Aether Science Papers: Part I: The Creative Vacuum
Pages 26-32

Copyright © 1996 Harold Aspden


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

Anyone who has seen the television showing of the power of the tornado and the whirling funnel that provides a channel for a succession of lightning discharges must suspect that something abnormal is feeding energy into that funnel. Rotational wind speeds of 420km/hr are recorded in the cylindrical funnels which are said to be up to 180m in diameter. Of course, we do know that whirlwinds form by natural movement of air in the atmospheric activity, but something special happens when lightning occurs as it seems to add speed to the rotary motion and confine it into a narrow funnel, whereas increased rotational speed with diminished radius of motion should promote flow radially outwards by centrifugal action.

Now, I pose a simple question. What can it be that determines the radius of that tornado funnel? Indeed, what can it be that determines the radius of the thunderball? Ignoring the problem of where the energy comes from and how there is a containment and a quasi-stable state, what is it that determines the radius of the cylindrical form we see in the tornado or the spherical form we see in the thunderball? I gave the answer in that 1983 lecture of mine at the Oxford conference mentioned above [29]. The limit is set by a 'virtual' electric field strength needing to be no greater than that prevailing at the Earth's surface owing to the Earth's rotation. By 'virtual' I mean the effective fields induced by aether spin. In the thunderball there are two aether spins, a spin of an aether sphere within the spin of a much larger aether sphere. These fields are cancelled by charge displacement in matter and we cannot sense them as fields unless the speed of rotation changes. Then we get ionization. Just as ionization was involved in setting up the spin state, so ionization occurs as the spin state decays. However, there is an energy gain in this cycle of events, as already indicated.

When I gave my 1983 lecture I did not know that the tornado wind speed at the perimeter of the funnel was of the order of 420km/hr. I could have predicted a figure of the order of 500km/hr, for the simple reason that the wind speed at the funnel perimeter would be about half that of aether spin just inside the funnel, whereas the radial electric field at the surface of a cylinder of uniform electric charge density is 1.5 times that at the surface of a sphere of the same radius having the same uniform charge density. Given that the induced 'virtual' charge density is proportional to angular speed, the 'virtual' electric field intensity is the same for the aether cylinder and the aether sphere only if the actual speed at the cylinder surface is two-thirds that at the surface of the sphere. For the spherical Earth that speed is about three times 500km/hr and so is it really surprising that the tornado wind can reach a value of 420 km/hr?

All speculation, you might say! However, as I indicated in the 'Announcement' at the beginning of this work, we can build on that speculation to extract energy from the aether for our future source of power.

I know of several ways in which this 'free energy' scenario can be demonstrated. Indeed, it is the subject of my primary research interest at this time. However, I will take up the theme that follows from my 1983 paper [29]. It refers in its penultimate paragraph to Nobel Laureate Kapitza's efforts to produce thunderballs for application in triggering fusion reactions [120]. Then, in the last sentence, I declared in my paper that:

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

That was my outlook in 1983. I can now quote the research achievement of Dr. Kiril Chukanov. He reports [115]:
"I first produced experimental proof that artificially created ball lightning could produce energy for practical needs in 1987 in Bulgaria."

After describing his experimental set-up, which involved an ionized gas discharge in a quartz tube, he wrote:
"I experienced great difficulty in evaluating the amount of power produced by the quantum plasma macro-object, but my rough estimation was three to four times more power output than that being supplied by the (input of the high frequency signal-generating) lamp."

By 1990 he had taken his research project into Sunnivale, California and his onward reporting on his production of excess energy showed that he had measured heat generated in a water jacket enclosing the evacuated glow discharge chamber used in his tests. In his 1994 book Final Quantum Revelation he reports a 900 watt rate of excess energy generation using electrodes of some 3 cm separation. A vacuum developing aether spin in a filamentary discharge region having a volume of, say, 0.3 cc, drawing on 'excess' energy of density 109 J/m3, would take about 3 seconds to regenerate each action cycle to give the 900 watt excess output.

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

Professor Chernetskii and his team of researchers in Russia have also produced excess energy at power levels in a self-sustaining plasma discharge device, claiming 4 to 5 times electrical power output compared with power input. This was reported in 1989 in a Novosti Press Agency Press Release [123].

Dr. Wingate Lambertson at a conference in 1994 in Denver, Colorado reported similar levels of power gain from a circuit including a discharge tube and a device formed as a specially-fabricated thyristor [121].

Recently reported Canadian research in 1995 by Dr. Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa [116, 117, 118] has established a sustained excess power generation of 500 J per pulse in a cold-cathode discharge confined to an abnormal glow region, with a prospective 40 megawatt-hour electrode lifetime. The Correa technology delivers electrical d.c. output steadily at several hundred volts and a power gain that is also of the order of 5:1 over d.c. input at similar voltage level. The Correa technology will undoubtedly lead us forward on the quest to exploit energy sourced in the aether, especially as it is already well-patented in the USA. In the Correa apparatus successive pulses developed the 500 J in an abnormal glow discharge which is trapped between electrodes, close to the cathode, and probably confined to a volume of a fraction of 1 cc, which also corresponds to 109 J/m3 of energy density.

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

Indeed it is appropriate to refer here to the excellent book The Secret of the Creative Vacuum by John Davidson [119]. This book had the sub-title 'Man and the Energy Dance' and, as readers might guess, it was this that inspired my choice of The Creative Vacuum as the title heading for Part 1 of this work. I refer readers to the chapter in Davidson's book which discusses 'Free Energy and the Real Space Age' and the correspondence between Thomas Townsend Brown and Rolf Schaffranke concerning apparatus involving a dome-shaped aluminium canopy which was part of an electrode structure (see pp. 194-195 in Davidson's book). Upon setting up a radial electric field inside that canopy it was found that the apparatus could lift itself into the air together with an attached load. Furthermore the apparatus was later shown to perform this lifting operation when tested within a high vacuum.

Evidently, the reason for this breach of accepted scientific doctrine was not understood by the experimenters involved in those tests, but I see this as a manifestation of the vacuum spin action mentioned above. It taps energy from space to build a kind of aether whirlwind inside the canopy and the electric pressure set up inside that canopy by the energy in spin pushes obliquely against the underside of the canopy to drive it upwards. It becomes a material object powered against the gravity field by a thrust developed against the aether in spin and most of the energy in that spin is drawn from the free energy environment of enveloping space.

How can it be that the scientific community of the world can stand aloof and pay no attention to such experimental anomalies which are only rarely discovered but which have such enormous implications for the future of mankind? How can it be that books such as that written by John Davidson have no direct impact on that scientific community by causing a redirection of research funding to probe the reported anomalies in a serious way?

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

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

For my part, in writing this text, my main objective is to draw attention to the papers I have written in connection with aether theory. I say there is an aether and I use it throughout my research to explain much in physics that has otherwise remained unexplained. I have been obstructed in my efforts by the prejudice of orthodox belief and have had many more papers rejected than have been accepted, especially in my earlier years of endeavour, from 1955 to 1975.

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

In my book Modern Aether Science [110] published in 1972, I have developed my theory on the basis of Descartes' work, but as further advanced by that early-20th-century French astronomer, Alexandre Veronnet [123]. He quantized the aether particle motion in units of the Bohr magneton and partly anticipated what I was later to discover from my research as an analogy between aether and the ferromagnetic state. I go much further, however, even including the domain aspect of ferromagnetism. I came to picture each individual star nucleating within its own space domain as gravity appeared, akin to ferromagnetism appearing when a crystal inside iron cools through the Curie temperature. I came to picture each such star moving, in a sense driven by forces somewhat similar to those just suggested in connection with the anti-gravity aluminium canopy experiments, so as to transit into other space domains at intervals of 100,000 years or so. Imagine Earth, carried along by the solar system, at the known cosmic speed of the order of some 400 km/s, moving through a domain boundary region. For about one minute the Earth would sit astride the boundary. If there is a polarity reversal of electric charge as between the two adjacent space domains, where antiprotons replace protons and positrons replace electrons, is it any wonder then that the Earth's magnetic field reverses in such events? Is it any wonder that gravity forces might become antigravity forces as between matter astride those two domains, for that brief period, to cause earthquakes on an unimaginable scale, sufficient to destroy whole species of life? May it not be, if we wish to worry about our future destruction, that we have a choice for our thoughts as between (a) our own self destruction by nuclear weapons and the like or (b) the random event of a comet or asteroid crashing into Earth or (c) the inevitable and possibly predictable event when our Earth next crosses a space domain boundary?

Might it not be that the day will come when some potential survivors will need to climb into space vehicles propelled by future antigravity technology? They will board as we approach that space domain boundary so as to go through it ahead of the Earth but make the transit in a fraction of a millisecond, eventually returning to Earth only after the dust has settled. Believe it or not, our physics, when revised to take account of what is disclosed in the Aether Science Papers of this work, allows us to estimate the timing of the next space domain boundary transit, once we can be sure about the timing of the last one. Indeed, I have detailed the evidence for this quite extensively in chapter 16 of my 1972 book Modern Aether Science and in chapter 8 of my 1980 book Physics Unified and can hardly say more. All I can say is that the predictive power of my theory, as evidenced by the papers appended, seems now to be so far beyond dispute that the implied space domain structure cannot be cast aside as mere hypothesis. The planar boundaries are absolutely essential to assure the restoring force rate as universally applicable to displaced aether charge [34]. Those boundaries must exist and the pattern of geomagnetic reversal and catastrophic events over a range of cosmic time, when taken together with the speed measurements connected with anisotropy of cosmic background radiation, provide the data allowing us to chart our passage through the space domain boundaries.

I will here remind the reader of my early comments concerning the 'Big Bang'. There are two papers in the appended bibliography which warrant special attention by the 'Big Bang' enthusiast. There was, of course, no 'Big Bang'. To escape from that dilemma one needs first to understand how the aether attenuates electromagnetic waves without suffering dispersion. The secret here is the same as that which explains gravity. It is 'dynamic balance'. The aether has a dual displacement feature, whereas Maxwell allowed unbalanced lateral displacements which meant that waves travelled without exhibiting lateral inertia. The formal analysis of this is in reference [26]. To complete the story one needs to explain the Hubble constant without appealing to the expanding universe hypothesis and I did that in my paper reference [42]. See also the special note on page 10 which refers to that paper. Unquestionably, we inhabit a universe that is 'steady-state' apart from its bubbling equilibrium. It is as if we were minute observers sitting inside a solid piece of iron, experiencing the thermal agitation whilst being firmly rooted inside that iron, but subject to drifting as we share the Earth's motion, just as if we were part of magnetic domain migrating through a crystal. Eventually, though we may suffer the `heat death' or something similar if gravity is switched off, and lose the attractive power of magnetism as that iron goes through its Curie temperature, the iron (as well as the aether) will still be obedient to a physical system that does not need the notion of an `expanding universe' or 'dilating time'.

As I revise this section of text, I happen to have just read an article at page 20 of the April 1996 issue of 'Physics World'. It tells us that researchers are seeing more and more evidence of 'proton radioactivity'. Atomic nuclei are shedding protons! The first such discovery is said to date from 1970, but, as the article explains, "Theorists predicted proton radioactivity long before it was observed by experiment for the first time in 1970."

Atomic nuclei are known to decay by shedding particles, particles and neutrons and atomic nuclei are said to comprise protons and neutrons, but not beta particles, otherwise known as electrons and positrons.

What do you, the reader, believe? Before you reached your conclusion did you ask the 'obvious' question? How do physicists really know that there are neutrons inside an atomic nucleus and not just protons and electrons? Have they ever `seen' a neutron inside the nucleus or are they simply guessing that, because neutrons `appear' as a decay 'product', those neutrons were not 'produced' but had always existed inside the parent nucleus? If so, how is it that protons are durable, whereas neutrons decay with a mean lifetime of about one quarter of an hour?

Maybe you have accepted what you were told and can see no reason for doubt. So, now you are being told that 'proton radioactivity' has been discovered, even for atoms with an atomic number greater than Z=82, a so-called 'magic number'. Might that not suggest that the atomic nucleus can shed protons and negative beta particles in a highly energetic paired relationship and we have studied this as an unstable neutral entity and given it the name 'neutron'?

In 1929 there was a book published by Cambridge University Press under the title 'The Universe Around Us'. Its author was Sir James Jeans. On page 144 one can read the words 'the most abundant isotope of mercury, of atomic number 80 and atomic weight 200.016, is built up of 200 protons, 120 nuclear electrons and 80 orbital electrons'.

I can see no reason to doubt this, it being well-accepted in 1929. How could it be that the phenomenon of the neutron as something observed outside an atomic nucleus could change opinion as to what was inside that nucleus? One curious reason I have been given dates back to the middle of the 19th century. It appears that the Reverend Samuel Earnshaw formulated a theory about the aether. He proved mathematically that charges of opposite polarity could not form collectively into a stable combination with each held in position solely by mutual electric field action. I was told that this destroyed any claim that there could be particles composed of protons and electrons closely bound together. Yet Earnshaw's theorem, though unknown to most physicists, was fully explained in the fifth edition of the book The Mathematical Theory of Electricity and Magnetism, also published by Cambridge University Press and also written by Sir James Jeans. Now, I wonder, why would Sir James Jeans be declaring in 1929 that there are protons and electrons in a stable atomic nucleus, if a theorem with which he was very familiar denied the possibility?

The simple truth is that so many physicists today are ignorant on matters of such fundamental importance. Even Earnshaw's theorem, ostensibly rigorous mathematically, is flawed. It declares that:
"A charged body placed in an electric field of force cannot rest in stable equilibrium under the influence of the electric force alone."

In fact, it can, because if a multitude of electric particles, all identical and all of the same polarity, are spinkled into a uniform sea of electric charge of uniform charge density and opposite polarity, then the mutual repulsion of those particles will cause them to take up lattice sites in an array, each such particle being located at a stable position. What Earnshaw and Jeans did not bargain for was that continuum of charge as an enivironmental background. They assumed as their premise that there was nothing in the space between the particles! Yet, in the aether, there is no empty space. It is a plenum! Jeans did say in his notes on Earnshaw's theorem that "if a molecule is to be regarded as a cluster of electrons and positive charges, then the law of force must be somewhat different from that of the inverse square." He was wrong on this, given that we have an aether that fills all space.

I have raised this subject here for two reasons. You will understand one reason when you examine the first of the fourteen papers, where I discuss the constitution of the deuteron and also that of the neutron. Secondly, however, in following my interest in energy generation, I have become attentive to the claims made for what has come to be known as 'cold fusion'. The scientific community went beserk upon hearing in 1989 the claims made by Professor Martin Fleischmann and Professor Stanley Pons that there was evidence of excess heat generation from experiments in which a palladium cathode was immersed in heavy water. The absence of neutron production was seen as clear evidence that no nuclear transmutation could possibly have occurred.

Where is that scientific spirit which yearns to learn something new? How is it that physicists always see the world in black and white and are ready to 'black' what shines through as appearing 'white', without being tolerant of alternative opinion? They banished the electron from the atomic nucleus and substituted the neutron. That was their doing and not an act of Nature.

In science there is always the need to be critical as, so often, revision of one's ideas and formulations is necessary, but, progressively, so long as we keep the main uncertainties in science as our target, we will solve all problems. The need for the phase-lock on a universal scale has been my main target, because it brings together magnetism, gravitation and the quantum connection as encapsulated in the fine-structure constant and from that flows the photon and the problem of duality with electromagnetic wave theory. I leave it to my papers, as listed in the bibliography, to tell their own story and to prove that many of the secrets of the aether are now exposed.