@mes: This was especially

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

�� 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