual interaction. This couple, which ought to be measurable by suspending a charged parallel plate capacitor in a torsion balance, should then give a measure of the Earth’s motion through space. By switching the charged condition of the capacitor on and off in timed sequence related to the natural oscillation period of that torsional suspension, so any motion through the aether ought to be detected.

The experiment gave a null result. This was in 1903. A discerning scientist at the time would have seen that result as meaning one of two things. Either the Lorentz force law, which requires electrodynamic force action to be directed perpendicular to the charge motion, was wrong in that the experiment revealed that the mutual force acted directly along the line joining the charges, or there was no motion through the electromagnetic reference frame, meaning that, whatever it is in the aether that regulates the speed of light locally, so far as that experiment was concerned, that something has to be moving with the Earth.

Now, if any scientific historian can point to any record that such alternative interpretation was considered at a time contemporary with that experiment I would, indeed, appreciate being sent the reference. As it was, I suspect that Lorentz upset the situation by immediately taking the initiative. He was convinced that his law was right and he was mindful of the null result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment and so the Trouton-Noble experiment was seen by him as justification for what has come to be termed Lorentz invariance. Our concepts of space and time were then distorted to squeeze from the experiment something that looked compatible.

To explain the Michelson-Morley experiment, Lorentz had, in his 1895 paper, argued that apparatus can shorten in the direction of motion. He introduced his 1904 paper by reference also to the Trouton-Noble experiment and in 1905 we see Einstein enter the fray with his theory of relativity.

Yet, where was that discerning scientist who could argue by logic that if two assumptions are relied upon, motion through the aether and conformity with an arbitrary law of electrodynamics, and the experiment gives a null, then either or both of those assumptions could be wrong?

One can say that Lorentz was guided by the null of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and this favoured the abandonment of the aether hypothesis, but that was also justification for not performing the Trouton-Noble experiment in the first place and the fact that it was performed as an electrodynamic experiment should have put the emphasis on the fact that the Lorentz force law was, as just stated, arbitrary. It was arbitrary because, as was well established from the work of Ampere, as amplified later by others including Maxwell, all empirical data on the subject had involved at least one closed circuital current in the tested interaction. The Trouton-Noble experiment was an experiment which involved two discrete charges transported as individual charges with neither forming part of a closed current circuit.

The need for that ‘discerning scientist’ was even more in evidence when, in retrospect, one can see that the Trouton-Noble experiment reveals that, if there is motion through the electromagnetic reference frame as the Earth moves through the aether, so the mutual electrodynamic force between two discrete charges acts directly along the line joining those charges and so develops no out-of-balance couple. Here was evidence of the link with gravitation, that quest in search of the Holy Grail in unified field theory, the clue by which to link electrodynamic action and gravitation.

It was missed when it should have been seen, as Lorentz took the initiative and went adrift in pushing his ideas on the invariance theme, defending his force law but at the price of abandoning the role played by the aether in the Trouton-Noble experiment.

So, in exploring the science of the past, one can begin to see where the wrong path was taken. It was a path leading away from the aether and its vast energy resource – a pathway to an abstract world of illusion and fantasy bred from doctrinaire beliefs in Einstein’s theory.

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN

Scientific exploration may be deemed to involve research into new territory, but science today is such that explored territory, already mapped, can fail to be included in modern surveys. The reason is that the Establishment suppresses that which it finds embarrassing and so the scientific work fails to be recorded in the citators giving reference access. Certainly, there is a tendency by those who teach and engage in research to presume that, if they have a specialist knowledge in a particular subject, anything of importance in that field will somehow be drawn to their attention by their ongoing involvement in conferences or inspection of primary refereed literature.

Therefore, now ask the question whether that Lorentz force law that I have mentioned above and challenged as being arbitrary and invalid when applied to the discrete charge interaction has ever been proved to be invalid by direct experiment. Note that in mentioning the Lorentz force law I am not referring to some unimportant feature of science. Every electrical machine in existence depends upon the way moving electric charge acts on other moving electrical charge. The Lorentz law sums up our understanding of the forces acting between those moving charges. Therefore, what is at issue here is not something of a curiosity that might concern rare phenomena or events in outer space. The subject in question is the force that dominates the electrical power industry and the peripheral questions that arise such as where the energy is stored when an electric current is fed into an induction coil in an automobile.

All that the Lorentz law tells us is that the electrodynamic action between moving charges acts on a charge at right angles to its motion, so it in no way gives basis for an induction energy process, which needs a force action directed in the line of motion. I submit that the experiment of record that actually disproves the Lorentz force law is unknown to those who profess to teach electrical engineering in our universities. They will question what I say because they can ‘get by’ without that knowledge, teaching machine design based on empirical evidence from the past, but they will not then be teaching what is possible in future machine design, because there is territory in electrical science that they have not explored themselves.

It was 35 years ago that I published a work on the theory of gravitation, drawing attention to the error in the law of electrodynamics. Several years later I was visited by a young London University research student. He was writing a thesis on General Relativity for his Ph.D. It was his exposure to my dissident opinions that caused him to direct his attentions away from Relativity and turn his mind to the flaws in electrodynamic theory. As an aside I mention that Einstein’s famous 1905 paper was entitled ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’, so one will understand why relativity and electrodynamics are connected. Now, I mention this because that then-young research student, whose name was Pappas, eventually teamed up with a radio enthusiast in USA, named Vaughan, and together they performed a definitive experiment which disproves the Lorentz force law.

They built what they termed a ‘stigma antenna’ and set up internal oscillations in the antenna so that current in the three sections of the antenna interacted to set up, according to the Lorentz force law, a unidirectional turning couple. Note that here the charge was oscillating between the poles and so the current was confined to exchanges between the intrinsic capacitance and inductance of the antenna. Any forces on that moving charge, as determined by the Lorentz force law, would then set up that couple. In a sense, this was the Trouton-Noble experiment where, instead of relying on motion through the aether to set up the couple, the charge was actually set in oscillatory motion. This, therefore, was not a test concerning the aether, but one concerning simply the Lorentz force law. However, if the Lorentz law fails, as I predict it must if we are ever to explain gravitational force, so, as with the Trouton-Noble experiment, one can expect there to be no couple in evidence in this Pappas-Vaughan test.

I declare that this experiment, which did give a null result, is one that ranks alongside those of Michelson-Morley and Trouton-Noble, but the world of modern science has shunned the experiment because the implications are too far reaching. It is of record in Physics Essays, v. 3, 211-216 (1990).

There are physicists who will say that the experiment does not take account of the electric displacement currents in the enveloping space and claim that that the Lorentz forces exerted on those currents will account for the balance of that predicted turning action. In saying that they are declaring that the vacuum medium can absorb forces and be part of the dynamic system under consideration. That is tantamount to an admission that one can push against the aether itself and be pushed by the aether and that means there is scope for drawing energy from that aether. Such are the implications if one pays attention to the experimental evidence and avoids being misled by false theory.

It must be understood that to change the course of science it is no longer sufficient to perform an experiment, unless it is one that is done within the corridors of institutional power. Experiments that challenge established doctrine are not undertaken in such institutions. Experiments performed outside are not accepted. The only way forward for those enterprising souls who really want to see a major advance from scientific exploration is to head in the direction of an experiment that is destined to have a major technological impact.

This is the theme I will now follow, based on some groundwork references to my own perception of the aether. Note I am not urging interest in my theory. All I seek is to give the foundation for the two experiments I propose. The first experiment I will leave to others to perform, but I will undertake the second experiment myself and report on its outcome in due course.

EXPLORING BENCH SPACE

I stated at the outset that in the last century scientists faced the irreconcilable problem of modelling the aether as a fluid and as a solid, inasmuch as the properties of both need to be merged. Those scientists did not have in their possession the pocket calculator with its liquid crystal display. Crystals form when particles find they can settle into a lower energy state if they group together in an orderly way. Thus, water can turn into ice as it sheds heat energy. The ‘liquid crystal’ is something that depends upon extraneous electric fields, meaning that the transition from fluid to crystal form is controlled by external influence. Equally external influence in the form of heat or vibration or simply a motion of material structure through the liquid could well preclude crystal formation.

Thus, if the vacuum were to have the natural attribute of a crystal form – a kind of solid structure – it could well be that the presence of matter could cause it to dissolve into fluid form before regrouping to crystal form sharing the motion of that matter. My point here is that, whether we are talking about aether or water or that special liquid we see in our pocket calculators, we must be prepared for the structure of a crystal form to play some role.

It was analysis of the aether on these lines that led me to develop an understanding of a process I call ‘vacuum spin’. The action of producing an electric field radial from an axis should, in theory, promote any structural form of aether nucleated on that axis to spin and draw inertial energy from the space environment. I saw this as featuring in the creation of stars and planets, and as accounting for the creation of thunderballs developed from electrical action centred on the axis of a lightning discharge, but in a bench experiment the effect could occur in certain types of rotary machine. A Faraday disc is one such apparatus because the rotation of a conductor in an axial magnetic field induces radial electric displacement in the aether coextensive with that disc.

One should expect anomalous energy and inertial effects if one spins the rotor of such a machine and, indeed, I hear of reports that do confirm anomalous generation of power – power from the aether, as it were – emerging from such experiments. However, that aside, for a moment, the experiment I would commend to a laboratory physicist is one in which an arc discharge in a near vacuum is set up between two electrodes, one positioned vertically above the other and a cylindrical wire mesh cage coaxial with the discharge path is caused to spin around that axis when there is a discharge. The object of the experiment is quite simple. It is well known from the early research which led to the interest in hot nuclear fusion that it is virtually impossible to tame a discharge and keep it on a straight and narrow path as it pinches at high currents. The discharge is wild in its snakelike movements. The non-rotation of the enclosing cage has no effect on that activity, but I have in mind an experiment with a rotating cage to see if the arc becomes stable.

If it does keep in place along the central spin axis then that is evidence that the aether exists and that vacuum spin is setting up reacting radial electric fields which hold it in place. This is nothing other than Maxwell displacement of charge, but radially instead of linearly as we see in electromagnetic wave propagation. To make the experiment more interesting observations should be made at different pressures as air is pumped from the test apparatus. this would show progressively how the turbulence of air affects the arc before one comes to see the action of the vacuum on its own.

As I stated above the expectation with the Faraday disc experiment is that the vacuum would shed energy and develop rotational inertia in that disc. This should depend upon the angle subtended between the spin axis of the apparatus and that prevailing in the vacuum medium itself, meaning that as the Earth rotates to reorientate the experimental set-up so the power of the coupling action between vacuum and disc should vary. That again would reveal exciting information about the true existence of the aether.

Whilst still on the theme of bench-type experiments, vacuum spin and fluid crystals, I think it worthwhile to mention a recent BBC television programme about Heretics, the first in the series being concerned with a phenomenon attributed to water. Does water have a property which allows it to replicate crystals which store information so that however often it is diluted it can retain that information? Physicists ridicule this suggestion even though it is an experimental finding of a well-established French scientist. However, consider what I have said above with water in mind as a medium that can develop fluid crystals.

Take a single ion H₃O⁺ together with a group of normal water molecules and consider the radial electric field which emanates from that ion. It will, by the argument I have put above, develop a ‘vacuum spin’ and I can visualize it being the nucleus of a tiny fluid crystal, a very small structure that could be deemed to be what we might term ‘warm ice’. Now, how can this have a ‘memory’ and how can it replicate itself?

Well, firstly, I would like to digress a little and talk about another type of ‘fluid crystal’, that which develops as a ‘fluid’ crystal within a solid crystal, namely the ferromagnetic domain that forms inside a crystal of iron or nickel, for example. These ferromagnetic domains, indeed the whole state of ferromagnetism, occurs because their formation is energetically favoured, thanks to a certain structural combination of atomic properties in such atomic elements under appropriate temperature conditions. Physicist do not speak of these domains as ‘fluid crystals’ but they sometimes choose a terminology that is used to convey much the same meaning; they talk about ‘magnetic bubbles’!

In 1969 I published a book entitled ‘Physics without Einstein’. It was about my aether theory in which I explained how ferromagnetism developed in crystals as a function of the mechanical stress energies involved and their relation to the interaction forces between atomic electrons in atoms. I based this on orbital electron motion so that I could use the n level of quantization applicable to the Bohr atom even though in more formal atomic theory in iron, for example, the 3d electron state is the one with the n = 2 orbital quantization.

A graphical illustration taken from that 1969 book shows why I was satisfied with my findings and felt I had understood the true nature of ferromagnetism as being really an orbital electron motion and not a fanciful electron spin action as conventional theory suggests. That issue is debated in my book and it need not be considered here. However, what I do want to point to is the fact that my theory indicated that if oxygen were to form as a solid substance its crystals could well exhibit ferromagnetism under certain conditions. Oxygen is the optimum candidate in the n = 1 state, just as iron, nickel and cobalt are those we find in the n = 2 state.

So, I am now asking myself, after watching that BBC programme on July 5th about the heresy of Jacques Benveniste, whether the oxygen component of a water crystal could, in a very minute way, nucleated in water as a fluid crystal centred on an ion, be part of a ferromagnetic structure. That makes it easier to contemplate ‘memory’ and recordal of information.

My speculation then extends to asking how such tiny magnets in water could avoid detection and here, thanks to that ion charge, I see an answer. There is a reacting vacuum spin of aether and, as readers of my 1969 book will see, a vacuum spin means the generation of a magnetic effect. The Earth is a magnet but we do not understand the source of that magnetism in spite of the various theories of record. I see the vacuum spin coextensive with body Earth as the seat of that magnetism and see no way for explaining the precessional motion of the magnetic poles unless the magnetism is developed in a medium which can move in an angular sense inside the Earth.

In water, therefore, those fluid crystals could nucleate a vacuum spin which cancels their intrinsic ferromagnetic field so far as effects remote from the crystal are concerned. The vacuum spin would have ellipsoidal, near spherical, form, inasmuch as this gives complementary uniform magnetic field density assuring perfect balance of the ferromagnetism of the crystal.

Now, where does memory feature in this situation? Well, just as for the Earth, where the axis of the magnetic poles precesses around the axis of the geographic poles, so the collective action of the ferromagnetic water crystal and its vacuum could account for some very small electromagnetic effects at a characteristic frequency. Conversely the external influence of an electromagnetic field varying at that frequency would condition that action, perhaps the ellipsoidal shape, meaning the ratio between the dimensions of its major and minor axes. This ratio is the variable which determines a demagnetization factor to thereby alter the magnetic property and so the appropriate frequency response.

The key question one now asks is how such crystals replicate one another. Here, the answer is that the ion and the molecular crystal centred on that ion actually nucleate a vacuum spin activity which can become separated from the ion so that the ion develops a new vacuum spin system. The free vacuum spin system is preserved by its inertial property and its energy and, as it develops an internal electric charge effect, it can promote ionization of the water in its new position. This action is therefore one that replicates the ellipsoidal form and so the characteristic frequency of the parent system but I suspect this replication process, if it occurs at all, can only occur in still water and that the water has to be shaken first to help to separate the crystals and vacuum spins that already exist.

It is along such lines that I see a route to understanding the heresy of Jacques Benveniste and also understanding certain other accounts of phenomena that involve energy anomalies in water, phenomena which seem to be excited at ultrasonic frequencies.

Once more is known about the latter phenomenon and particularly as concerns the measured frequency responses, so the physics of this proposal can be examined and possibly developed as a formal theory. One needs to see in this the role of aether in a structured crystal form, aether that can spin to capture and store energy, much as we see in the thunderball phenomenon and as we shall soon see, I believe, in a Faraday disc type of machine which is designed to tap the zero-point field energy.

I may further mention that the arc discharge as electrical corona from a point electrode can also be the nucleating factor in developing vacuum spin in the form of tiny spherical plasmoid forms which liberate energy as excess heat, energy being drawn from the vacuum medium.

Unquestionably, as I see it, it is now mandatory to pursue experimental research into the action of radial electric fields centred on an axis about which a spin condition in matter can be induced. The use of conductive metal discs to probe inertial properties induced by a radial electric field is the experimental theme that I shall now be exploring myself.

Such research offers a new source of energy now on our near horizon and there are those in our world today who can reveal the secrets of such machines. I have in mind the Methernitha community in Switzerland, where machines are in operation based on rotating discs which incorporate conductors and promote circuital electrical currents in the disc which are tapped by electromagnetic induction to deliver power continuously. The vacuum spin action sustained in those discs draws power from space itself and generates electricity measured in kilowatts from quite small machines.

Now, concerning the link with gravitation, I will end by referring to one other theme concerned with aether and vacuum spin. If one has a flywheel and imagines it to have a coextensive vacuum spin system, there is the question of what happens if one forcibly precesses that flywheel to upset the coupling with that vacuum spin. The issue centres upon whether gravitational force asserted by matter on matter is really communicated via the aether system or is communicated directly as a kind of action at a distance. If the aether plays a role in that process, as I believe, then so that forced precession can interfere with the pull of gravitation. Forced precessed gyroscopic flywheels feature as another heretical pursuit, that of Professor Eric Laithwaite, and, again, because physicists prefer not to believe in the existence of the aether so they cannot countenance scientific anomalies as effects which depend upon that aether. They would rather ridicule the proponent than help in resolving the mysteries in question.

The BBC programme featuring Laithwaite as a ‘heretic’ is to be shown on T.V. on August 9th, some days after completion of this text, but until we see the antigravity phenomenon used to technological advantage there is little chance that the world of science will allow itself to be turned upside down by talk of ‘antigravity’.

I should mention the heresy theme of Rupert Sheldrake, ‘morphic resonance’. This was the subject of another in the ‘Heretic’ series of BBC programmes produced by Tony Edwards. After what I have said, there is reason to question whether the storage of information in the structure of water can be replicated on a larger scale in the aether itself. I have always seen the aether as a kind of all-embracing elusive ‘ferromagnet’ or rather what one might better refer to as an ‘antiferromagnet’. Indeed, it was the study of ferromagnetism, with its domain patterns superimposed upon a crystal form with its underlying quantization, that led me to research the structural nature of the aether itself. The aether does contain domain patterns but I see these as of vast proportion, as bounded regions representing the transition barriers between what one may term ‘space’ and ‘anti space’. The difference is one connected with an underlying asymmetry of the polarities assigned to the vacuum charge which accounts for Maxwell’s displacement currents, the carriers of electromagnetic waves. In anti-space’ ‘positive’ becomes ‘negative’ and vice-versa. However, I need planar interface boundaries between these domains in order to obtain the necessary homogeneous mathematical relationships governing restoring force rates when aether charge is displaced and this tells me that there are domain patterns in the aether, in close analogy with what we see in ferromagnets.

I have discussed these in my book ‘Modern Aether Science’ and also in my book ‘Physics Unified’ but, based on cosmological evidence connected with geomagnetic field reversals, they are so large that, as resonant entities or memory elements like cores in the old-fashioned computer, they can in no way meet the needs of the proposition suggested by Rupert Sheldrake. So, as Sheldrake’s theme concerns interplay between life forms, whether of plants or animals, all I can suggest here is that in researching the physics of morphic resonance, assuming the concept is deemed to have basis in reality, I would look at the role water plays as the host medium for those patterns and the influence of ultrasonic magnetic excitations. In short, I would seek to confirm the findings of Jacques Benveniste before going on from there to link that with the intuitive doctrines that are advocated by Sheldrake.

However, for my part, the inertial energy experiments are a sufficient preoccupation and I must confine my efforts to that endeavour.


It is nearly four years since the above was presented to the conference held by the Society for Scientific Exploration in Renfrew, Scotland. Much of what I said was based on my conviction that the setting up of a radial electric field, meaning one directed radially outwards from, or inwards towards, a central axis, must act to promote an aether spin reaction about that axis. That is a recipe for assuring that the aether of our environment will feed energy into that spin and that is a one-way process. It means that excess energy can be produced in a latent state from which it will disperse as a ghost-like turbulence or vortex that dissipates itself, unless, that is, we can somehow trap that energy and first use it to our material benefit.

I shall be writing more in these Web pages on the prospect of there being experimental verification leading to several ways by which this phenomenon can be explored. In this regard I invite you to progress to the next item ESSAY No. 13.

---

LECTURE NO. 20

DEBATE ON CREATION

Copyright © Harold Aspden, 1998

---

INTRODUCTION

There is nothing more fundamental so far as concerns physical science than the understanding of the processes involved in creating the matter which constitutes our universe. Yes, one can think that there are greater questions, concerning God and the creation of the human life form or, indeed, the sub-structure of that stage on which our universe performs, meaning what physicists refer to as ‘space-time’ or what I, as a physicist, prefer to refer to as ‘the aether’, but one must have a foundation on which to build an understanding of all things. There is no better foundation than an insight into how matter is distilled from the sea of energy that pervades space and that means that we must begin by explaining how the proton, which accounts for more than 99.9 per cent of all matter, is created and we must explain why the proton is 1836.152 times the mass of its companion particle, the electron. Together, these two particles create the hydrogen atom and from that all other forms of matter evolve.

Now to create the heavier atoms we see around us in solid matter and in the air we breathe, those hydrogen atoms have to undergo a process of fusion. Physicists like to think that the nuclear fusion which created our universe occurred in a one-off event some ten and more billion years ago. That is their hypothesis as developed from their problem in understanding how light radiation from distant stars can degenerate in its frequency spectrum as it travels ever onwards at the enormous speed of light for billions of years before reaching us here on Earth. So they have signed off, as it were, in trying to understand how it might be that those protons and electrons can be involved in an ongoing process of creation and decay here and now wherever matter already exists.

Those physicists think that protons have no finite lifetime, because they do not see proton decay. They see that when neutrons appear they decay with a half-life of several minutes and, yet, notwithstanding that, they are naive enough to imagine that there are neutrons in the atomic nuclei of atoms heavier than hydrogen. Such is the parlous state of affairs in modern physical science.

So when, in 1989, the discovery of ‘cold fusion’ involving a heavy isotope of hydrogen was reported and no neutron emission was in evidence, that discovery was ridiculed by the scientific establishment. Here the issue was not just the prospect of a new much-needed energy source, but also the opening of a pathway which could lead to a more sensible understanding of the actual processes of the Creation of our material universe.

This introduces this Lecture theme. I seek to debate the case for the ongoing creation of matter by making reference to ‘cold fusion’.

IS THE IDEA OF ‘COLD FUSION’ NONSENSE?

I find it quite hard to believe that there are so many trained physicists in the world who have such confidence in their intuitive opinions that they are willing to reject outright the very thought of ‘cold nuclear fusion’.

No doubt those same physicists will tell me that I must be off track in even thinking that a proton might be involved in an ongoing scenario of creation and decay. They may have read somewhere that attempts to measure the decay lifetime of the proton gave a null result and that in fact there is no evidence of decay even over a period estimated on a scale going back to before the event of their imaginary Big Bang.

Well, let me ask you how you can measure the lifetime of a particle if the energy it sheds in its decay is pooled in a sea of energy from which those very particles are being recreated to keep the energy equilibrium. I could answer that myself if Nature was obliging and was willing to deploy the energy shed so as to create two separate families of stable electrically-positive particles. We might then see the decay process in our experiments, but that will not be the case if a proton decays, sheds its energy to the underlying energy pool, thereby upsetting its equilibrium, which it promptly restores by creating a new proton at the very location where the original proton suffered decay.

Now, if you, the reader, wish to be a critic and you say that cannot be, then you must have some special knowledge which we ought to share. You may ‘think’ that there is no such thing as that ‘sea of energy’, because you do not subscribe to the belief that there is an aether. Such thought does not amount to knowledge. Remember that there were those who once thought that light travelled at a constant speed relative to the aether and, when they read about an experiment that they ‘thought’ would confirm that assumption but found it gave a null result, they did not question their own notion that light speed was constant relative to the aether. No, they drew the illogical conclusion that the aether does not exist. They did not take account of a discovery made only after the experiment had been performed, namely that, since the apparatus used involved mirrors, the reflected light waves were setting up standing waves locked to the mirror surfaces. The light energy was being dragged along with the apparatus as part of the system of those standing waves. The velocity of the light, as such, in relation to a frame of reference external to the apparatus was meaningless in those circumstances. You see, thought can mislead when it comes to interpreting physical phenomena! I note, by the way, that Wiener discovered and first demonstrated the standing wave phenomenon in 1890, whereas the Michelson-Morley Experiment dates from 1881-1887.

Somehow physicists have become hooked on the idea that the Michelson-Morley Experiment rang the death knell of the aether and then blew the trumpet acclaiming the birth of Einstein’s notions about the speed of light being relative to an observer. How long will it be before they learn what their experiments are really saying to them?

Now, I cannot prove that protons decay, just as no one can prove that they do not decay, but I can suggest that, if one assumes that protons can be created and so, in a universe in equilibrium, they must decay, then it is a step forward in support of that hypothesis if one can deduce the precise mass value of the proton in relation to its companion at creation, namely the electron!

So, proceeding along that track, where do we begin? Well, I am going to begin by referring to the published obituary of a very eminent British physicist who died very recently, namely Sir Charles Frank.

His obituary was published in the Monday, April 27 1998 issue of the British newspaper THE TIMES. Sir Charles died in Bristol earlier that month, on April 5, aged 87. The obituary is relevant to this discourse because it began with the words:

“Sir Charles Frank was an inspirational physicist who worked in a wide range of fields, from earthquakes to cold fusion.”

Now, much as physicists in general seem to find the thought of ‘cold fusion’ amusing, whereas there is nothing amusing about earthquakes, it is appropriate also to consider ‘cold fusion’ as a serious proposition and one must respect the wisdom of Sir Charles Frank for adopting that stance.

So far as this discourse is concerned, it is relevant to quote a paragraph from that obituary referring specifically to ‘cold fusion’:

“Charles Frank was the first scientist to think of the idea of cold nuclear fusion. In 1947 he suggested using an elementary subnuclear particle, a muon, to catalyse the fusion of deuterium and tritium. It would take the electron’s place and allow nuclei to approach some 200 times closer than usual, and so help produce fusion. The investigations in this field that Frank began at Bristol are continuing around the world, and his original paper on the subject is still widely quoted.”

COLD FUSION AND THE MUON

The muon is the ‘heavy electron’. Its mass is a little below 207 times that of the normal electron. Its role in Nature is a mystery, at least so far as is judged by physicists in general. In fact, the muon is the prime constituent of that sea of energy which those physicists ‘in general’ refuse to recognize as existing as something that fills all space.

Incredible though it may seem, I have the experience of one conference concerned with nuclear physics where I ventured to suggest how the muon played a role in creating the proton and was a particle, more prevalent in space than even the electron, where a young experimental researcher sought to assure me that I was wrong, because he had studied muons experimentally. I was presenting the theoretical evidence I had discovered and he was basing his opinions on experimental facts concerning how muons interact with matter. I had to be wrong, in his opinion, because what I was saying did not conform with the kind of physics he was learning about in his academic pursuit.

If you try to talk about ‘aether’ at a conference on physics, I can assure you that the physicists present will have no patience and will pay no attention to the substantive basis of your talk. That is the way things are. Equally, however, those same physicists admit they are searching for that elusive Holy Grail, the unified field theory, that they do not understand how Nature determines the proton/electron mass ratio and that they cannot begin to understand where muons fit into Nature’s scheme. They know so much and yet will not listen when someone ventures to say: “Here is the answer you seek, but you must accept there is an aether!”

So, physicists in general are stubborn creatures, having sheeplike behaviour, but one has to persist in presenting what has that ring of truth and just hope that someone, somewhere, might pay attention.

Muons are seen in high energy reactions and in cosmic radiation, but in our laboratory experiments they are not seen in their full glory as the dominant constituent of the sea of energy in the aether background. Yet it is the ongoing activity of those muons, involved, as they are, in a continuous quantum-electrodynamic cycle of mutual pair creation and decay that is the very reason for proton creation and decay. The muons are effectively missiles which attack the proton and destroy it, but, equally, they are both its creator and its destroyer.

The creation process involves muon bombardment of a charge form that constitutes the lattice-forming components of the aether. The lattice structure, its role in forming photon ‘units’ and its spin feature determine the action quantum which we term the Planck constant. However, those lattice charges present a relatively large target for the ongoing bombardment by the virtual muons in that aether energy sea and it is the coincidental bombardment by nine muons collectively hitting one such lattice charge that triggers proton creation.

The full analysis of this is to be found in my book ‘Aether Science Papers’, but see also Tutorial No. 9 in these Web pages.

As to the decay of the proton, this follows as a consequence of proton creation, given that there is a prevailing state of equilibrium as between matter and aether, in that the release of energy to augment the entropy of the environment contributes to the surplus which builds in the sea of energy and replenishes the energy deployed into proton creation.

What this amounts to is the fact that energy which we regard as radiated as heat or electromagnetic radiation is regenerated by creating protons. That is governed by a statistical process of chance, ever ongoing. Then there is a balancing proton decay once the energy deficit is felt and the muon background needs to claw energy back from the protons and recreate those muon pairs.

With new energy technology in mind, I can see that in an intermediate state, owing to the way in which Planck’s constant is determined by the systematic motion of those lattice charges forming the aether structure, which motion acts as a buffer in the energy activity, there is scope for gaining access to that aether energy by somewhat devious means, intercepting energy that otherwise will go into proton creation. That motivates my present interest in this whole field of research that I am describing in these Web pages.

Essentially, however, concerning my ground work on fundamental theory, what we see overall is a stable system of protons surviving in a state of equilibrium with the aether background. Underlying all that there is an ongoing fluctuation as a kind of zero-point energy activity in which protons are created and decay virtually in situ, as it were. It means, however, that there is a possibility that protons could decay as part of one atomic nucleus and be recreated as part of a different atomic nucleus in very close proximity. This hints at both cold nuclear fusion and cold nuclear fission and, the more we read about transmutation of elements in what seem to be nothing other than chemical-type processes, the greater the support for the scenario of proton creation and decay as just described. The periodical Infinite Energy is an important source of information on such discoveries. The URL of its Web site is http://www.infinite-energy.com for those interested in knowing more about that publication.

In summary, my suggestion differs from the proposal of Sir Charles Frank. I do not see muons as replacing the electrons in hydrogen atoms and occupying orbits very much reduced in size. Instead I look to the role of the muon in the aether background as the creative agent which is able to form new protons very close to existing protons and capture electron-sized charges which can transmute hydrogen nuclei into deuterium nuclei or deuterium nuclei into tritium nuclei. That seems a possible feature associated with the phenomenon of cold fusion.

Either way, however, or whatever might be the action which occurs in cold fusion reactions, there can be no doubt that the muon is involved in proton creation and that proton creation is an ongoing manifestation of the presence of aether energy everywhere in space.

Once that is recognized the challenge will attract more who will try to discover the best way of tapping into that sea of aether energy and that is the main message I seek to convey.

DON’T FORGET THOMSON

This section heading was the title of a Letter to the Editor published by the American Institute of Physics in their journal Physics Today, November 1984, p. 15.

Since I want the world of physics to be left in no doubt as to whether or not I have put my views on this matter on proper record. I am accordingly, reproducing below the full content of that Letter to the Editor so that I can point to the ignorance of those physicists who persist in saying that there is still no theory that can explain the proton-electron mass ratio.

Don’t forget Thomson

Writing in PHYSICS TODAY (November 1981, page 69), Victor F. Weisskopf tells the remarkable story of the development of field theory throughout the last 50 years. The triumph of Dirac’s quantum electrodynamics was, however, left in sharp contrast by the awesome remarks that “we have no explanation for the mass of the electron; that is, the smallness of the ratio (1/1836) between the electron mass and the proton mass” and “there is not the slightest indication why electrons with different masses should exist.” Here Weisskopf had in mind the normal electron, the tau-electron and the muon.

Forgotten, it seems, in these modern developments is the classical basis of electrodynamic theory developed by J. J. Thomson. Thomson gave a formula specifying the energy of the electron as 2e²/3a, where a is the radius within which its electric charge e is confined. He did not know about muons and antimatter, but it needs little imagination to write:

μ⁺ + μ^– = Q^o

where Q^o is an energy quantum formed from the mutual annihilation of a positive and negative muon. Adding energy to such a quantum could well produce a pair of Thomson-sized charges, including Q^–. Thus, for charges e and -e in touching relationship, the total energy, including that of the Coulomb interaction, is:

W = P⁺ + Q^– – e²/(x+y) ……… (1)

where P = 2e²/3x and Q = 2e²/3y.

Eliminating x and y:

W = P + Q – 3PQ/2(P+Q) ……… (2)

Given a background source of muon pairs and an amount of energy NP used to create N protons, we have N systems given by equation (2), NP constant and NW tending to a minimal value, for optimum stability. We can therefore differentiate W/P with respect to P to find its minimum. This occurs when:

P/Q = [(3/2)^1/2 – 1]^-1

and tells us that:

P = 1836 because Q = 2(mu) = 413

in electron mass-energy terms.

This is such a remarkably simple result based on the Thomson formula, that one really must exclaim, “Let us not forget the heritage he left us.”

Proton creation follows naturally from the existence of the dimuon energy quantum. Also remarkable is the fact that W is exactly half of the mass energy of the tau-electron (half of 1.782 GeV or 1743 electron units). Put P = 1836 and Q = 413 in equation (2) and W is 1743.

Such results cannot be fortuitous; bear in mind that the formal derivation of the proton-electron mass ratio using equation (2) in terms of a theoretical determination of Q gave 1836.1523. This was published in 1975 in a paper I coauthored [1] with D. M. Eagles of CSIRO in Australia. It antedates by eight years the measurement by Van Dyck, Moore and Schwinberg [2], which puts the ratio at 1836.152470(80). The discrepancy is one part in ten million, but even this is explicable from the basic theory as it stood in 1975, as I have recently shown [3]. Using the same Thomson formula, the muon-electron mass ratio of 206.7683 has also yielded to theoretical explanation at its one-in-a million level of measurement [4]. Classical electromagnetic theory can, therefore, be usefully combined with quantum electrodynamics to solve some of the mysteries of particle mass.

References

1. H. Aspden, D. M. Eagles, Nuovo Cimento 30A, p. 235 (1975).

2. R. S. Van Dyck Jr, F. L. Moore, P. B. Schwinberg, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., 28, p. 791 (1983).

3. H. Aspden, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 38, p. 423 (1983).

4. H. Aspden, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 38, p. 342 (1983).

THE ONWARD DEBATE

Again I remind readers that the full updated account of my proton theory plus related theory concerning many other fundamental particles is to be found in the published papers as reproduced in my book entitled: Aether Science Papers.

I come now to the points of debate which I am sure some readers will wish to raise.

Firstly, I have suggested above that J. J. Thomson long ago presented the correct formula relating the mass-energy, electric charge and the radius of the sphere bounding that electron charge. In short I am saying that I support the view that the electron has a finite volume.

I note also that, if J. J. Thomson had not presumed that the electron charge was all concentrated at the surface of that bounding sphere, his corresponding formula for electromagnetic mass would have given E=Mc² long before Einstein came on the scene. As it was, Thomson’s electromagnetic mass formula corresponds to E=(3/4)Mc². The true picture of the electron is that of a charge sphere in which the charge is so distributed within the sphere as to set up a uniform electric energy density inside the sphere. That gives the E=Mc² formula and is consistent with E being 2e²/3a.

It was, incidentally, on April 23, 1997 that I saw reported in the INTERFACE section of the British newspaper THE TIMES that a major discovery had been made concerning the electron. Scientist Ken Long was proposing that the electron is no longer a truly fundamental particle, but is believed to consist of smaller particles ‘which some people are already calling preons’. He stated “This might solve problems with the electron, such as the fact that it appears to have mass but no volume.”

Well, if physicists give themselves a problem because they think the electron is a point charge and then they seek a solution by saying the electron is composed of smaller particles, they are lost in a wonderland of their own making. I think it more important to begin with the findings of J. J. Thomson, the man who discovered the electron and keep faith with the belief that the electron must have a finite radius. That leads me to that 1836.152 proton/electron mass ratio and I am then ready to listen to the case, if there is one, supporting the view that the electron has to be a point charge. I hope that case is not just one relying on the quantum-electrodynamic numerology of Paul Dirac in explaining the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. If it is then, that makes my alternative explanation presented in my book Aether Science Papers all the more relevant.

Then there will be those who will tell me that the neutron accounts for an important and substantial part of the material universe and that matter is not all protons and electrons. Well, I can defend my case here, though I regard antiprotons and positrons as featuring also in the substance of our material world. The neutron is a short-lived particle form that emerges from certain nuclear processes. It does not exist inside stable matter, whatever your textbooks might have to say on the subject!

I can, for example, see no reason why two protons cannot sit on opposite sides of an electron, meaning that they are in touching surface contact with the charge sphere of the electron and that they sit on opposite sides of that electron because they repel one another but are held by attraction to the electron. What proven law of physics denies that as a possibility? I once was told that Earnshaw’s Law precluded such a possibility, but I dismissed that once I checked how that law was derived. It was based on the assumption that the charges were in a complete void, whereas they are set in a background continuum of other charge and that makes stable association possible.

Then again, who says stability is a key necessity? Why cannot a form of ‘stability’ exist where a system of particles changes states in a cyclic sequence, always recycling in the same manner so as to preserve certain characteristics such as the a steady mean mass, momentum, overall charge and so on?

Who says that, when an electron is moving at high speed, it is travelling alone? Why cannot the energy added as kinetic energy be deployed into the transient creation and decay of electron-positron pairs which keep company with the electron in motion?

It is only by exploring all such possibilities with a physically-real spherical charge form of the electron in mind that one can progress towards a better understanding of particle physics. However, one must take note of that major discovery of mine that the 1836.152 proton/electron mass ratio tells us how the proton is created from muons. One must see those muons as the primary energy source of the aether. Furthermore, one must then come to terms with that real aether and its properties.

At this point I will close this Lecture and will invite the reader to refer next to Lecture No. 24 in which I reproduce a version of an article of mine published in 1982 and entitled: The Ether – An Assessment’.

---

LECTURE NO. 19

TEC IV

THERMOMAGNETIC POWER GENERATION

---

In this Lecture we will show why it is that the heat generated in a transformer core can be regenerated as electricity, now relying on that experimental evidence presented in Lecture No. 18. In this Lecture 19 some further evidence will also be drawn from the author’s experimental research as reported in his Ph.D. thesis and in the author’s papers published in the Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. The prospect of exploiting such a regeneration phenomena is discussed and deemed viable.

INTRODUCTION

Once it is suspected that the heat generated by magnetization loss in a transformer has a way of regenerating electricity it is logical to look at the physics governing thermoelectricity. In the transformer we do not have current circuits involving junctions between two metals. This rules out the Peltier and Seebeck Effects. The Thomson Effect is one discovered and reported by Lord Kelvin (then Professor William Thomson) in 1855. He showed that an EMF can be set up within a metal simply by there being a temperature gradient in that metal. In the transformer lamination we have such a temperature gradient owing to need for the heat to find an exit path. However there is no circuital EMF such as is needed to enhance eddy current flow and so the Thomson Effect does not account for regeneration. At best, owing to the Thomson Effect, there is an electric potential difference as between the middle section of a lamination and its edges. What we seek is some connection in a metal between EMF or electric current and a temperature gradient. Such an effect was discovered by H.W. Nernst and A. von Ettinghausen, Wied. Ann., v. 29, p. 343; 1886. We shall refer to this as the Nernst Effect, taking note that there is a complementary phenomenon known as the Ettinghausen Effect, the latter being the setting up of a temperature difference in a metal in a direction mutually orthogonal to a magnetic field and a flow of current. The Nernst Effect is the reciprocal phenomenon, namely the production of an EMF in a direction mutually orthogonal with respect to a magnetic field and a flow of heat through that field consequential upon there being a temperature gradient. We have such a situation in the core of a transformer.

Here I should have said that we have such a situation in the magnetic domains existing within that transformer core, meaning within those domains which happen to have their magnetic polarizations suitably orientated. The action of the magnetic field is to cause the heat flow in the plane of a transformer core lamination to develop a Nernst EMF across the thickness of the lamination, thereby encouraging the eddy currents in that lamination to flow selectively through those domains which generate a supporting EMF.

Note my use of the word ‘generate’ because what we have here is nothing less than the generation of electricity from heat and the action is not related to temperature as an absolute measure, but rather the difference of temperature effective in promoting heat flow by thermal conduction in metal.

Our 20th century eddy current anomaly can be explained simply by taking account of the Nernst Effect, which dates from 1886. It is difficult to believe our ignorance of this as being the true cause accounting for the mysterious loss of billions of dollars worth of electricity every year in power transformers.

Simply stated, the Nernst Effect converts heat into electricity and is very efficient in that action. Indeed, the conversion efficiency can but be 100%. The only problem is that of tapping the electric power generated before it dissipates itself as eddy currents in the metal. It is no wonder that what we see in our power transformers is simply that, the anomalous generation of heat owing to the enhancement of the eddy current action.

In order to understand a little better what I have just described, consider the following Fig. 1.

This illustrates the cross-section of a steel lamination such as is used in a transformer. The transformer usually comprises large rectangular laminations stacked together but separated by an insulating coating to prevent the induced eddy currents from flowing from one lamination to an adjacent lamination, thereby restricting their effects to the thin metal section of each lamination. The EMF induced as the source of the power developing these parasitic currents is that set up by the rate of change of the magnetic flux local to that lamination.

So one must imagine that that flux is directed at right angles to the illustration of Fig. 1 and it really comprises the combined action of contributions by magnetic domains all polarized to a state of magnetic saturation in a preferred direction governed by the crystal structure of the steel. In practice the magnetic polarization will tend to be along one of the crystal axes that is closest to the plane of the lamination. For our purpose it suffices to depict two domain polarization states, one shown in pink which has its polarization directed in the same direction as the magnetic flux in the transformer core and one shown in pale green which has its polarization set in the opposite direction.

As the core flux increases the domain walls between domains shift so that, more and more, the red domain regions dominate and when the flux decreases the green domains grow until, at the point where the core flux reverses, they become the dominant domain species. However, while this is an ongoing process in the operation of a power transformer, those eddy currents are induced with a appropriate phase lag and these circuital eddy currents, shown as having rectangular flow paths duly reverse direction with an out-of-phase relationship relative to the transformer core polarization.

The key point I wish to make is that the magnetization losses associated with these eddy currents and the hysteresis of the core produce heat in the lamination and that heat, along with the current, is confined by that insulation between the laminations and obliged to flow laterally to get to the outside edges where the core interfaces with a cooling medium. Taking the shortest route, the main heat flow is lateral to the core magnetization direction and so is as shown in Fig. 1 and also in Fig. 2, which applies to the periods when the eddy currents have reversed direction.

The difference between Figs. 1 and 2 is the different current flow paths near the edges of the lamination. The currents take the paths of least resistance or rather the path of maximum forward EMF, because the heat is converted into an electrical action all the way along the flow path owing to the Nernst Effect interaction with those domains. The potentials developed at intermediate positions are acting against the insulation or are opposed to the induced EMFs that drive the eddy currents or they may aid eddy current flow but that only deploys heat locally. However, in the relevant magnetic domain type at the edges of the lamination the two actions invariably supplement one another to add impetus to the basic eddy current flow. There is then a cooling action adjacent the edges of the lamination as heat is deployed in that effort and the overall result is that far more current flows as eddy-current than one expects theoretically from calculation based on magnetic induction theory. The heat deployed by that cooling reappears as resistance loss in the central regions of the lamination. Hence there is what has been termed ‘the eddy current anomaly’.

Indeed, in a sense, here we see the room temperature action of what amounts to ‘warm superconductivity’ except that we do not see the ‘over-run’ condition where the thermally-induced EMF overtakes the potential drop associated with the normal resistance property which is still there in those so-called ‘warm superconductors’. However, the latter phenomenon is not dependent upon the Nernst Effect, but rather the simple phenomenon of magnetic induction preserving current flow when two electric charges of opposite polarity come into collision owing to their motion in opposite directions. The energy stored by induction prior to collision survives the collision and sets up the EMFs needed to restore the opposed motions of the charge after their collision. However, in the process the heat energy of the heavier ions, atoms and molecules, involved has been depleted and transferred to the magnetic induction state of the region surrounding the collision, only to be returned as the electrical drive power which keeps the current flow ongoing. I have discussed that subject elsewhere in these Web pages towards the end of Lecture No. 9 under the heading Supergravitons and Cold Fusion.

From a technological point of view the fact that transformers operate at normal ambient temperatures and exhibit the eddy current anomaly tells us that we should be able to develop energy converters which run on ambient heat to deliver electrical power. Conversion efficiencies are, it seems 100% in the ‘warm superconductor’, but we have yet to see that technology develop to become reliable at room temperature and it will need a leap beyond that to reach a margin of excess allowing some of the self-generating action can be tapped to deliver electrical power for useful purposes. One day we may perhaps see large induction coils composed of superconductors carrying a high current and, by cyclically altering the inductance, it could well become possible to take off electricity as the system cools to absorb ambient heat. That must remain a pipe dream at this time, but meanwhile one can take stock of the eddy current anomaly and what that may imply.

As will be understood by those familiar with the calculation of eddy current loss in transformers, the passage of the eddy currents through the very thin layer of metal section is the seat of heat generation by eddy current loss. One seeks to obstruct the current flow by using steel of high resistivity consistent with good magnetic properties and by making the laminations thin one can minimize the current flow and so contain such losses. However, remember that Nernst Effect and note that there is in excess of 20,000 gauss acting as a magnetic field strength in each magnetic domain. Therefore, the flow of heat through those domains will induce an EMF mutually orthogonal with respect to the direction of heat flow and the direction of magnetic polarization. Consider this and you will see that one domain type, say the green form illustrated will act in Fig. 1 to develop an EMF adjacent one edge, the right hand one shown, acting between the faces of the lamination but in a direction which opposes the flow of eddy currents, whereas the pink domains shown will develop an EMF which strengthens the flow of eddy currents.

The result of this is that, whatever be the momentary phase of the flux or the eddy currents, the Nernst Effect will always capture some of the heat flow that is trying to escape from the edges of the lamination and cause it to generate an EMF which strengthens the current. The current will always flow along the path where it is assisted rather than opposed.

Indeed, without knowing the Nernst coefficient of the metal forming the laminations or its composition and physical properties, such as resistivity, but knowing the eddy current anomalous loss factor, one can estimate the actual value of that coefficient. The Nernst Effect is quite difficult to measure under normal circumstances because one needs to set up a known temperature gradient in what is a good thermal conductor and, though an EMF can be measured under zero current flow conditions, it is the operating state where that Nernst EMF promotes current flow that one seeks to explore in measurements having a technological objective. The standard transformer affords the means of measurement, simply by virtue of the phenomenon of the eddy current anomaly.

The method is implicit in the numerical examples recorded in the preceding Lecture No. 18 entitled The Eddy Current Anomaly. Note that the wider the lamination, the greater the mass of steel generating the magnetization loss. This means that the heat generated will escape by conduction through the metal at a rate which sets a temperature gradient somewhat independent of the lamination width, but dependent, of course, on lamination thickness. As to the latter one presumes that the same steel lamination stock is used in transformers large and small, so the core thickness becomes the next parameter we need to consider. The larger this thickness, the more the number of laminations in a core stack. Now, the thicker the core, the greater the induced EMF which generates the eddy currents, the ratio being linear for a given core width. So, this width dimension, being that of the direction in which the thermoelectric Nernst EMF is developed, governs the magnitude of this EMF. It will increase pro rata with that core thickness. Therefore, the induced EMF responsible for the primary eddy current flow and that EMF added by the Nernst Effect will be in linear proportion. It follows that, regardless of the size of the transformer, the measurement of the eddy-current anomaly factor, meaning the ratio of the actual and theoretical eddy current loss components, will allow one to estimate the actual Nernst coefficient effective in the steel used in the transformer core.

What this means, of course, is that one cannot escape the consequences of the eddy-current anomaly by scaling up the size of a transformer. Conversely, if one contrives to find away of exploiting the phenomenon described to tap into the potential power output from that anomalous increment of EMF, the task will not be thwarted by incorporation in very large power generating units. The phenomenon can be used in the large scale implementations of the technology.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

To add further confirmation of this interpretation of the anomalous loss phenomenon, ask yourself what happens when a transformer core is d.c. biased, meaning that the magnetic polarization has displaced the hysteresis cycle towards core saturation. As mentioned in TEC III, if the bias is substantial, this will reduce hysteresis loss for a magnetization cycle having the same flux density range. However, if the flux change occurs at the same frequency and the voltage waveform is sinusoidal in form, there should, by standard teaching, be no change in the theoretical eddy current loss. Yet, what we have done is to set up a higher proportion of magnetic domains with their magnetic polarization in one direction than applies in the opposite direction. This reduces the scope for the Nernst Effect to be active in enhancing the bidirectional oscillation of those eddy currents and it will reduce the anomaly. In short, we should expect tests such as are confined to regions near magnetic saturation of the core to show very little anomaly.

This also means that even during the normal magnetization cycle, with no polarizing bias applied to the core, there will be strong enhancement of eddy current flow when the flux density is of low value but much reduced enhancement at high flux densities. Tests expressly conducted to see how the anomaly factor varies instantaneously as we progress around the whole of the B-H loop of the core should confirm this, if the Nernst Effect interpretation is correct.

I am able to report such confirmation because I made those tests long before I came to realize that it was the Nernst Effect that was causing the problem. The following Fig. 3 was in my paper entitled ‘An Investigation of the Eddy-current Anomaly in a Low Silicon Sheet Steel’, Proc. I.E.E., vol. 104C, pp. 2-7 (1957).

I had devised a technique for measuring the instantaneous loss anomaly factor arising at different parts of the normal B-H magnetization loop. Fig. 3 shows the mean loss anomaly factor, such as one would find by normal measurements. Thus the sample tested had a mean loss anomaly factor of the order of 1.5, but this reduced for magnetization over a cycle that ranged between the higher flux densities. That is shown by the broken curve.

The full line curve, however, shows how the loss anomaly factor varied as the flux density climbed during the magnetization cycle. It dropped virtually to the zero anomaly level over the upper flux range where all the magnetic domains are polarized in a common direction.

The technique of measurement used for this purpose depended upon knowledge of the effective incremental permeability over the selected range, the sector selected for test having substantially linear permeability. However, the measurement of that permeability value had to be based on the analysis of the static hysteresis loop, meaning the B-H loop measured by fluxmeter tests at zero frequency rather than one involving a.c. activation. Assuming discrepancy between the measured permeability and that effective owing to a.c. excitation, it was appropriate to estimate a worst case scenario, one, however, which just cannot possibly prevail, just to see if it was at all possible to escape the evidence of that loss anomaly. That worst case adjustment is indicated by the arrows and the findings were clear that there was just no way of avoiding the acceptance of a significant anomalous energy loss. The eddy current anomaly is not something that is fortuitous in the sense that it can be attributed as a consequence of misinterpretation of the measurement data.

When an entirely different method of measurement was tried, one reported in my paper entitled ‘The Eddy-Current Anomaly in Electrical Sheet Steel, Proc. I.E.E., vol. 103C, pp. 279-285 (1956), in this case restricting the measurement to instantaneous rate of loss as the magnetic flux traversed to zero flux density state in the B-H loop cycle, some quite substantial anomaly factors were measured.

A typical result, taken from Table I of that paper, applies to Superstalloy laminations having 4.3 Si composition, a lamination thickness of 0.309 mm and a specific resistivity of 59 microhm-cm. It was found that the instantaneous anomaly factor effective at zero B flux density was 4.81 when the B-H loop ranged up to a maximum flux density of 6,775 gauss, 5.22 for a loop having a maximum flux density of 10,250 gauss and 5.03 for one having a maximum flux density of 13,550 gauss.

An entirely different set of tests were performed on solid steel cores where higher frequencies were used to confine the cyclic magnetization to surface layers of the test specimen. These were based on the eddy current effects affecting the phase angle of the magnetizing current in relation to voltage. The action is tantamount to a time-lag effect which affects that phase angle. The hypothesis I was exploring was that hysteresis loss involves transient adjustment of magnetic flux as domain boundary walls move in abrupt steps when there is instability. I reasoned that, if the magnetizing current were to increase so fast that those transient adjustments did not occur at the trigger level of that current, as applied to the zero-frequency B-H magnetization cycle, then there would be added loss. It would, in effect, be a dynamic hysteresis loss, and I wondered if this could be the true cause of the eddy current anomaly.

So I did experiments with that in mind and the results are to be found in my paper Magnetic Time-Lag Effects in Solid Steel Cores, Proc. I.E.E., vol. 103C, pp. 272-278 (1956). Note that the measurements of such a time-lag effect do not tell us whether there is, in fact, a retardation in the magnetization process or whether there is an increase of eddy-currents owing to a reduction of electrical resistivity. Certainly, the thermoelectric effect discussed above should still be of consequence in tests using solid cylindrical steel cores, because the heat escapes radially and the currents flow circumferentially, with magnetic flux polarization being longitudinal. There was no doubt that the time-lags recorded were commensurate with those applicable to laminar core tests, but one vital fact did emerge. The time-lag reduced virtually to the minimal no-anomaly level when the core was polarized close to saturation, though still subject to sufficient oscillatory flux change for eddy-currents to be measurable and of significance.

In summary, my experimental research on the eddy-current anomaly gave results all of which were consistent with the thermoelectric regeneration interpretation, the interpretation which goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics as having an governing influence upon the heat to electricity conversion.

THE ONWARD IMPLICATIONS

With such knowledge the question now confronting me is how I can exploit the action I see at work in the standard power transformer core to tap into that Nernst Effect power before the energy is lost in those eddy currents.

At this stage it helps to do some quantitative evaluation. The suggestion is that the EMF set up across a flow path equal to the thickness of a sheet steel lamination (0.3mm) is sufficient to overwhelm the EMF set up around the whole eddy current circuital flow path in that transformer. The latter can easily be of the order of 0.05 volt in a moderately large power transformer. One then sees that the Nernst EMF per cm induced in that lamination has to be of the order of volts per cm and, taking the Nernst coefficient of iron at 10,000 gauss as 10.5 volts per cm, per degree C per cm, this really tells us that a temperature gradient of 0.1^oC/cm will suffice to account for the eddy current anomaly factors observed. The magnetization loss need only be a few milliwatts per cc to sustain such a temperature gradient, which is consistent with the specification of loss properties of electrical sheet steel. Accordingly the theory does have quantitative support.

Before proceeding I will here comment on my objective in drawing attention to this topic. I believe one could build a solid-state device which will tap the thermal energy of the background environment and provide cooling in combination with electrical power generation. If we can do this we have breached the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

We are in these Web pages exclusively concerned with the physics which has eluded the scientific community at large. If what is presented here were merely a repetition of accepted knowledge as taught in academic institutions, the author would be enjoying his retirement in other ways, rather than striving to attract attention to what is here disclosed. It is a very daring pursuit to try to convince scientists in general that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be breached to our advantage, but it is even more daring to declare that we can derive our power needs from the energy of the environment or that of the aether.

I am all too aware of the words of Sir Arthur Eddington which I have seen quoted on page 639 of the book ‘The Anthropic Cosmological Principle’ by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, as first published by Oxford University Press in 1986 and reissued in 1996:

“The law that entropy always increases – the Second Law of Thermodynamics – holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of physics. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do bungle things from time to time. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

I am now going to show why these words of Eddington should be ignored, but first I will quote one other item from that book just mentioned. It appears in the Introduction on page 5:

“The Holy Grail of modern physics is to explain why these numerical constants – quantities like the ratio of the proton and electron masses for example – have the particular numerical values they do. Although there has been significant progress towards this goal during the last few years we still have far to go in this quest.”

Let me now ask you, the reader, a question. Suppose you set off in search of that Holy Grail. How do you proceed? There are only two routes to follow. Either you say that all the protons in the universe were created in the early phases of the hypothetical Big Bang which marked the beginning of time or you can imagine that protons are being created even now throughout the universe, but only where energy has been shed by proton decay. This presumes that there is a regenerative process, involving, as ever, conservation of energy, but nevertheless a process that can be regulated by physical principles based on what can be measured in the laboratory. You see, you need to understand how a proton is created before you can deduce its mass. All protons are the same. It is as if they come from a common mould and understanding that mould is the secret of that Holy Grail.

If you read that book by Barrow and Tipler, you will learn nothing about Creation, because, as they declare in that quotation from page 5, they do not know how protons are created and yet protons account for 99.9% of the mass of the universe. On the other hand if you read my 1980 book Physics Unified, published six years before that book by Barrow and Tipler, you will see how protons are created and be able to calculate the proton/electron mass ratio. You will see that the theoretical value is slightly greater than 1836.152, which is also its measured value. Further you will see that this explanation of the creation of matter in the form of the proton, was published in the scientific literature five years before that, in 1975. So if you go in search of that Holy Grail all you need to do is to obtain a copy of my book or just look elsewhere in these Web pages, starting with the Tutorial section.

My point in saying this is to stress that it is illogical for physicists to try to understand how matter is created unless they are prepared to accept the regenerative energy process. Energy shed into space in that ever-increasing entropy process has a way of joining in a quantum dance and packaging itself into a form that can materialize to produce protons.

From this position it seems a trivial exercise to argue against the Eddington proposition that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is sacrosanct. Let us therefore now come back to that lesser task, the prospect of building a solid-state device that can cool and generate electricity by tapping the energy of heat in our environment.

THE THERMOELECTRIC CIRCUIT

Consider what happens when an electric current flows around a circuit formed by connecting two wires, each of a different metal, say nickel and aluminium, with the two junctions maintained at different temperatures. We do not need an electrical power supply to set up this current flow. That temperature difference is sufficient.

It is found that the current will flow from the nickel wire to the aluminium wire at the hot junction and from the aluminium wire to the nickel wire at the cold junction. This phenomenon is known as the Seebeck Effect, discovered in 1826, though at that early date the nickel-aluminium combination was not in Seebeck’s list. The heat drives the current. In other words heat is converted into electricity. Now, how efficient is this process?

Well, here we have a problem, because what is happening at the hot junction is a cooling process and that means that the temperature over the restricted interface where the current crosses the junction is substantially reduced. Indeed, it must be well below the temperature of the heat source applied to that junction, because with reduction of temperature these two metals develop an increased conductivity and this can become confined to spot regions owing to the current flow escalating its concentration into those regions. However, whatever the actual spot temperature at the point of junction crossing, it is heat at that temperature that is converted into electricity.

Now, quite obviously, this has to be conversion at 100% efficiency. Heat becomes electricity and if this process were inefficient all that would mean is that there would be some heat produced to augment the heat supplied. Conservation of energy means 100% conservation as between heat and electricity.

There is, of course, something happening at the cold junction, but my concern here is the part of the circuit on the left hand side of Fig. 4.

Here I show two metal interfaces or junctions and ask you to look at that left portion of the circuit, the hot junction, from the viewpoint of those two different metals. Owing to the local temperature at that junction there is a voltage V across the interface and a current I flows. It is d.c. current and so the electrical power flow across that interface is VI. I say that VI is 100% of the heat extracted from the thermal state of that hot junction between the two metals.

I well realize that an overall assessment of the energy conversion efficiency of the circuit needs to allow for some heat loss owing to thermal conduction through the metal, but that need not be too great. What is important is the fact that that voltage generated cannot supply its energy to a normal load such as a resistor. It must, owing to the configuration using two metals, pass that current through the junction from aluminium to nickel, where it converts electricity back into heat and does so with 100% efficiency.

In that process the cold junction will not demand as much electricity as is generated at the hot junction, because it has a lower temperature. Its V value is lower, lower in proportion to absolute temperature. Now, if the EMF acting between the different metals is proportional to the absolute temperature of the junction temperature then the Seebeck Effect cannot convert heat to electricity with an efficiency exceeding the Carnot factor, namely the difference of the two temperatures as divided by the one of higher value, the latter being expressed in absolute units.

With the Nernst Effect that we discussed with our transformer eddy-current anomaly in mind there is no opposing EMF in the circuit other than that attributable to the load. In other words, apart from a little loss owing to circuit resistance, the heat deployed is all active in generating useful electrical power. It is just that in the context of eddy currents in the power transformer there is no ‘load’ as such other than that circuit resistance, which is why the regenerative feature presents itself as the enhanced loss which is known as ‘the eddy current anomaly’.

Now at this point I shall conclude this Lecture. I have contended that there is in every electrical power transformer a manifestation of an anomalous energy phenomenon which, if properly interpreted, tells us that low grade heat, meaning heat at ambient temperatures driven by a temperature differential of 10 or so degrees C, is being converted back into electricity with remarkable efficiency. That efficiency is such that one can contemplate harnessing the phenomenon to advantage, By building a conventional reverse heat engine, a heat pump, and running it back-to-back with an energy converter harnessing such principles it seems economically feasible, indeed highly feasible, to expect to be able to harness heat extracted from our environment at its ambient temperature and generate useful electrical power.

My hope is that those having the resources needed to fabricate laminar metal assemblies based on bonded core structures for use in a modified type of transformer will show interest in this prospect and take up this proposition. I shall enlarge on this theme as I add to these Web pages.

---

---

LECTURE NO. 18

TEC III

The Eddy Current Loss Anomaly

---

This is the third item presented under the heading ‘Thermoelectric Energy Conversion’ (TEC). Press TEC I or TEC II to see those earlier chapters on this subject.

INTRODUCTION

There is a sound basis for thinking that we should be able to extract electrical power from the heat of our environment, notwithstanding the fact that this would be a breach of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This TEC III chapter is an introduction showing why it is that the author expects to succeed in this effort. It will be shown that a recognized anomalous loss condition that affects all electrical power distribution systems worldwide, once understood as arising from that breach of the Second Law of Electrodynamics, can point the way towards a future avoiding further pollution by the existing energy generation methods.

Transformers are used in several stages to adjust the voltage of electrical power as it is transmitted from the generators to the ultimate user. All of those power transformers generate heat owing to what are called ‘magnetization losses’. Those losses cannot be avoided. The transformers are designed to keep them at a minimal level and, commercially, they are a tolerable overhead in the economics of power distribution. However, what is not general known, even by many electrical engineering professionals in academic institutions is the fact that there is a significant proportion of that loss that defies explanation. The problem was highlighted in 1936 by Dr. F. C. Dannatt (Journal I.E.E., p. 667; 1936) who measured the loss in various steel stampings as used in the assembly of transformers. The component of loss attributable to what are called eddy-currents, meaning the parasitic currents induced internally within each lamination forming the transformer core was found to be as much as 3.5 times greater than it should be according to electrical teaching.

Yet the teaching is not wrong. It relies on proven principles of electrical science. The electrical EMFs induced in those laminations are no different from those induced in the winding turns of the transformer and, since the resistivity of the material of those laminations is known, the electrical loss is a quantity that can be calculated with the same confidence as applies to standard electrical circuit design. Yet, for some mysterious reason, there is that threefold increase in the eddy current loss.

Indeed, Dannatt reported measurements on several sample materials of different resistivities, different mass densities and widely different thickness, ranging from 0.052 mm to 0.354 mm and found that the eddy current anomaly factor ranged from 2.8 to 3.5, that factor being the ratio of actual eddy current loss to its theoretical value as determined by the design principles we are taught as part of our professional electrical engineering education.

Onward research to explore this phenomenon and solve its secrets seems not to have attracted physicists as a worthy pursuit, with the result that six decades on from the publication of that paper by Dannatt I can survey the subject as if it were virgin territory. As you will see there is much to learn about this mystery energy loss of power that silently and unobtrusively disposes of billions of dollars worth of electricity every year, without our having understood why that happens.

Now I do have a special interest in the subject. I heard about it in 1947 and, after graduating from my Electrical Engineering studies in 1948, but during a period of onward practical training in the heavy electrical industry in U.K., I resolved to seek the chance to research that theme. In 1949, during that training period, I wrote a thesis in support of my application for a research scholarship with that anomalous loss problem in mind. My proposal in that thesis was a new method of measuring hysteresis loss by a technique which was not dissimilar from what is known today as an application of the fast Fourier transform. My aim was to analyze the waveform of the magnetic flux in the transformer core to achieve the rapid measurement of the hysteresis component of loss and track how the separate loss components varied during the cycle of a.c. magnetization.

I began my Ph.D. research on the eddy current anomaly at Cambridge in 1950 and spent three years on experiments probing all aspects of the problem that I could think of. Some of my tests revealed anomaly factors as high as 6 applicable during parts of the magnetization cycle. By this I mean that calculation of the instantaneous power dissipated as eddy current loss, as determined at different stages in the cycle of magnetization, was only one sixth of the corresponding measure of that form of power loss at that same instant.

Now I say here that I probed all aspects of the problem that I could think of at the time, but I confess, in retrospect, that there was one aspect that I should have thought of but didn’t. It never occurred to me that the heat being generated as loss could regenerate itself as electricity in a way which augments the EMFs driving the eddy currents. Had I thought of that possibility, I would in all probability have dismissed it immediately from my mind, because it would have involved challenging the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, I am, I believe, now a wiser being and I will here redeem myself by surveying the evidence which supports that contention.

I cannot claim that the resolution of the mystery of the eddy-current anomaly will save that loss of billions of dollars of electrical power in future transformer design technology. All we can do is to accept the loss, but come to know full well how that loss arises. However, inasmuch as uncovering the secret tells us how to deploy environmental heat to generate electricity, there is promise here of something even more rewarding.

REGENERATION EFFICIENCY

To proceed, let us presume that a proportion of the heat generated as magnetization loss does find its way back into electrical power which drives stronger eddy currents and so increases that loss. On this basis we shall consider what clues this offers based on different operating factors, namely different excitation frequency, different ratios of hysteresis and eddy current loss and different flux bias conditions of the transformer core. Then we will compare what the hypothesis tells us and what is actually observed. With the hypothesis fully supported we shall then, after making a few comparisons with Carnot efficiency considerations, move on to explain the physical cause of the phenomenon.

Note that magnetization loss comprises two components, the hysteresis loss which transformer designers regard as increasing linearly with frequency and eddy-current loss which increases as the square of frequency. Thus, since 60 Hz is the standard power frequency used in USA and 50 Hz is the U.K. power frequency, the eddy-current anomaly is a more serious issue for U.S. power generators. Even so, the research interest in the subject seems to have been essentially a mid-century pursuit in U.K. and if there has been significant interest elsewhere or in more recent times I would appreciate being guided to references to that information.

Transformers are designed based on an optimum choice of electrical sheet steel. The choice of material determines the hysteresis loss for the standard operating condition of the core, the appropriate maximum magnetic flux range that gives high permeability, and determines the electrical resistivity, which is preferably high and usually some 5 or so times that of pure iron. Given the resistivity, the thickness of the steel laminations is the factor which determines the eddy-current loss for the chosen operating conditions. The smaller that thickness, the less the loss, at least in theory. However, there is the extra cost of the material and assembly if the sheet steel used is too thin and, considered with the hysteresis loss, there is little to be gained in designing for minimal eddy-current loss if that leaves hysteresis as too dominant a component. Accordingly one finds that these two components are much the same at 50 Hz or 60 Hz when electrical sheet steels of the order of 0.3 mm thickness are used.

Experimentally, one can distinguish between hysteresis loss and eddy current loss by measuring overall magnetization loss at two different frequencies but with the strength of the magnetizing voltage in proportion to assure that the range of flux density is kept the same. One needs to allow for losses arising from current flow through the resistance of the magnetizing winding and exclude these from the measurement. Then, by dividing the rate of loss by frequency, the plot of the increment with frequency, when extrapolated back to the origin gives the hysteresis component and the increment with frequency represents the eddy current component. See Fig. 1.

This figure has a straight line relationship corresponding to the theoretical notion that hysteresis loss per cycle of a.c. oscillation is constant for a given range of magnetization flux change in the iron of the magnetized core, whereas eddy-current loss increases with frequency squared and so the loss per cycle is a linear increase. However, in practice, one finds that the loss per cycle relationship increases as a curved relationship, the rate of rise being far more rapid at lower frequencies and then looking more linear as the frequency reaches 50 Hz, but always exceeding the theoretical eddy-current component by a quite substantial factor.

To understand this, consider now the situation where, for a given core sample, the hysteresis loss under 50 Hz operating conditions is 1 watt and, in theory, the eddy-current loss is 0.5 watt, whereas in practice the eddy-current loss is actually 1 watt. We can interpret this as meaning that 25% of the heat actually generated has found its back into regenerated electricity which augments the EMF driving the eddy currents. Here the anomaly factor is 2.

Let us now work out how this would affect tests at 25 Hz, for the same range of the magnetic flux cycle. The hysteresis loss would be 0.5 watt and the theoretical eddy current loss would be 0.125 watt. However, using a little algebra you can work out that the actual eddy current loss would be 0.333 watt, giving an anomaly factor of 2.67. This gives overall heating in the core of 0.833 watt and if 25% of this is regenerated to feed it back as additional eddy current input power this adds 0.208 watt to 0.125 watt to give that 0.333 watt figure. You see, therefore, that the anomaly loss factor has increased as frequency has been reduced. Here is the first point that we can test to see if the regeneration theory holds up.

Repeat this for 10 Hz conditions, where hysteresis loss is 0.2 watt and eddy current loss is, theoretically, 0.020 watt and one obtains an eddy current anomaly factor of 4.65. To verify this, note that the heat generated in the core is 0.293 watt and 25% of this is 0.073 watt, which together with 0.020 watt is 0.093 watt or 4.65 times 0.20 watt. In reducing the frequency from 50 Hz to 10 Hz the loss anomaly factor has increased from 2.00 to 4.65.

Next, let us see what happens if we have a core sample in which at 50 Hz the hysteresis loss is as much as four times the theoretical eddy current loss. We are considering here an electrical sheet steel that is magnetized cross-wise to the rolling direction used in its fabrication. This does not take advantage of the optimum magnetic permeability which is higher for magnetization aligned with the direction in which the steel sheet has been rolled during its fabrication.

This circumstance is a laboratory test situation, rather than one of practical significance to transformer design, but it does have practical significance where steel stampings are used to form rotors and stators of electric motors. Magnetic flux in the stampings used to form such motor components can flow in all directions parallel to the plane of the steel sheet, varying as the motor operates and, of course, there can be a whole spectrum of frequency conditions as the motor speed is varied. Here, we can contemplate very high eddy current anomaly factors. Using a 2 watt figure for hysteresis loss and 0.5 watt for theoretical eddy current loss, if 25% of the heat generated is regenerated as an supplementary electrical input, then the resulting eddy current anomaly factor is 2.67. The reason is that the heat generated is 2.00 watt from hysteresis and 1.33 watts from eddy currents and 25% of 3.33 is 0.83, which together with 0.5, sums to 1.33. In short, that anomaly figure of 2.67, which is quite representative of the Dannatt measurements already mentioned is consistent with observation, even where hysteresis loss is fairly high.

Note, however, that Dannatt was not making measurements across the grain determined by the rolling direction of the steel and consider what would be the outcome of the latter calculation had two-thirds of the heat energy been regenerated as added eddy current loss. You will see that this implies an eddy current anomaly factor of 11, because a 2 watt hysteresis plus 5.5 watt of eddy current sums to 7.5 watt and if two-thirds of this heat is regenerated this adds 5 watt to the 2.5 watt input to give that 7.5 watt figure. If, therefore, we can show evidence supporting such a high eddy current anomaly factor, then we can infer regeneration of heat as electricity with a 67% efficiency.

Consider what that would mean, bearing in mind that a transformer core operates at temperatures ranging only over a few per cent as measured on the Kelvin scale. Compared with the Carnot efficiency limit set by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we would have here a clear breach of that law. We could, if we knew how to exploit the phenomenon, convert heat into electricity and use that electricity, not to drive more eddy currents which waste energy, but rather to power a conventional heat pump working according to Carnot principles. Using only a portion of the electricity generated from heat we could pump heat to the higher temperature needed to set up the temperature gradient which powers that eddy current anomaly in the transformer. We would have the ultimate clean energy source of power. Environmental heat, which exists in abundance, consumed to generate electricity needed to run our machines and light our homes before reverting to heat shed back to the environment. It may seem impossible, but you can be sure that there are surprises ahead in the technology of the future, provided we come to understand how Nature processes energy fed into the magnetic fields which we inhabit as part of our natural environment.

Now let us suppose we have a way of testing the steel under conditions of very small hysteresis loss. How might this affect the anomaly factor? Logic says that less heat will be generated so that the eddy-current anomaly will not involve more than the feedback from the eddy current heating. That 66.7% feedback figure would indicate an anomaly factor of 3.00, which is in the range measured by Dannatt. However, we can suggest doing eddy current tests over a small range of magnetization but one confined to regions well above the knee of the B-H curve. When iron is magnetized its flux density increases rapidly and somewhat linearly as magnetizing current increases, until a point is reached at the knee of the magnetization curve. Thereafter the rate of increase reduces as it becomes progressively more difficult to increase the polarization. The reason for this is that the iron contains domain regions separated by domain boundary walls. As the walls move they increase the size of one domain and reduce the size of the adjacent domain. These domains are fully magnetized in opposite directions and all we see as net flux in the magnetic core is the difference in the flux contribution of all the domains. However, in the passage of those domain walls across inclusions (impurities) in the iron and in the flipping of the flux direction that occurs as the domains adjust to the change of magnetizing conditions, there are instabilities which we can detect as ‘Barkhausen’ noise. These are the source of hysteresis loss. The loss is a linear function of the number of cycles of magnetization and not a function of how fast we increase the magnetizing current.

For this reason the hysteresis loss begins to tail off once the cycle of magnetization is biased so as to be confined to regions where those instabilities cease to occur. Above the knee of the magnetization curve flux changes occur in a more controlled way as the magnetization direction in a domain is forced to orientate itself in a direction angularly displaced from the preferred axial direction in the crystal housing the domain. The result is that rotational hysteresis at very high flux density drops to zero. The eddy current anomaly factor should be much reduced, therefore, for tests well above the knee of the magnetization curve, but there is some telling evidence that appears once such tests are performed, as I shall report as we proceed.

So, we must now pay attention to those numerical factors which are a measure of the eddy current anomaly observed in electrical sheet steels. If the evidence supports what has been said above about the regeneration of heat as electricity then we can hope to move in the direction of that new energy technology.

THE EVIDENCE

In a book entitled Principles of Electromagnetism, 3rd Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1955 by E.B. Moullin, the eddy current anomaly is discussed in Appendix II at pp. 285-286. The following is a quotation from that work:

“It is as though the effective resistivity is about one-third of its true value. Now alloying and impurities always increase the resistivity; one cannot countenance any explanation which depends on the significance of decrease of resistivity. Whatever the cause of the effect may be it is certainly not due to the resistivity being much less than the value measured by a straightforward conductivity test.”

Here was the verdict of the Professor heading the Department of Electrical Engineering in Cambridge in 1955. I was awarded my Cambridge Ph.D. on the eddy current anomaly in 1954. It had not entered my mind that the resistivity of the electrical sheet steel could be lowered artificially by some means peculiar to the magnetization process or from heat generation, which Professor Moullin could have declared also as something which increases resistivity. So how did Professor Moullin conclude his discourse on the subject?

He wrote:

“For some obscure reason the currents must be larger than we have calculated and, in some obscure manner, this must be brought about by the distortion of the wave-form caused by the hysteresis loop. Dr. Brailsford has made an important contribution towards the solution of the problem (see Journal I.E.E., vol. 95, Part II, p. 38; 1948), but the answer is not yet known. We do not propose to discuss here the possible mechanisms for the effect. It will suffice to report its existence to the reader and to impress on him that there is a loss in iron stampings which varies as frequency squared and whose magnitude is some two or three times the legitimate eddy current loss, appropriate to conditions when the effect of imperfect penetration is certainly negligible.”

I may add here that one of the aspects I had considered in my research was the possibility that the hysteresis loss could increase with frequency squared if the domain switching involved retardation. A time-lag effect in the magnetization process would show itself with much the same signature as an eddy current loss. Also, there was the prospect that the inhomogeneities in the steel attributable to domains having sizes commensurate with the thickness of the laminations could explain some measure of increased eddy current loss. For example, in the extreme case of a single domain boundary wall parallel with the plane of the lamination and located midway across its thickness, the full measure of flux change produced by magnetization would be effective from the central plane and that could even explain that anomaly factor of 3.00. However, such ideal domain structures do not exist in reality, so one must rule out that possibility.

The only other textbook discussion of the anomaly that has come to my attention is that in a 1966 book by Brailsford who by then had become Professor of Electrical Engineering in the University of London. These were the days, incidentally, when a professor at a British university was normally ‘the professor’, meaning the leading person in the relevant academic discipline. Brailsford’s book was entitled The Principles of Magnetism, published by Van Nostrand, (London, Toronto, New York and Princeton). Professor Brailsford had been one of the External Examiners of my Ph.D. thesis.

His verdict on the anomaly, as stated in his book, was that ” its origin is a matter of speculation”, a statement made by reference to his paper co-authored with R. Fogg and entitled ‘Anomalous iron losses in cold-reduced, grain-oriented transformer steel’, which appeared in Proc. I.E.E., v. 111, p. 1463 (1964).

Brailsford’s book, together with my own thesis record, provides the essential evidence I need here to support the case developed above. He refers to an interpretation by E.W. Lee entitled ‘Eddy-current losses in thin ferromagnetic sheets’ which appeared in Proc. I.E.E., v. 105C, p. 337 (1958). Lee had calculated the anomaly factor on the assumption that there were large domains spreading between both faces of the sheet lamination and that the planes of domain walls were at right angles to the sheet surface. Then, according to the ratio of domain width to lamination thickness it could be argued that the eddy current anomaly factor could increase, possibly to value of 10 or so. However, Brailsford dismisses this on page 240 of his book with the words: “It seems difficult to explain the observed results on this basis, for the domain widths would need to be two or more times the sheet thickness to obtain value of anomaly factor greater than 3, say, and the domains do not in fact appear to be as large as this.”

He then goes on to say: “It is also necessary to explain the increase in anomaly factor with decreasing frequency, particularly for frequencies below about 10 Hz and also the large variation of the factor with direction in the sheet. The loss mechanism operating does not, indeed, appear to be well understood.”

So one sees that, some 32 years ago, which was then some 11 years on from the date of Professor Moullin’s book, the verdict remained the same. Indeed, the mystery still prevails and awaits solution. However, compare Brailsford’s words with what I deduced above. I offered an explanation of the increased anomaly factor at lower frequency and, using the same argument, I said that magnetization across the grain of the steel could lead to higher hysteresis loss which would produce very much greater anomaly factors. On page 239 of his book Brailsford presented data showing how the anomaly factor in a grain-oriented material varied with direction of magnetization related to the direction in which the steel had been rolled. It was as high as 10 over a full range of flux amplitudes when the angle was 90^o. It was between 6 and 8 for angles between 25^o and 54^o and it was between 3 and 3.5 or so for magnetization along the intended 0^o direction.

So here is the evidence supporting my case that the eddy current anomaly is attributable to an effective reduction of resistivity brought about by heat being regenerated to produce EMFs which augment the current flow. This is effectively an action that reduces resistivity, though in reality the resistivity remains the same and we have heating in full measure along current paths parallel to the lamination surface but very substantial cooling at the seat of the regenerative action, which I see as being traversal flow paths across the thickness of the lamination. I will explain this in detail in the next Chapter of this pursuit TEC IV

I note that I have, in the above commentary, deliberately not brought to bear the further evidence I can offer from a new analysis of my thesis findings based on the thermoelectric regeneration proposition. I will hope to introduce that evidence as we develop this theme further in these Web pages, but I feel the reader will find more immediate interest in the development of the discussion the TEC IV chapter.

---