Power From Water - Cold Fusion.pdf - PDFs - septix

ENERGY SCIENCE REPORT No. 5

Page 1 of 31

ENERGY SCIENCE REPORT No. 5

This Report was first published by the author in 1994 and was reissued later and made

more generally available from Sabberton Publications as ISBN 0 085056 0217 in

October 1996. It is now made available freely via this Internet facility. It concerns

theory pertaining to the creation and properties of deuterons which, as present in atoms

in heavy water, deuterium oxide, are involved in the experiments which gave birth to the

notion of 'cold fusion'. The technology of that field is slow to develop and, though the

author did plan to write a Part II Report as a sequel to this report, which is entitled

POWER FROM WATER: COLD FUSION: PART I, this has not materialized. This

Report nevertheless is an important contribution to the theory of the subject, also

because it explains how the triton, the third isotope of hydrogen is created. It is worthy

of study as an adjunct to the author's latest work, the book: The Physics of Creation,

because the latter explains in updated detail how the proton itself, the primary isotope of

hydrogen is created. For this reason it is given priority in updating this website by now

adding progressively each of these ten Energy Science Reports as they are withdrawn

from normal printed publication. It should be noted that the book just referenced is a

substantial work and should not be confused with Appendix A of this Report, which has

the same title. The latter featured as a 12 page Chapter 4 in the author's book

GRAVITATION, published in 1975, which gives an early insight into what has now

become a 28 year-old account of the origin of proton creation. .......... Harold Aspden, 1

June 2003

ENERGY SCIENCE REPORT NO. 5

POWER FROM WATER: COLD FUSION: PART I

http://www.aspden.org/reports/Es5/esr5.htm

25.4.2005

ENERGY SCIENCE REPORT No. 5

Page 2 of 31

Contents

Introduction

The Black Hole Syndrome

The Triton Factor

Conclusion

APPENDIX A: 'The Physics of Creation'

APPENDIX B: Deuteron-Proton Transmutation

APPENDIX C: Triton Lifetime Theory

APPENDIX D: 'The Theory of the Proton Constants'

APPENDIX E: 'The Neutron and the Deuteron'*

* These papers are reproduced here by kind permission of the Editors of the Hadronic Journal

POWER FROM WATER: COLD FUSION: PART I

Introduction

This Energy Science Report draws attention to the revelance of theoretical work pursued by the

author over many years before the advent of the now well-known 'cold fusion' discoveries reported

http://www.aspden.org/reports/Es5/esr5.htm

25.4.2005

ENERGY SCIENCE REPORT No. 5

Page 3 of 31

from Utah in 1989.

It will be followed by a Cold Fusion: Part II Report, which will be more specifically directed to the

author's patented technology which is emerging from this theoretical base.

The object of this Report is to show how the 'cold fusion' scenario is destined to impact the whole

field of fundamental physics, ranging from cosmology generally to the pursuit of energy generation

techniques that are so fundamental that they can harness the still-latent and ever-present forces which

brought about the creation of the universe.

These Energy Science Reports are all connected with that underlying groundwork in energy physics

that the author has surveyed, driven by his interest in magnetism. Thus Energy Science Report No. 1

concerned 'Power from Magnetism' and described three of the author's experiments which point the

way forward to what many term 'free energy'.

We are assuredly destined to see rapid strides in this technological field in the months and years

ahead and we will enter the 21st century with a whole new vision of our energy future.

Only today, 15th April, 1994, as the author writes the first words of this report, a communication

was received which draws attention to what is termed 'UDT' - Unidirectional Transformer - which

Paul Raymond Jensen of Santa Barbara, California claims to have invented. When readers of my

Energy Science Report No. 1 become aware of Jensen's 'UDT' and compare the transformer with that

shown in Fig. 4 of that Report they will see how the solid-state 'free energy' ferromagnetic device

can now emerge on the 'free energy' scene.

With the same prospect evolving on the magnetic reluctance motor using permanent magnets, as

championed, for example, by New Zealander Robert G. Adams, this author has planned an Energy

Science Report concerned with motor technology. However, here also, whilst currently in the throes

of experimentation, it has come to light that a researcher named Frank F. Potter has, for many years,

been urging university professors in U.K. to work on the prospect of tapping the energy field that

powers a magnet. He has challenged them to do the calculations on specific field coupling involving

magnets to prove the case one way or the other.

In spite of the interest engendered, the usual establishment reserve about the so-called 'perpetual

motion' machine has kept the Potter issue private and not brought it into open forum. However, this

author, having now heard of this, has responded to the challenge and has brought ahead of schedule

'Energy Science Report No. 4: The Potter Debate' which was completed on 10th April, 1994. That

Report provides a mathematical basis which will help critics of the 'free energy' field to come to

terms with what is now bound to disturb the world of those experts who know how to design

electrical transformers and chokes but appear not to know how close they are to a new technology

that can provide an energy bonanza.

The intervening Energy Science Reports Nos. 2 and 3 are captioned 'Power from Ice', and relate to

experimental work on a thermoelectric energy converter in which the author is involved as inventor.

These Reports exist only in confidential draft form at this time but that technology does spill over

into something that will be said about the 'cold fusion' research, particularly in the Part II Report.

This introduction, therefore, explains how this text fits into the series of Energy Science Reports by

which the author has chosen to update his published research findings prior to incorporation and

consolidation in a more formal book form. The 'free energy' scene is now evolving so rapidly that it

is better if such a book is written once the author has possession of his own working 'free energy'

generator and can provide full test data on a practical system.

The Black Hole Syndrome

http://www.aspden.org/reports/Es5/esr5.htm

25.4.2005

ENERGY SCIENCE REPORT No. 5

Page 4 of 31

This may seem an unusual heading for a text about 'cold fusion', but the physicists who believe in

'black holes' think as do physicists who do not believe in 'cold fusion'. This is a very relevant

comparison as one can see from the following remarks.

1. All physics is built on observation of how electrical particles behave, whether individually or in

aggregation as matter. The interaction forces between such particles control their coming together,

whether to form atomic nuclei, molecules, composites, crystals or stars and planets.

2. Physicists tend to extrapolate their knowledge of experimental behaviour to realms far beyond the

bounds governing the conditions of their experiments. They seek to probe territory they cannot

reach, but always build with confidence on the certain founding knowledge derived from

experiments on what they can see or what they can explore in a laboratory.

3. The neutron as a real particle has only been detected upon creation in the free state and it has a

half-lifetime measured in minutes but physicists extrapolate and create 'neutron stars' in their

imagination, stars which survive far longer than a few minutes! They cannot 'see' a neutron in an

atom, such as in the deuteron, but they assume it is there because the deuteron has two atomic units

of mass and one of charge. But, surely, one could better surmise that two anti-protons plus three

positive beta-particles represent two atomic units of mass having one positive unit of charge. We

know that atoms decay by shedding beta-particles and what we could suspect is that, if they shed an

anti-proton and a positive beta-particle, so that would manifest itself as a short-lived 'neutron'! If, on

this basis, there are no neutrons in an atomic nucleus such as the deuteron, then is it really surprising

to find no neutron emission when we contrive to capture those positive beta-particles by free

conduction electrons in the host metal cathode of a cold fusion cell? On the contrary, physicists go

the other way and make their unwarranted quantum leap by recognizing that neutrons are able to

form stars that have no electrical resistance to the crushing force of gravitation - even though those

free neutrons in the laboratory show a substantial negative magnetic moment!

4. They cannot see a 'black hole', but they can imagine matter becoming so compact, as gravitational

interaction forces become so strong as to out-weigh and preclude the intervention of electric forces

between those charge constituents of the neutron. They are thereby assuming that gravitation is a

force so fundamental that it transcends and displaces electric force from a primary role that is so

evident in laboratory findings from atomic physics.

5. Those physicists can see in certain remote galaxies certain effects which suggest the coming

together of electrical matter, which, by all the basic rules of physics, should not occur because

electric forces resist nucleation. Their evidence is a strong gravity force, abnormally related to the

mass of the visible body acted upon or a substantial redshift in the optical spectrum of atoms

radiating from the nearby field zone. Their assumption is that the universe was born in a Big Bang

where everything was overheated and had such energy content that all physical barriers could be

overcome. Anything is possible in such a vision!

6. So, if excess heat is seen to emerge from a deuterated palladium cathode in a 'cold fusion' cell, that

could suggest that 'nucleation' or fusion has occurred between deuterons, overcoming their mutual

electric repulsion in that metal palladium. However, those who believe in 'black holes' are not

inclined to believe in 'cold fusion' because they know that the 'black-art' assumptions needed to

create the 'Big Bang' and the 'black hole' are not as easy to apply inside a lump of palladium on a

laboratory test bench.

7. This 'disbelieving' body of physicists has other 'disbeliefs' as well. They rely on their 'practical'

knowledge of gravity and measurement of G to calculate 'black hole' properties, but do not believe

that there is a real 'aether' medium, the distortion of which generates that gravitational action. They

believe in mathematical extrapolation and that means reliance on equations do not 'rupture' when

under excessive stress, as does real matter or real 'aether'. What, indeed, is the tensile strength or the

http://www.aspden.org/reports/Es5/esr5.htm

25.4.2005

ENERGY SCIENCE REPORT No. 5

Page 5 of 31

compressive strength or the shear strength of what physicists call 4-space? What, one wonders, are

its internal dimensions, the distances between its component parts? Without common ground on

which to stand in talking about 'aether' or 'space-time', one cannot discuss with such physicists how it

is that the 'crystal' structure of the aether itself determines the 'fine-structure constant' they use in

their atomic physics. One cannot discuss with such physicists how it is that the sub-quantum motion

underlying the Planck action quantum interacts with matter present to force a need for a dynamic

balance, which in turn demands the presence of a discrete and unseen graviton population. One

cannot therefore get such physicists to listen to the formal account by which G, the constant of

gravitation, is derived in terms of that dynamic balance. And so it follows that one cannot put the

case to such physicists that, where matter is very concentrated, as within an atomic nucleus in the

mid-range of the periodic table, the aether is not too far from the stress limits that govern graviton

creation conforming with G as measured in our laboratory.

8. It seems that there is no way in which one can lead a 'disbelieving' physics community out of their

wilderness, even if one uses their own language and words with which they are familiar. All one can

do is to destroy their beliefs with the mighty blow forthcoming from the reality of a technological

breakthrough. Whether this comes from 'cold fusion' or from 'free energy' sourced in ferromagnetism

matters not, so long as there is that technological breakthrough. What is needed is something that

points to evidence of how protons and deuterons are created preliminary to their fusion to form

heavier forms of matter and how Planck's action in the underlying aether spills out energy to feed

that creation.

9. The 'black-hole' supergravity that can occur in very dense matter cannot be explained until one can

explain gravity in normal matter and until one can further explain the factors which determine the

value of the fine-structure constant. If, for example, Planck's constant were to change in a step

function as a function of the mass density thresholds in very dense matter, related to the

concentration of aether energy, so that would affect the interpretation of the so-called 'black hole'

evidence.

10. If, in striving to sustain a dynamic balance, the aether responds in a dual dynamic action to the

passage of electromagnetic waves, so this could affect energy deployment implicit in Maxwell's

wave equations and it could explain why the aether medium appears non-dispersive. These

possibilities are not even considered by physicists who insist on building only on their 'past

experience' without looking at the foundations to see what might have been missed. So, we advance

by the accident of discovery, and, it seems, 'cold fusion' is one such accident. It remains now to

convince physicists generally that there is excess heat generated in a cold fusion cell and then they

can begin to think of revising their theories. This they will do in their own way, mindless of the work

of record that can help them in that task.

11. Inasmuch as this author began in this field by first making the magnetic case for a real aether,

then by determining the structure of that aether and deducing the fine-structure constant and going

on from there to explain the connection with gravitation and proton creation, so it seems appropriate

to lead from that into the subject of this Report. 'Black holes' and an 'expanding universe' conceived

by physicists who were unaware of how Nature's ongoing attempts at proton creation in space can

progressively reduce the frequency of electromagnetic waves in transit, plus the illusions of Einstein,

have made them deaf to what this author has been saying over the years. In spite of this the author

will here try once again to introduce his theory of proton creation and with it the creation of neutrons

and deuterons, all to give basis to the new physics essential to our understanding of what underlies

'cold fusion' and of that deeper source of 'free energy' from which protons and deuterons are created.

The author will further show how gravity features in this act.

12. One could not advance a theory on the scale provided by this author without encountering

numerous obstructions where one has to pause to explain why others who claim something different

have gone wrong in their own endeavours. The 'cold fusion' issue has run into such problems.

http://www.aspden.org/reports/Es5/esr5.htm

25.4.2005

Power From Water - Cold Fusion.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: