Words
6284
Reading
28 min
Listen
Play
3M
This was especially the case for those who were working on the
multi-billion dollar program in thermonuclear fusion. The
funding for hot fusion - always shaky anyway - was instantly
threatened by the potential shifting of funding away from hot
fusion, to the then unresolved question of "cold fusion."
Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions" (LENR) is now
more generically applied to the host of reactions that occur within
and/or on the surface of certain metals when in contact with forms
of hydrogen - such as hydrogen gas, or water, which of course contains
hydrogen - and when triggered under special conditions. LENR reactions
produce excess heat (much more heat out than can be accounted
for by ordinary chemical reactions), helium, sometimes tritium (a
radioactive isotope of hydrogen), low levels of neutrons, charged
particles, gamma rays, and even transmutations in heavy metals in
the LENR devices. In some experiments parts of the host metal has
been significantly transmuted into other elements - it is as though
"alchemy" has risen from the grave of scientific history! From our
perspective in examining the overwhelming evidence for low-energy
transmutation of elements in "cold fusion" reactions, it most
certainly has! LENR reactions have been seen with palladium,
titanium, nickel, platinum, gold, other metals, and with some
ceramic materials. [Back to
Top]
What sources of information can I
access about cold fusion?
[...] Two primary websites that focus specifically
on cold fusion/LENR should be consulted:http://www.lenr-canr.org/
http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
The website of BlackLight Power Corporation
(http://www.blacklightpowoer.com/)
does not like to advertise that the company’s highly reproducible
New Energy generating processes from hydrogen bear a strong
connection to cold fusion/LENR phenomena. But any serious
investigation of cold fusion/LENR should not overlook this
remarkable work.
Some books accessible to the general reader,
which give appropriate discussion of the history and science
of cold fusion:
Fire
from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion
Furor by
Dr. Eugene F. Mallove (1991, John Wiley and Sons)
Nuclear
Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion by
Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno (1999, Infinite Energy Press)
Excess
Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed by
Charles Beaudette (2000, Oak Grove Press)
Books giving inappropriate, highly
negatively biased views, which ignore almost all of the
experimental evidence: Too Hot to Handle (Frank Close, 1991);
Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century (John
Huizenga, 1992); Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of
Cold Fusion (Gary Taubes, 1993)
An excellent video documentary made in 1999
(VHS tape, 70 minutes), "Cold
Fusion: Fire from Water" [Back to
Top]
What is excess heat?
Many chemical and nuclear processes are
"exothermic," meaning they produce more energy out than is input.
For example, when you strike a match, it burns until the fuel is
exhausted, producing energy - small energy in (from the striking
motion), large energy out. Some LENR devices produce energy the way
a burning match does: no energy is input after an initiation
trigger, but a steady stream of heat is produced. Other LENR devices
require an external source of electrical energy, or ultrasonic sound
energy, to keep the reaction going. The electrical or other energy
input into the system produces some heat, and the LENR reaction
produces additional or "excess" heat. For example, with
electrochemical cold fusion you might input 1 watt of power and get
out 3 watts, so 2 watts are excess. Some electrochemical LENR
systems get much better performance than this; input is a fraction
of a watt and output is up to a kilowatt or more for a time. More
commonly, LENR performance has not been nearly that good. The
conditions that produce such excellent performance have not been
easy to pin down - if they had been, the cold fusion controversy
would have been over long ago! [Back to
Top]
Is cold fusion chemical, nuclear, or
something else? Cold fusion (LENR)
cannot be a simple chemical process, because it consumes no ordinary
chemical fuel and it produces no chemical ash - nuclear products
are observed. Many LENR cells contain mostly water, which is
inert material that cannot burn or undergo any other exothermic
chemical reaction. Cells also contain metal hydrides, which can
produce a small amount of chemical heat, but cold fusion cells have
produced thousands to millions of times more energy per unit of mass
than any chemical cell could. For example, a cell containing 40
milligrams (0.04 grams) of metal hydride, and no other potential
chemical fuel, produced 86 megajoules of energy over a two month
period. The best conventional chemical fuel is gasoline; only a few
exotic rocket fuels produce more energy per gram than gasoline, and
they are not much better. It would take 2,000 grams of gasoline to
produce 86 megajoules of energy, so the cold fusion cell was 50,000
times better. Furthermore, no cold fusion cell has ever shown any
sign of terminating its output for lack of fuel. The cell that
produced 86 megajoules was deliberately turned off after two months.
If it has been left on, it might have run for years, or decades.
Nobody knows how long it might have run. There is some
indication that in some LENR systems the reaction is catalytic - in
other words, the metal responsible for the reaction is not
necessarily consumed; it just facilitates the nuclear reaction like
a chemical or biological catalyst or enzyme.
Cold fusion does produce nuclear ash:
helium, a low level of neutrons, and in some cases tritium, other
low-level radiations, and transmutations in the host metal. It
produces trillions of times fewer neutrons than plasma fusion or
conventional nuclear fission, and most scientists believe that
nothing resembling hot plasma fusion can take place in or on a metal
lattice. So if cold fusion is a nuclear fusion or fission reaction
(or perhaps it embodies aspects of both fission and fusion),
it must be very different than any previously known nuclear
reaction. It is not yet clear whether the helium, tritium, and other
nuclear ash from all LENR reactions is sufficient to account for all
of the heat generated. But at least in some LENR experiments,
excellent correlation has been measured - e.g. just as much helium is
produced for the excess heat measured as would be expected in the
equivalent hot fusion reaction that yields not heat but
deadly gamma rays. If LENR is not strictly a nuclear process,
then perhaps this is a new source of energy never before observed,
which occasionally produces nuclear reactions as side effects.
Some theorists who have examined LENR phenomena have this viewpoint,
though the "mainstream cold fusion" view is that LENR reactions are
all strictly nuclear-based, just not yet fully understood.
If cold fusion cells are at least in
part nuclear, why aren’t they extremely hot? Many people think that because nuclear reactions can
produce gigantic amounts of energy - such as in exploding
thermonuclear weapons - that means nuclear reactions must be very
hot, like the inside of the Sun. This is incorrect. An impure
sample of radium that is radioactively decaying, or some uranium
compound that is undergoing fission of its uranium atoms might be
cold to the touch, or barely warm - depending on the conditions. These
samples can produce dangerous ionizing radiation. The individual
radioactive decays of atoms or fission reactions that occur
atom-by-atom inside these materials produce millions of electron
volts (eV) of energy release, whereas the atoms in a chemical
reaction releases only a few to 10 electron volts at most. But
atoms undergoing conventional nuclear reactions in the impure sample
are few and far between, whereas trillions of atoms in the chemical
sample simultaneously participate in the chemical reaction. That’s
why a simple match can be very hot at its tip when it ignites.
Although a nuclear reaction produces millions of times more energy
than a chemical reaction, in some cases the chemical reaction
produces much more power over a short period of time. This is why a
burning match is hotter than the impure sample of radium. The radium
remains warm for thousands of years, the match burns out in a minute
or two.
What is the difference between power
and energy? What are watts, joules, kilowatt-hours, and
BTUs?These may not be our most
"Frequently Asked Questions," but they ought to be, because power
and energy are Frequently Confused Concepts. Power is the rate
of energy release at a given instant in time - how much energy is
released per unit time at that instant. Energy is power integrated -
added up - over time. Power is measured in watts, kilowatts, and
horsepower. Energy is measured in joules (watt-seconds) or
kilowatt-hours. A power level of 1 watt that continues for 1 second
equals 1 joule - because 1 watt is 1 joule per second. The
integrated energy from a 100-watt light that runs for 60 seconds
equals 6,000 joules. A good fact to keep on file: 4.18 joules equal
1 calorie, which is enough energy to raise the temperature of one
gram of water by one degree Celsius.
In U.S. industry, thermal energy is
sometimes measured in BTUs (British Thermal Units). A BTU is the
energy it takes to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.
One BTU equals 1,055 joules. One horsepower equals 746 watts.
[Back to
Top]
Why doesn't cold fusion produce
dangerous ionizing radiation and neutrons? Nobody knows for certain why the primary
signature of cold fusion is excess heat, not deadly radiation.
Nevertheless, many LENR theorists have put forth very intriguing
proposals for the mechanism of these reactions. There are, in fact,
many dozens of competing theories - a smaller number of which are very
well fleshed out. The exact nature of the LENR reactions is one of
the many unsolved scientific mysteries surrounding them. Some
scientists think that because the effect does not produce intense
radiation, it cannot be a nuclear process. Others say the energy is
produced, but then somehow absorbed by the metal lattice - as high
frequency vibrations. In any case, it is a good thing that LENR does
not produce dangerous ionizing radiation because if it did, LENR
cells would require elaborate shielding and LENR would be difficult,
expensive, and dangerous to commercialize. From a scientific
perspective, the lack of radiation and neutrons is puzzling, but
from the point of view of business, commercialization, and the
environment, this is a priceless advantage. This is not to say
that there are not nuclear hazards associated with LENR
reactions! There are nuclear reactions occurring where
they have previously not been observed; thus it is possible to
imagine LENR research leading to new kinds of reactions that could
be employed in weapons - perhaps small, "clean" versions of
previously implemented conventional nuclear weapons. But so
far, there does not appear to be a simple route to this deadly
application. No LENR reaction being discussed openly seems to
have even a tiny hint of a "runaway" characteristic that could
release large quantities of energy in a short time - the requirement
to make a bomb. [Back to
Top]
What is "hot" fusion (conventional,
plasma fusion)? Hot fusion is the kind
of nuclear reaction that powers the Sun and the stars - it is also the
reaction used in thermonuclear weapons (hydrogen bombs). At
temperatures of tens to hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius (or
Kelvin), the nuclei of hydrogen atoms can get close enough together,
frequently enough, such that the nuclear force between some of the
close-approaching nuclei has a chance to overcome the natural
tendency of the positively charged nuclei to repel one another. The
nuclei then join or fuse to form helium nuclei. This releases
enormous energy. Fusion of light elements to form heavier elements
(e.g. hydrogen fusing to helium) is the opposite of fission, which
is the release of energy by splitting heavy uranium or plutonium
nuclei. [Back to
Top]
What is the present status of
controlled "hot" fusion? Scientists the
world over have spent more than five decades and billions of dollars
(an estimated $17 billion in the U.S. alone) to investigate the
possibility of mimicking with devices here on Earth the fusion
reactions of the stars. These are complex and large machines that
rely on high magnetic fields or powerful lasers to compress and heat
fusion fuel, typically the isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium, and
tritium. The output of these hot fusion reactors is deadly neutron
radiation, which must first be converted to heat in molten metal
flowing around the core of the reactor. This heat must then be used
to make steam to generate electricity. The process is fraught
with exceedingly difficult engineering problems, and at best
it would become another kind of power generation that leaves much
radioactive waste in irradiated components. The controlled hot
fusion program has made enormous strides since the 1950s when it
began, but unlike cold fusion it is far below what is called healthy
"breakeven" in its energy balance - much more energy output than
input, but all agree that the earliest possible time when
"practical" hot fusion devices (still the size of an athletic
stadium) might be available is at least three decades away.
Moreover, the success of hot fusion always seems to be "just 20 to
30 years away." This has led to the very appropriate joke, "Hot
fusion is the energy of the future - and always will be!" Hot fusion
is a very tough engineering problem. Many engineers - even those
favorable to hot fusion - suggest that the "tokamak" reactor approach
(magnetic confinement fusion) or the giant laser approach (inertial
confinement approach) being followed by the U.S. Department of
Energy will never result in commercially viable technology.
The U.S. hot fusion scientists, and their
colleagues in other countries, continue to want to build a gigantic,
complex test reactor called ITER (International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor), which might begin to operate in another
decade. A commercial hot fusion power plant would not be
on-line until at least 2040. The annual budget for hot fusion
research in the U.S. regularly exceeds $500 million, and the program
now seeks increased funding, which Congress previously killed, for
ITER and other large-scale experiments. [Back to
Top]
How does cold fusion differ from hot
fusion? Cold fusion releases enormous
quantities of energy in the form of heat, not ionizing radiation, as
in hot fusion. This heat energy is thousands to millions of times
what ordinary chemical reactions could possibly yield. If "cold
fusion" is a heretofore unknown form of benign nuclear reaction - as
most researchers in the cold fusion field believe - there is more
potential cold fusion energy in a cubic kilometer of sea water than
in all of the known oil reserves on Earth. In one gallon of ordinary
water, there is at least the energy equivalent of 300 gallons of
gasoline! Cold fusion, in contrast to hot fusion, occurs in
relatively simple apparatus. Cold fusion/LENR reactions are not at
all like conventional hot fusion reactions. If they were, cold
fusion experimenters would be killed by massive flows of radiation
- neutrons and gamma rays. [Back to
Top]
Are there theories that can explain
cold fusion? Cold fusion researchers
have attempted to find theoretical models to explain the observed
cold fusion effects: large thermal energy releases, low-level
nuclear phenomena, and the absence of massive harmful radiation and
other conventional nuclear effects. There is yet no single,
generally accepted theory that explains all these phenomena. There
is no doubt, however, that the phenomena exist and will eventually
be explained. It is difficult to come up with a single theory
that fits all the data. The explanation might lie in nuclear
reactions, in part in exotic "super-chemistry" requiring
major modifications to quantum mechanics, or something even
more peculiar (such as tapping of the so-called "zero-point energy"
at the sub-atomic level, or the involvement of what others call
vacuum or aether energy). [Back to
Top]
Is there a future for cold
fusion? Unfortunately, cold fusion has been widely attacked,
belittled, and ignored in the U.S. and most of Europe, except Italy.
Funding for research in the U.S. is very scarce. A few privately
funded U.S. scientists are working on it, and "underground" research
continues at many laboratories. Fortunately, cold fusion research is
not Big Science. It does not need massive installations, just
relatively small-scale, dedicated work. Cold fusion energy
development will dominantly be the territory for private industry.
There is no need for massive government investment.
Probably the most difficult hurdle in trying to
come to terms with cold fusion is that it seems too fantastic, "too
good to be true" economically and socially, and too unexpected
scientifically. But the same was said about many other scientific
revolutions, like anesthetics, electric lighting, airplanes,
antibiotics, space flight, and nuclear fission. Cold fusion and
allied discoveries will probably revolutionize the world in ways we
can barely begin to imagine. People who think that such
revolutionary changes cannot happen have forgotten the lessons of
history. We should remember the sentiments of Michael Faraday, to
whom we owe our revolutionary electrically powered civilization. He
wrote: "Nothing is too wonderful to be true." [Back to
Top]
Are there technologies other than cold
fusion/LENR that could release energy from water?Yes. Many of these are covered in back issues of
Infinite Energy, but let us categorize the prominent ones
here (not an exhaustive list):• Catalyzed hydrogen shrinkage
reactions - based on the hydrino physics of Dr. Randell Mills of
BlackLight Power Corp.• Water arc discharges - excess energy
releases. By Dr. Peter and Neal Graneau• Excess energy from
turbulent cavitation excitation of water, e.g. The HydroSonic
PumpTM of HydroDynamics, Inc. of
Rome, Georgia (USA) • Carbon arc discharges under water, which
produce an excess energy phenomenon. Variously called:
CarboHydrogenTM Gas or AquaFuel
[Back to
Top]
Answers to Questions on Vacuum Energy
What is "vacuum
energy"?The
Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) taught that a vacuum
could not exist in nature. This led for centuries to the often
repeated, incorrect phrase, "Nature abhors a vacuum." This
mis-information persisted for two millennia, until the German
physicist Otto von Guericke (1682-1686) showed with a dramatic
experiment in 1657 that a vacuum - a space devoid of air - could
actually be made by pumping the air out. But the question
remained, "What, if anything, ‘fills’ that region of no air
once it is formed?" Is it a zone of "nothing"? Physicists dealing
with basic questions, such as "What is heat?"; "What is light?"; and
"What is combustion?", invented various invisible, massless "fluids"
that could be infiltrating matter and the space between hypothetical
atoms - and which could also be present in the presumed airless space
among planets and stars. In fact, all physicists toward the
end of the 19th century were
convinced that an invisible ether (alternate spelling,
aether) was some kind of a stiff, static, pervading medium
that allowed waves of light and other "electromagnetic" waves
to vibrate through it. But this aether, they believed, had to
have the property of not offering resistance to the motion of
celestial bodies - otherwise these would gradually change their orbits
from the medium’s presence as an energy-draining obstruction.
Early in the 20th century, the aether question became
sidetracked by the theory of Special Relativity (1905) promoted by
Albert Einstein, which came into prominence under peculiar
circumstances around 1919. Relativity supposedly dispensed
with the need for an aether in which electromagnetic waves
would vibrate. (See Infinite Energy, Issues #38 and #39,
special "Einstein Reconsidered" issues). Since the
ascendancy of Einstein’s relativity theory, the idea of an aether
with properties that would allow such "transverse vibrations" has
seemed superfluous, so the ether was totally abandoned as an
archaic, wrong concept by the physics establishment. The space
vacuum is said to be mathematically described as a four-dimensional
"space-time" plenum, i.e. there is no space per se and no
time per se individually, only "space-time." As with the
premature dismissal of "cold fusion" in 1989, this proved to be a
disastrous mistake by the scientific establishment - though it most
certainly does not acknowledge that fact - not yet.
At the same time, the scientific
establishment - and many of those who oppose its rejection of "free
energy" claims for this or that device - has come up with a new host
of properties of the vacuum. In the theory of quantum
mechanics, the vacuum is said to pulsate with a kind of
"electromagnetic foam" at a scale far below the size of atoms - this
is called "zero point energy" or "ZPE." Some of those who suggest
that there have been and are today various "free energy" devices
that look like they are running on "no fuel," suggest that the ZPE
is being tapped for energy. Encouraging this view are some
prominent mainstream physicists’ assertions that the energy density
of this ZPE is huge, on the order of 1094 grams per cubic centimeter of vacuum!
(Strangely, the mainstream almost never suggests that this
energy might be tapped technologically - it’s just fun for the
textbooks.)
Simultaneously, modern cosmologists who
accept Einstein’s relativity theories (virtually all of them) have
invented all manner of concepts to explain puzzling observations
about the vacuum of the universe. They say that filling the universe
is invisible "dark matter," "dark energy," and "quintessence" - and
they cite supposed evidence for this from astronomical
observations. They have concocted all manner of mathematical
vibrating "string theories" to explain all of creation - all of
particles, all of everything. In fact, they talk about a "Theory of
Everything" being nearly complete - "just around the corner."
However, this appears to be a cosmic joke on modern physicists, much
as perfect circle "epicycles" to describe planetary motions were a
joke on astronomers who worked before the 17th century. These Theory-of-Everything
physicists have apparently not learned the most basic foundation of
"Science 101": Experiments are paramount! Experiments
contradicting the most elegant and seemingly correct theory must be
taken very, very seriously. Theories must be thrown out and
modified if experimental evidence contradicts the accepted theory.
This is not happening in modern physics. It turns out,
that aside from the ZPE theories, which would seem to allow the
extraction of energy from the vacuum - even by the mainstream
physicists’ own quantum mechanical theory, there are straightforward
measurements that can be performed in laboratories that appear to
show incontrovertible evidence of a host of other aether properties
that have all along been right under our very noses. The
measurements have been ignored, of course, as is the case when
paradigm paralysis dominates. Please consult the references
cited below, and learn about this astonishing turn of events.
[Back to
Top]
What sources of information can I access
that deal with vacuum energy?We reviewed some of these
sources in answers to "General Questions," but let us repeat the
information here in condensed form:
• An excellent research compendium on the
Zero Point Energy viewpoint about vacuum energy is the book by Moray
B. King, Quest for Zero-Point Energy: Engineering Principles for
"Free Energy" (2001).
• Both Nikola Tesla and Wilhelm Reich had
remarkably accurate things to say about a dynamic ether (or
aether), the static "luminiferous ether" form of which
was rejected by 20th Century physics
as a carrier of light waves, following the ascendancy of Einstein’s
relativity theories. Unfortunately, because of major theoretical
errors that have entered modern physics and pervade it, an
energetic, dynamic ether with properties measurable in the
laboratory was overlooked. The work of Dr. Paulo and Alexandra
Correa of Canada (http://www.aetherometry.com/ [...])
has built on and apparently has validated the stream of aether physics
work that was begun by Tesla and Reich.
• Tom Bearden’s book, Energy from the
Vacuum, appeared in 2002 and may be ordered from http://www.chenierecom/.
• Robert L. Forward, "Extracting energy from
the vacuum by cohesion of charge foliated conductors," Physical
Review B, Vol.30, No.4, pp.1700-2.
• Kenneth R. Shoulders, whose well-known,
patented "high density charge cluster" science and technology has
impressed a host of investigators, has a key patent (and others)
that should be consulted: U.S. #5,018,180, "Energy Conversion Using
High Charge Density." [Back to
Top]
Who were some of the historical
scientists and inventors who have dealt with vacuum
energy?There
are dozens of people who have claimed to have produced devices
that on first appearance seem to violate conservation of
energy (the First Law of Thermodynamics), but which the various
theories of vacuum energy suggest are actually being "fueled" by an
energetic medium. Some of these devices may have been improperly
measured by the inventors and their associates, leading to incorrect
conclusions that energy was being tapped from the vacuum. Other
figures seemed to have been proceeding on a direct path to vacuum
energy devices, from the experiments that they carried out. To
name a handful of the more prominent, more frequently discussed
inventors and scientists (but not to diminish others not
mentioned):
A. Deceased: Paul M. Brown, E. V. Gray, T.
Henry Moray, Wilhelm Reich, Floyd Sweet, Nikola Tesla.
B. Present: Robert Adams, Tom Bearden, John
Bedini, Paulo and Alexandra Correa, Howard Johnson (magnetic
motor), W. W. Hyde, Kenneth Shoulders, Paramahamsa
Tewari.[Back to
Top]
What experimental devices exist
today that embody vacuum energy? The two most prominent claimed technologies in
vacuum energy today, and their presently achieved U.S. patents, are:
• Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG)
of Tom Bearden and his associates
- 6,362,718 "Motionless Electromagnetic
Generator" (3/26/02)
• Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge Reactor
(PAGDTM) of Dr. Paulo and Alexandra
Correa
- 5,416,391 "Electrochemical
Transduction of Plasma Pulses" (5/16/95)
- 5,449,989 "Energy Conversion
System" (5/12/95)
- 5,502,354 "Direct Current Energized
Pulsed Generator Utilizing Autogenous Cyclical Pulsed Abnormal Glow
Discharges" (3/26/96) [Back to
Top]
Is there a connection between
technologically-derived vacuum energy and "Chi," "Qi," "Prana," and
other claims of "biophysical energies" or "subtle energies"?
Yes, this is one of the most remarkable
emerging conclusions that can be taken from the new energy field. In
our view, a compelling case is building up that those technological
devices that actually do tap vacuum energy, are also tapping
a source of energy that is part and parcel of the functioning of all
life. For centuries, various types of what are now in the West
called "complementary medicine" - therapeutic healers, acupuncturists,
Reiki therapists, and the like - have been used in Oriental cultures.
This has now spread to the West and there are big battles being
fought over these complementary medicine therapies. A large and
growing percentage of patients now using Western medicine also
employ Eastern practices. These multi-mode medicine users are, by
and large from the assessments of some studies, expressing great
satisfaction. These therapies (other than acknowledged "placebo
effect" aspects) would seem to have no basis for their functioning,
if biological systems such as the human body were
exclusively biochemical and neurological systems with no
interspersed and surrounding biophysically active medium - aether,
"orgone," etc. However, the line of work begun in the
20th Century by Wilhelm Reich and
others in the West is converging to provide physics-based
explanations of the "aetheric body" model of living organisms
that is operating in conjunction with conventionally understood
biochemical processes. See, in particular, the scientific monograph,
"Fundamental Measurement of Biological Energies-I," downloadable
from http://www.aetherometry.com/,
monograph AS2-28. There appears to be much more to the
electrical and energy properties of organisms than can be accounted
for by the limited models of mainstream physics. [Back to
Top]
Is there any mainstream research
that substantiates "biophysical energy"?There are significant controlled studies that
substantiate the effectiveness of complementary medicine modalities,
such as acupuncture. However, we are increasingly seeing Western
medicine’s technological imaging and sensing devices being applied
to prove that bodily effects without conventional biological
explanation are occurring. To cite one of the best examples we have
encountered, please read: "Evaluation of Acupuncture Using fMRI and
Ultrasonic Imaging," by Chang Sok So (Dept. of Anatomy and
Neurobiology), Joie P, Jones & David D. Kidney (Department of
Radiological Sciences), University of California at Irvine; Takuso
Saito, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Proc. of the National
Academy of Sciences USA, Vol.95, 1998, pp.2670-2673. In
this study, it is conclusively shown with scientifically blinded
examination using ultrasonic and other stimulation of an acupuncture
point in the foot of a subject (many subjects were used): 1. The
acupuncture point on the foot, known by acupuncturists to help
vision when stimulated, resulted in nearly
instantaneous production of activation in the visual cortex
of the brain of the subject - a completely reproducible effect that
could be toggled off and on; 2. The acupuncture point was found to
be highly localized (within a fraction of a millimeter); and
3. The speed of transmission of the information from the foot
acupuncture point to the visual cortex of the brain, as measured by
fMRI, was at least 1,000 times any known nerve transmission
speed! Dr. Joie P. Jones explained, at a public lecture in
June 2001 (Society for Scientific exploration Meeting, LaJolla, CA),
that because the functional MRI (fMRI) minimum time localization of
measurement is about 80-microseconds, the actual transmission speed
to the brain might be faster than even this astounding 1,000-fold
figure.
A footnote, which illuminates the sad state of
mainstream science today: The group’s technical paper, which is
obviously of overarching importance, was submitted to Nature
magazine, which rejected it without review - according to Dr. Joie
Jones. Subsequently, five sympathetic Nobel laureates in the
biological sciences, who were impressed with the paper, urged
Nature to reconsider its decision. It did not.
Therefore, the paper had to be published in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, which does not censor the work
of its participants. Thus, a fundamental finding about the
human body’s functioning, and the medical effectiveness of a
disparaged technique - acupuncture - has been submerged, at least for
now. [Back to
Top]
Answers to Questions on Environmental Energy
What is "Environmental Energy"?The term seems ambiguous on its face, but it is the best
one we could come up with to describe this potentially huge (for all
practical purposes, infinite) source of New Energy. The
atoms and molecules in all matter move, vibrate, and jiggle - each
atom and molecule has a kinetic energy (motion energy) and other
kinds of motion energy associated with rotation and vibration
(within multi-atom molecules, as an example, there is vibration of
the bonds between them). In a gas especially, the atoms or molecules
may be moving very fast in all directions. Thus there is definitely
energy of movement contained within all matter. The question is
this: Under what circumstances can this motion energy be extracted
and used to produce useful work?
Here is one simple case of the use of
environmental energy, but this application is not a form of
New Energy, since it operates on already accepted principles: There
have been proposals to use the temperature difference between the
warmer top parts of the ocean and the colder lower-lying parts to
generate useful electric power. This can be done with various
electrical devices and specialized engines that operate between
temperature reservoirs that do not have a very big difference in
temperature between them. But what if it were possible to take
the energy out of the top part of the ocean without relying on the
colder water far below the ocean surface? The science of
thermodynamics, in particular the Second Law of Thermodynamics, says
this cannot be done. It is impossible, we are told, to
produce useful work by taking heat out of a single warm object
(here, that object is the ocean surface) without having a lower
temperature reservoir to dump "waste" heat into. That is the
supposed restriction that science has lived with for over 150
years. Therefore, "Environmental Energy," in the context of
New Energy, is the attempt to violate this supposedly sacrosanct
"law." [Back to
Top]
What is the Second Law of
Thermodynamics?There are many ways of stating the Second Law of
Thermodynamics - there are many textbook definitions associated with
different scientists. But its essential conclusion is that a heat
engine (an engine that uses heat and operates in a cycle) cannot
convert 100% of the heat produced within it (from, say, fuel
combustion) to an equivalent amount of useful work. Nature has
supposedly saddled us with an efficiency limitation that cannot be
broken.
What is Carnot
efficiency?Carnot efficiency is a term
that describes the maximum efficiency that can be reached by
a heat engine in converting heat to work. The Carnot
efficiency has a simple formula that has been around since the early
part of the 19th Century, when young
French engineer Sadi Carnot proposed it based on his study of steam
engines. (Strangely enough, he put forth his formula when the very
nature of heat as molecular motion was still being debated!)
The formula is: Efficiency = (Temperaturehigh – Temperaturelow)/Temperaturehigh. Here, the temperatures must be given in
the absolute temperature scale - Kelvin degrees, which begins at
"absolute zero," which is some -273°C below 0 °C (the freezing point
of water). So, at a typical ambient temperature of 20 °C
(approximately 293 K), the Carnot efficiency of an engine operating
between that temperature and 273 K (0°C) is (293-273)/293 =
6.8%. For a much more elevated temperature process with a high
temperature of say 1,000°C, dumping its waste heat to a 20°C
environment, the Carnot efficiency is 77%. Note well, that as
the temperature of the high and low temperature reservoirs approach
each other, the efficiency goes down and becomes 0% when
Thigh= Tlow. This is another
way of saying that if Carnot efficiency is indeed the upper limit
for the efficiency of a heat engine, an engine cannot be made
to extract work out of a single temperature reservoir - such an
engine would have "zero efficiency."[Back to
Top]
What sources of information can I
access that deal with "environmental energy"? You can read any standard thermodynamics textbook, and it
will spell out quite clearly why you cannot use environmental
energy from a single temperature reservoir. Carnot
efficiency will be used to "prove" the Second Law and the Second Law
will be used to establish Carnot as the upper limit to efficiency -
perfect circular logic! But you can also read the work of those who
challenge the Second Law. There is a growing body of such technical
literature. Here is a sampling:
• Some of this research has been reviewed
and discussed at length in articles in Infinite Energy
(Issues #29, #37, and #43).
• A recent landmark paper by physicists and a
mathematician at the University of San Diego ("A Solid-State Maxwell
Demon," Foundations of Physics, Vol.32, pp.1557-1595, October
2002, http://www.kluweronline.com/),
seems to offer nearly conclusive proof that devices that do
create work from a single temperature reservoir can be built. The
paper proposes a laboratory-testable, solid-state device that uses
the electric field energy of an open-gap p-n junction semiconductor
device to drive a solid-state mechanical piston. • Daniel P.
Sheehan, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.12, 1998,
pp.303-xxx.• V. Capek and D.P. Sheehan, Challenges to the Second
Law of Thermodynamics, in Fundamental Theories of Physics
Series(Kluwer Academic, Amsterdam, due to be published in
2003).• The Thermodynamic Theory and Engineering Design of
Supercarnot Heat Engines, Wayne Arthur Proell, Cloud Hill Press,
Las Vegas, New Mexico, 1984.• The Thermodynamic Exploration for
High Efficiency Internal Combustion Engines, Wayne Arthur
Proell, Cloud Hill Press, Las Vegas, New Mexico, 1993.• The
Thermodynamic Exploration for Solid State Heat Engines, Wayne
Arthur Proell, Cloud Hill Press, Las Vegas, New Mexico,
1999. [Back to
Top]
What evidence is
there that there are major flaws in the Second Law?The evidence against the Second Law comes in three forms:
Experiments that produce separations of hot and
cold with, in the limit, zero energy input. In other
words, in the limit the spontaneous separation into hot and
cold regions.
The growing evidence in the scientific literature
that many classes of macroscopic Maxwell demons are possible.
The third class of evidence actually comes from the
field of Vacuum Energy: The observation of thermal anomalies
associated with Faraday cages (see above reference to the
Reich-Einstein experiment) - spontaneous (aether generated)
separations of hot and cold.[Back
to Top]
What is a "Maxwell Demon"?This was James Clerk
Maxwell’s hypothetical microscopic intelligent being, who could
reside at a small opening in the partition between two chambers of a
gas, each initially at the same temperature. The "demon" would
observe molecules in motion as they approached the opening between
the chambers, measure their velocities, and sort them into hot and
cold ones (fast or slow moving) just by opening and closing a small
door covering the opening at the appropriate times. If such a
demon could exist, it could create, in effect, a "spontaneous"
separation of a uniform temperature reservoir into a hot and a cold
zone. With such a separation of the gas into two different
temperature regions, an engine could be made to perform useful
work. Such a hypothetical demon - or its equivalent (such as a
specially designed membrane, and so forth) - has been deemed
impossible by the physics establishment. Such demons cannot
produce robust macroscopic effects. Critics of the
universal applicability of the Second Law of Thermodynamics believe
otherwise. [Back to
Top]
What is a "Perpetual Motion Machine of
the Second Kind"?This supposedly
"impossible" kind of machine would take environmental energy from a
single temperature reservoir (the environment) and convert it
to work with 100% efficiency - without a lower temperature reservoir
being used to accomplish this. Critics of the universal
applicability of the Second Law believe such machines can be built.
They suggest that they have experimental evidence to prove this. The
ultimate proof, however, will have to be in robust engines that
achieve this objective.
Copyright © 2004. All rights reserved.
🔐 Cryptographic Verification
Archived URL: https://www.eugenemallove.com/Writings/new_energy_FAQ.html
�� CONTENT HASHES:
SHA-256: 84f3cc3b3e097a9992ab3db4930a5193bd297a7c5bebb3495e021c49a2b509f1
BLAKE2b: bed6ae736c8a611009dbe9d1288b854eef044da7f5e164ed4569f720d1af0f4d
MD5: 5a89dd8cdec96af061031c18b2f603e9
�� TITLE HASHES:
SHA-256: cabf88cac975c18af108deb2277771f3320ac2d5ae38bcc95673b6c1175e78a6
BLAKE2b: bf0450ed34ac9304144f069dca2472708b42262ded03d0cca7da51060cf7be59
MD5: 4ccf76b8993f55a189df8e08078b695b
�� INTEGRITY HASHES:
SHA-256: bb28e4408953f4ab52953f656eb83fad7a3d6d1abb5f9e1f12a608abfd41a2ea
BLAKE2b: 5a007b0b583a958c88e223fd341f501b5c7b0653013ff2e2a71d45db582e1dfa
MD5: 02b3800763ac8f3c77abf424ea78e248
RE: New Energy FAQ [Part 1/3]