IS THERE A REACTING AETHER?
Here is the Proof: It powers the BEDINI Machine!
Copyright, Harold Aspden, 2000
If I were to suggest
that the aether is a source of energy, then, if you, the reader, are an informed
and well-trained scientist, you are likely to turn away from this web page and
assume that I am ignorant of the facts of modern science.
Well, I am not
ignorant of the scientific evidence relied upon by the modern scientist that
bolsters what has come to be the accepted non-belief in the existence of a real
aether medium filling all space. Yes, I know that the speed of light in vacuo is
constant and seems to change its base of reference according to whichever
observer happens to be making the speed measurement. Yes, I know that this only
applies to the non-accelerated observer. I just happen to find that difficult to
accept as it seems to be complete nonsense and I wonder if the method of
measurement involves something that affects the true speed of light within the
test system. Yes, I know that distant stars exhibit a spectral red shift, as if
we are part of an ever-expanding universe, and, yes, I confess that if that were
to be true it would make it very difficult to adhere to a belief in a real
aether presence, because I cannot imagine that the aether expands along with the
universe.
However, if you are sufficiently well informed on such matters,
then you must know that there is an overriding factor in all this, which bears
upon energy and the source of energy that created the universe. A ray of light
is associated with energy transfer. As concerns the red shift, the problem is
the specific feature of the spectra of distant stars by which the different
frequency components of the light emitted by the stars degrade in frequency in a
proportional relationship, notwithstanding the distance over which the light has
travelled through space to reach our observatories. We have laboratory
experience of light speed being slower in material media than its speed in vacuo
but in its passage through such media each frequency component slows at a
different rate as a function of its frequency, and so there is what scientists
call 'frequency dispersion'. So, if I say the passage of starlight though the
aether between us and a distant star is what accounts for its spectrum, as we
observe it, being reduced in frequency as a function of that distance, then you
will, as a wise and well-informed scientist, tell me that I must be wrong. Your
reason is that you assume that the aether must, in regulating the passage of
light, behave, as does a medium such as water or glass, in producing frequency
dispersion. On that assumption you say that the stellar red shift is not
produced by the passage of light over a very long distance through a real medium
and so there can be no aether in reality.
However, do keep in mind that
you have made an assumption, and sometimes assumptions can be wrong,
whereas I rely on the simple experimental fact implied by observation that the
aether must have such properties as do assure the dispersionless passage
of light. So if I assert that the energy which created the universe came from
the aether, for no other reason than the presumption that the energy comes from
somewhere and the notion of an omnipresent aether is the only candidate I can
'see' in that 'somewhere', then your assumption says I have to be wrong and you
must look elsewhere for an energy source. If you cannot find that energy source,
then, be sensible, and accept that the aether does exist!
Note here that
the aether in the sense I use that word is merely that mysterious something that
sits in space and has two basic properties, one of which I learned about when my
school physics teacher explained that a parallel plate electrical capacitor when
energized stores energy in the space between the plates, even if in a vacuum.
That meant that the aether can store electrical energy. As to the other
property, one also pertaining to the true vacuum that prevails between us and
distant stars, I learned about that only later in my university years, it being
the fact, already mentioned, that light rays from distant stars can travel
through that aether medium without suffering frequency dispersion. I emphasize
that I do happen to believe that the speed of light through a true vacuum is a
constant and is referenced on that medium, but I do not go further in thinking
that the aether provides what has come to be termed 'an absolute universal frame
of reference'.
Always keep in mind that 'aether' is only a word and it is
only when we experience its properties that we can picture its meaning as
something real, albeit in its non-material form.
If you ask how I can
justify zero frequency dispersion in what I refer to as a real, albeit
non-material, medium, given that all real material media that transmit light do
exhibit frequency dispersion, then my answer is quite simple. I say that
oscillations transmitted through real material media must be dynamically
balanced and so I would expect the aether to provide its own intrinsic dynamic
balance when conveying electromagnetic oscillations. So I would expect the
aether to have two components capable of electric displacement in opposite
directions. Yet, Maxwell's theory, which is the foundation of our understanding
of light propagation in the vacuum medium, offers no dual-displacement feature
associated with energy storage. Allow for that duality and you have an
additional parameter which can optimize its action to ensure that the aether
responds to the passage of electromagnetic waves to assure that there is no
frequency dispersion. [See my paper entitled The Steady-State Free-Electron
Population of Free Space, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 41 252-256 (1984)]
where I justify this and go even further in showing how to derive by pure theory
a value of the Hubble constant in accord with that observed. See also my article
on this subject The Ether - an Assessment in the October 1982 issue of
Wireless World at pp. 37-39, where the distortionless properties of the vacuum
medium, as an electrical system, are also explained by analysis of this
dual-displacement feature.
In other words, the aether has the property of
self-tuning to adapt to the frequency of waves in transit through it, something
which Oliver Heaviside discovered was even possible in communication by wire by
his invention of his distortionless line. However, real media cannot so adapt to
signal transmission frequency with the perfection of the aether response.
Indeed, if an electromagnetic oscillation involves an electric displacement in
an optical fibre, for example, the body inertia of the fibre has to absorb the
lateral force oscillations to keep the dynamic balance and this action is a
function of signal frequency.
That said, let us focus on the aether from
the viewpoint of its energy storage properties, and put aside the issues
concerning the speed of light and dispersion. Otherwise I can but leave you to
ponder the question of how physicists can say they measure the speed of light in
vacuo when, in true magician style, they rely on mirrors. By that I mean that
they reflect light rays forward and back on themselves to make their
measurements and so the light rays are not travelling one way through a true
vacuum; they are travelling each through the energy field of a counterpart ray
travelling in the opposite direction. That must set up standing wave effects, a
phenomenon discovered only after Michelson and Morley performed their famous
experiment, and since standing waves take their reference as that of the mirrors
involved, namely those of the laboratory observer, so the experiment hardly
proves anything concerning the speed of light in vacuo as a function of motion
through space. It most certainly does not disprove the existence of the
aether.
If you ignore the aether, along with its non-dispersion feature,
the cosmological red shift says the universe is expanding. Then, building on
that assumption, you deceive yourself into thinking back in time to the moment
when an ever-expanding universe has its start point. Ah yes, here is where you
see the energy input as a one-off event! Wherever the energy came from, it all
came compacted in a point concentration at the moment at which time began and,
although you cannot explain the circumstances leading to that event or the
energy source, you sign off by naming the event as the Big Bang and leaving
future generations of scientists to ponder on your delusion!
Well, in a
few centuries from now, mankind will experience what happens as our planet's
natural energy resources dwindle away. We will be bystanders watching the slow
demise of the human race, unable to halt the decline, simply because wise men of
science cannot see the aether and have falsely interpreted Nature's energy
behaviour as stemming from that mysterious Big Bang event.
For those few
readers who may want to know about an alternative future, in which the aether
can serve us as an abundant, inexpensive clean energy source, all I ask is that
you regard the 'aether' as something real that sits unseen in space and exists
alongside the matter form that we can see and sense in many ways. The aether
must comply with the scientific experimental evidence, but we must be wary of
making unwarranted assumptions.
If you say it is a reference frame for
the constant speed of light, then you are speculating in emphasizing that
feature and not keeping faith with the scheme I wish to follow. My approach is
based on the aether being alive with energy and having properties which regulate
the quantum underworld of physics. I see it as able to store energy in a
controlled manner, my insight being based on the experimental facts of
electromagnetic induction and the corresponding aether reaction. I see it also
as the scene of random events, regulated by the preservation of equilibrium
occurring on a quasi-statistical basis, as the aether, a living medium, in a
scientific rather than biological sense, keeps its energy priming by shedding
surplus energy in a quantum process. The result is matter creation, in the form
of electrons and protons.
So I put the case that the pollution of our
planet arises from our exploitation of processes that have an uncontrolled
nature, characteristic of the triggering of a chemical or nuclear reaction in
contrast with the control exercised when we increase the electric current in a
magnetizing solenoid and find that the energy we supply is stored in the aether
bounded by that solenoid. Here physics teachers talk about energy being stored
in a 'field', whatever that is, but the truth is that the energy is stored in
the aether. I may add that I could say that it would be difficult, if not
impossible, for a physics teacher to explain precisely how the energy is stored
in that 'field' of their imagination. You might laugh if I suggested that, if
there really is a field, one might as well imagine that it is full of sheep
ready to eat up any shreds of energy that come along, but are equally ready to
disgorge that energy if the situation arises, meaning the switch off of that
solenoidal current. However, I go further, I see no field and no sheep but I do
sense there is an aether and that it can react to absorb and disperse energy
input, only to recover as necessary owing to that solenoidal current control,
and then release that energy and await a balancing energy influx as equilibrium
prevails. Here one needs to think in terms of thermodynamics and picture a
region of space heating up as magnetic energy is stored and cooling down to its
base temperature as that thermal energy disperses. Conversely, one must picture
that region of space cooling down as it sheds energy when the solenoidal current
is switched off, only to recover its equilibrium by drawing in energy from the
infinity of surrounding space. The process of magnetic induction is, in fact, a
thermodynamic effect using the aether as the working medium.
My
enlightenment on this goes back about half a century to my Ph.D. theme
concerning energy anomalies in the magnetization process and my own way of
deciphering the experimental factor-of-two, the g-factor that physicists see as
connected with a so-called 'half-spin' quantum. What should be 1 appears as 1/2
in the electron reaction property of the ratio of angular momentum and magnetic
moment As a short summary my argument is that 2 can be seen as 1, rather than 1
being seen as 1/2, if we say that 2 minus 1 is 1, where that minus term refers
to an aether that I see but the physics community in general cannot see. Take
away the aether and what you think is 1 appears to be halved. Hold faith with
the aether and what you see is 2 offset by a reaction of 1 to leave you with the
1 you see as the action of an electron in its orbital motion, but you do not
then need the 'half-spin' notion to explain away the factor-of-two anomaly
observed in the gyromagnetic ratio experiments, the g-factor experiments
involving anomalous magnetic inductive reactions concerning the ratio of
magnetic moment and angular momentum. Accept the aether and the fact that you
observe the net effect of an action as halved by aether reaction and you are in
sight of how the aether stores magnetic energy.
I appreciate that the
comments I make in the above paragraph may seem to be incomprehensible if read
by a person not familiar with the physics of the 'half-spin' notions of quantum
theory. However, keep in mind here that the physics community makes no effort
whatsoever to explain in simple terms what they mean when they refer to
'half-spin'. They are really talking about minute energy differences in the
energy responses of atoms, but they have wrapped up the theory with relativistic
notions of four-dimensional space which no one can really understand. We are
duly pacified by their assurances that Paul Dirac, who had a hand in this idea
of the half-spin property, earned a Nobel Prize for deciphering the secrets of
the abstract mathematical underworld of four-dimensional space. It is all a far
cry from our discovery of how to tap into the energy of the space medium and
apply that energy for useful purposes, but at the heart of all this there is the
contest between belief in 'four-space' and 'aether' and I say that the latter
has to become the focus of interest, rather than the nonsense of `four-space',
if we are to progress towards a solution of our future energy
problems.
Full details concerning my interpretation of that gyromagnetic
action (spin as a 2 minus 1 problem rather than a problem of 1, but sometimes
1/2) is all of record in my published work so I will not dwell on that further.
Please do, however, accept what I say and begin to suspect that I might just be
right in claiming that the aether exists and can serve as a source of energy,
pollution-free energy that is, if we can tap it in a controlled manner,
something I know to be possible.
My case, as presented so far, is that
the energy of our universe is delivered to us by the aether and that it can come
in an uncontrolled manner (though not as a Big Bang event) or in a controlled
manner (as evidenced by magnetic induction).
Now, all that I have said
above is merely a repetition of argument that I have pursued for many years,
with little or no impact on the scientific community. So you may wonder why I am
bothering to say it all over again. In fact, I did intend to wait a little
longer until I had completed some experiments that I am currently [June, 2000]
pursuing on a magnetic reluctance motor, my aim being to prove the existence of
the aether as an energy source as well as contributing to the new technology of
so-called 'free energy'.
In the event, however, my task has been eased by
becoming aware of the details of a motor experiment performed by John Bedini, as
just reported in the June-July 2000 issue of the magazine 'NEXUS' at pp. 53-55
which puts into print material disclosed by Bedini and shows the structure of
the Bedini machine. See also the web site account at
http://www.sightings.com/general/resistors.htm, which provides a commentary on
the Bedini machine.
The experiment is one I can but admire for its
simplicity. The motor is easy to build and has evidently been reproduced by
others with the findings confirmed. The only objection I have is that the theory
put forward to explain the 'free energy' source is well off-track and so I am
writing what follows here to put the simple truths as to this energy source, as
I see them.
The Bedini motor causes magnets to sweep past the end of a
solenoidal winding so that the magnetic field linking the winding alternates.
The solenoid delivers an alternating current which is full-wave rectified by a
bridge rectifier to feed d.c. to charge a battery system. The battery system
provides the d.c. power to run an electric motor which spins the rotor
supporting the magnets and, instead of the battery system discharging power, its
net effect is to gain energy substantially and become more charged. We have a
'free-energy' generator.
The question then is: "Why does it
work?"
The answer resides in my concerns of the mid-1950 era when I was
researching anomalous magnetic energy losses in iron. A side consideration I
faced at that time was why, if I apply a magnetic field to a solid copper
cylindrical rod, with the field directed along its axis, the copper does not
react to suppress the passage of that magnetic field. Yes, there is a small
diamagnetic reaction, and, yes, as the magnet is moved into position, there is
an eddy-current reaction that ceases when the magnet is at rest. However, a
little calculation, considering how the magnetic field should act on the
numerous free electrons moving at high speed inside the copper, told me that the
copper should virtually preclude the possible existence of a residual magnetic
field inside the copper with the magnet at rest relative to the copper, which I
knew was not the case.
When I read into this question in the scientific
literature I found it had been explained away but by different and somewhat
arbitrary theories, none of which was convincing. I soon realized that it was
wrong to rely on the standard formulation, the Lorentz law, as a measure of
force acting on a system comprising numerous electrical charges in motion. The
dominant controlling (limiting) factor has to be optimum energy transfer,
meaning that the action of a magnetic field on a system of moving electrical
charge will not be such as to maximize the strength of the field reaction, but
rather such as to maximize the density of the energy deployed into that
reaction.
The analysis was simple, a back-of-envelope type of calculation
and one I have presented several times in my published work, the easy reference
here being to my book Physics Unified at pp. 36-40. The full text of this
book is of record on my website http://www.haroldaspden.com.
Yes, I did have to accept that when we put current into a solenoid to set up a
magnetic field that field had to be twice as strong as standard theory indicates
but the world is put right by the ever-present reaction of a back-field that
halves the effect of the primary field effect. You might think that it merely
complicates things to say that 2 steps forward accompanied by one back is the
way one advances by one step, and so one can ignore that retrograde component,
but it is that step back that reveals the reacting medium, be it the presence of
a lump of copper or the presence of the aether that otherwise provides the
reaction.
Now, my own motor research aims at tapping energy from the
aether itself, but the Bedini machine, as I see it, taps energy from that
reaction in a copper solenoid, which involves a thermodynamic effect in matter
as opposed to aether. I think the Bedini machine charges its drive battery
system by drawing on ambient heat conducted into the copper, the latter being a
close-wound coil of copper wire. Note here that a solid rod of copper containing
a circulating reaction current will heat and cool cyclically as the magnetic
field is changed cyclically, this being a process supplemented by eddy-current
heating. The latter is minimized by replacing the solid copper rod by a solenoid
of thin wire having the usual insulated coating. This results in an alternating
current which we can draw from the solenoid. Note that there is no iron core to
that solenoid. As near as possible it is merely a cylindrical copper form that
sits in the space subjected to the cyclically changing magnetic field produced
by a N-S orientated magnet and a S-N orientated magnet spinning alternately past
its end faces to produce the field reversals. In responding to the alternation
of magnetization direction, the copper solenoid limits the current flow
according to its normal resistance rather than the dominant inductance there
would be if it had an iron core.
Remember, however, that I have asserted
that the copper will heat and cool alternately if it is a solid form, but if it
is a solenoidal winding then what happens depends on how we deploy the input
energy. If the solenoid were short-circuited then the same heating effect would
result. However, by connecting the a.c. output to a bridge rectifier, Bedini,
did, during what would be the heating half-cycle, guide the current through the
rectifier to charge a battery. Instead of the copper heating, much of the energy
is conserved by charging the battery. However, during the other half-cycle
period it is the copper that cools and in so doing it feeds the energy shed by
that cooling also into the battery. This is part of a magnetization cycle where
we intercept energy otherwise shed as heat and capture output energy associated
with cooling. The net effect has to be that ambient heat conducted into the
copper sustains the energy balance to give electrical output
power.
Technologically, this suggests that one can have air-conditioning
(cooling) combined with electrical power generation, without using any fuel as
input. Scientifically, in terms of fundamental physics, it means that the
'half-field' reaction process by which I explain the electron's g-factor of two,
the half-spin notion of atomic physics, is justified and that proves the aether
a reality. That provides firm ground on which to pursue the quest of tapping
energy from that aether by a thermodynamic process linked to ferromagnetism.
Physicists do recognize a magnetocaloric process by which the onset of
ferromagnetism as iron cools through the Curie temperature involves a
release of energy (not a gain) over and above that expected from the
specific heat property. They admit that magnetic potential energy (as for
gravitational potential energy) is a negative quantity, which is a curious fact
if one pretends that the aether does not exist as a background energy medium
that can be depleted to match the negative potential energy state
implied.
The way to look at this is to imagine a magnet moving along
through space devoid of matter. As it leaves one region of space that region
cools down by a process of 'cooling by adiabatic demagnetization' and as enters
a new region of space that region heats up. The energy books are balanced. The
heating process arises because there is electromagnetic induction that sets up
electromotive forces which polarize the reacting region. It will dissipate that
heat, sharing it with enveloping space, but it will remain polarized so long as
that magnet is present, even though it has settled to an equilibrium
temperature. Yet, move the magnet away and immediately that polarization will
vanish and the reverse induction process will shed energy which can only be
accounted for by cooling that region vacated by the magnet. If, however, a lump
of copper sits in that space traversed by the magnet, then that heating and
cooling sequence will occur and be manifested by the temperature change in the
copper, supplemented by the irreversible heating associated with eddy-current
effects. Avoid using a lump of copper as such and use instead a wound coil of
insulated copper wire and (a) you minimize eddy-current heating but (b) find,
with the appropriate axial orientation of the coil and the magnet, that what
would otherwise be current flow dissipated as heat becomes current flow that can
be directed into a battery to store much of that energy before it can convert
into heat. This is the phenomenon we see in the Bedini machine. It proves there
is a thermodynamically-reacting aether of the kind I recognized nearly half a
century ago as a result of my Ph.D. research on the eddy-current
anomaly.
Now, before moving on to describe my own magnetic reluctance
motor research, I will, in the next Essay, present what I regard as a major
discovery concerning the theory of gravity, and in a way which highlights the
thermal properties of the aether. I realize that theoretical physicists will
have some difficulty in accepting that the aether, which they say does not
exist, can have a temperature, but they must learn to come to terms with the
real reality of things. It is just a matter of correctly reinterpreting
experimental facts, and being guided by new experimental facts to step back in
the evolution of their ideas and branch out along a better path, one that leads
somewhere rather than nowhere and one that does not imply its origin in a Big
Bang event.
H. Aspden August 28, 2000
If you wish now to see the next Essay in this 2000 series then
press:
The
Constant of Gravitation