A recent excellent article by Lawrence Forsley recounted each major step in the history of “hot fusion” projects. The account depicts the arduous pursuit of hopeful and brilliant personnel chasing after a prize which never appeared. This chapter in technological history left most scientific researchers with a sense of silent despair. Exploration of this inward sense of loss was an emotional item which few actually and honestly addressed. Yet the projects rolled on.

Hot fusion was THE cold war quest. Besides the space race, FUSION was the socio­scientific dream. The loss of hope… the loss of myth… in this massive social project produced a brooding meditation among engineers who were devoted to its fulfillment. For the better part of twenty years there were billions of dollars spent for fusion research… seemingly in vain.

Each lost social dream becomes social malaise. Wars develop when social myths are deferred. The synthetic manufacture of new and continual myths replaces the hope deferred. Governments and regulators sponsor such alternative myths continually. The gross funding of new fusion projects represents a means for maintaining public morale at a very subliminal level.

The elusive prize was replaced by countless journals, articles, and texts… as if so much paper would fulfill the absence of the Grail. This general sense of misdirection among most physicists was balanced by a furious return to the chalkboards and publishing homes. The dream deferred became mere talk and analysis. Theoreticians, at least, found continual employment.

Shelves of once optimistic theoretical works on fusion were suddenly flooded over with equally optimistic and authoritarian apologetics. These inflated works proclaimed the “way out” through newer magnetic containment systems.

While most project personnel simply dissociated themselves from the race for controlled fusion, others (foolishly) raised their broken swords higher and “challenged nature to achieve where anti others failed. This of course meant that grant monies were to be sought again… despite the generally accepted hopelessness of the quest Fusion researchers were trapped, like some modern Tantalus… in magnetic containment.

MAGNETIC CONTAINMENT

The tragedy of each magnetic containment device lay chiefly in the theoretical promise which always failed. The hope deferred seemed to flood each separate project not long after a particular device was constructed. One usually knew after the very first trial what the end would be… and how soon it would come.

In methodic succession, and after several billion dollars were spent it became apparent that the magnetic containment systems would not succeed at all. Mercurial and elusive, certain designers attempted to “steal the secret” despite the natural odds: to fight with Nature and wrestle from her jealous hands the guarded gold. Not one imagined that perhaps their method was the wrong one… that Nature would not let go of her gold because the suitors were behaving like barbarians.

The need for the gigantic was also a feature of these projects. No units smaller than a gymnasium could meet the theoretical need. Somehow both the theoreticians and project designers believed the delusion that size and symmetry would “make the difference” in magnetic systems. Always the secret hope was held that “this one might do it.” Small laboratory devices produced unstable plasmas because they were small. Larger devices should produce more crushing power… like building an ever larger press to squeeze a lightning bolt.

Many project designers simply failed to promise a fusion achievement altogether from the outset… preferring to maintain the “safe grounds of plasma analysis.” The ancillary projects (instability analysis, arc analysis, plasma contamination, plasma diagnostics) made their appearance… a flood of “studies”… but no reactor. Grant money was poured into “plasma analytic methodologies” and almost dominated the scene where working fusion reactors should have stood.

P. Kapitza studied ball lightning phenomena with a remarkably opened mind when few academicians would not even dare touch the topic at all. S. Ulam also studied reports of the accidental formation of plasmoids among submarine generators and arc switching devices. Others studied the piezoelectric formation of plasmoids in rock fractures. Thorough research on Tesla Technology (and Tesla’s means for generating plasmoids at will) seemed to open doorways toward new possibilities.

M. Theroux developed a special Tesla transformer which actually projected small aerial plasmoids… and could repeat the performance. The Air Force funded a much larger project toward this end (R Golka). Each was looking for the answer in a new realm. And this was the precise answer… to look elsewhere for that which intuition envisions.

Intuition craves confirmation however. Too few of these “new view” researchers were actually familiar with the archives of both natural and laboratory anomalies. No one remembers what has already been achieved in isolated laboratories. Very often a chance occurrence, however subtle, gives the new direction to the world. New hydrogen energy, you will remember, was observed by several qualified persons in diverse places. Had these records been forgotten, perhaps the new revolution might never have been forged.

Were the hot fusionists true and ardent students of the stored periodical treasurehouse they too would not have simply written more surficial papers on their views. They would have known what to do to achieve the prize itself, for the answer was there… in a group of patents some twenty five years old which should have been known by all of them collectively. Perhaps they would have found their way back to the forgotten mines… but then came Tokamak.

When the Tokamak rose in the east, it seemed to offer the brightest new morning of life for fusion research. Many stole away to steal the secret of its fire. But even the Tokamak failed to deliver the immediacy of its promised prize. So deeply resentful were many researchers after the postponement of immediate success that few would even believe that the goal could be reached at all.

It is not unreasonable (given the emotional infrastructure of fusion research) that science had become first melancholy and then sanguine in all its subsequent discussions of controlled nuclear fusion. The topic represents (to the crusaders) a major dragon left undefeated. Most would rather forget the dream and all knowledge of it.

Forgotten knowledge was the main problem. Even before magnetic containment was attempted, there was a simpler answer to the particle containment problem. In his closing paragraphs Dr. Forsley asks that we imagine the truths which were lost through out this period in venture­technology.

An answer had been recorded into the scientific ledgers already which would have spared these valiant workers much time, money, and disappointment. Forgotten knowledge started all the researchers off in the wrong direction from the start.

FORGOTTEN KNOWLEDGE

Unexpected devices of great import emerge from very old patent registers and periodicals. These developments span two hundred years of astounding technological progress, and chronicle our epistemological progress as a civilization. The literary treasure house of this time period contains incredible discoveries which remain yet unrecognized, unevaluated, and forgotten.

Despite this fact, many academicians are overly confident that “old knowledge” has been thoroughly comprehended and admixed into contemporary theory and is, therefore, expendable. This view is inwardly believed to such a degree that old texts are methodically being gathered into “annex” warehouses. These treasures are then permitted to decay and are (gradually) eliminated.

This shockingly repugnant pride is the very opposite of scientific sensibility. This mindset is counter­productive and totally self destructive. Each new unexpected discovery comes as a sharp rebuke to those who remain unenlightened concerning the past. Old texts preserve forgotten thoughts… not disproven thoughts. Researchers have committed their often anomalous and disquieting observations and findings to the journals and texts. It is traditional practice that what cannot be now explained must be treasured, pondered, and comprehended for some future purpose. Discovery and anomaly are rare gifts which must be honored and preserved until understood.

The scientific historian methodically searches out catalogues of forgotten phenomena by thorough examination of old periodicals, texts, and patent files. The retrieval of old and forgotten observations, discoveries, scientific anecdotal records, and rare natural phenomena provide the intellectual dimension desperately needed by modern researchers who work in a vacuum of dogma. It is astounding to find the volumes of rare and anomalous phenomena­lists and laboratory anecdotes made by credible and qualified Victorian researchers throughout older volumes of Nature Magazine and The Electrician (c.1890).

The retrieval of inventions, designs, and other applications reveal repeatable phenomena “in application” which demand re­evaluation of tenaciously held theoretical models. The trained researcher identifies, distinguishes, and secures those particular forgotten discoveries which violate contemporarily held theoretical models. The aim of this research is new knowledge through reevaluation.

Eric Dollard is an electrical engineer who has done remarkably exhaustive historical research and experimental verifications of scientific claims made by Nikola Tesla a century before. It was through Mr. Dollard that we learned about a forgotten chapter in the art of controlled thermonuclear fusion like no other. In fact, those who read this article may be shocked to learn the real truth abouttone specific “hot fusion” project from 1962 until 1967.

The reality of anyone controlling fusion reactions… and reaching self­sustaining reaction stage would sound bizarre to anyone familiar with the historical publications. Of all the venture projects chasing after the hot fusion Grail one group of researchers looked directly into Nature’s brilliant face and saw her sparkling eyes. Mr. Dollard’s research on unusual electron tubes led him into an exhaustive study of several vacuum tube designs patented by the father of electronic television: Dr. Philo T. Farnsworth. There he found the forgotten gem.

PHILO T. FARNSWORTH

Among the incredibly prolific patents of Dr. Farnsworth are two working designs for achieving practical nuclear (“hot”) fusion. Dr. Farnsworth is the original designer of true electronic television. He had to develop the entire system of electronic television with all its parts. Image dissectors, pulse transmitters, synchronizing oscillators, synchronous scanning, image analyzers, receivers, and special cathode ray tubes… Farnsworth conceived, designed, and hand built each of them.

The technological demands of his complete television system required the development of very special electron tubes from start to finish. Each component demanded new tube designs and operational theories. In fact, examination of the Farnsworth patents reveals nothing but novel tube designs without contemporary equal.

Existing multi­element tubes could neither match the stringent power demands or frequency requirements of television. Therefore Farnsworth developed numerous unusual tubes to make his television oscillators, receivers, and transmitters more efficient. No existing technology could match the performance characteristics of his UHF oscillators, electron multipliers, and cold cathode signal amplifier tubes when he patented them.

Farnsworth designed numerous high­power UHF tubes. Notable among these designs were cold cathode devices (some of which employed soft radioactive materials), photomultipliers, multipactors, IR imaging tubes, image storage tubes, and image amplifiers. Each was a marvel of originality and inspiration. But the multipactor was a true wonder.

The multipactor design employs two opposed concave cathodes and a central series of cylindrical anodes. Noise surges generate and sustain powerful tunable oscillations within the multipactor when voltage is simply applied to the cathodes and anode. The multipactor utilizes photomultiplier effects to supply electrons. Multipactor performance borders on the anomalous, approaching “impossible” efficiency coefficients.. His success was followed closely by engineers from every military and industrial group. Full­scale research addressed the multipactor efficiency “problem”. Reports from the time period may be easily secured for study and re­evaluation.

Farnsworth continued to be a prolific designer of very unusual electron tubes before and after World War II. Casual examination of his patents continually proved the genius behind the legend. Dr. Farnsworth explored new alternatives and designed radically new concepts into a series of electron tubes which became as heralded as his development of electronic television. Each development produced in own species of anomalous phenomena These were each utilized and compounded in his successive developments. The patent record tells the story best.

PLASMOIDS AND VIRTUAL ELECTRODES

While testing high power UHF tubes Farnsworth discovered an anomalous self­focussiog space charge phenomenon. These space charge plasmoids glowed all the more brilliant with increasing application of voltage… a control characteristic. He named these point­plasma phenomena “poissors”.

“Poissors are brilliant space­suspended plasmoids of star­like appearance. When Dr. Farnsworth operated his multipactors the poissor phenomena manifested themselves with special brilliance. Electron optical focusing concentrates ions just as mirrors concentrate light. Early Farnsworth multipactors utilized twin opposed concave cold cathodes.

The design feature of concave electrodes was a radical departure in the world of electron tube designs at the time. Most electrodes of the day were simple planar surfaces. The concaves permitted the re­discovery of electron optics… a phenomenon originally witnessed by Sir William Crookes and forgotten. Students are directed to the Crookes tube with its concave cathodes.

Farnsworth multipactors and cold cathode discharge tubes produce optically focused “poissors” and exhibited all the response­control characteristics later sought by plasma physicists in their race toward achieving hot fusion. Control­responsive poissors would shrink in size, increase in ionic density, and produce more brilliant light with increasing voltage application.

Notably discovered in 1936, the poissor phenomenon made a new breed of electron power tubes and plasma devices possible. The existence of these mysterious suspended plasmoids stimulated Farnsworth’s research toward the refined use of electron optics. His refinement and use of the newly manifested phenomena produced remarkable performance efficiencies in UHF and SHF applications. In their unprecedented spherical geometries the Farnsworth tubes proved incredibly efficient and long lasting.

Virtual electrodes could influence electron behavior in power tubes. Ions could be bound in small plasma points (poissors) exhibiting stability in ionic multi­layers and sheaths. Poissors could absorb and store energy: an aspect which deeply impressed Dr. Farnsworth. The time for their retrieval from the archives of the anomalous drew close.

By 1953 he had conceived of a means for using the poissor phenomenon to produce controlled nuclear fusion reactions.. The patent record shows that Farnsworth achieved the goal. Yet, there are far more deeply entwined reasons why few have ever heard of Dr. Farnsworth’s contributions and achievements besides the academic censure of this possibility.

THE “FUSOR”

In 1959 H. S. Geneen (Raytheon) invited Dr. Farnsworth to address the ITT board of directors on controlled nuclear fusion. Against the verbalized misgivings of the AEC this lecture­presentation was given. Shortly thereafter a preliminary test on the Farnsworth “Fusor” was performed in a small ITT basement laboratory. His first design for a hot fusion reactor was realized in 1959. ITT monitored all the research and brought its own supervisors into Farnsworth’s team.

Virtual poissor plasmoids of deuterium would be isolated, shaped, confined, treated, balanced, or moved without magnetic confinement. Farnsworth’s solution to reactant confinement was elegant, simple, inexpensive, and highly efficient. He designed a new and dramatically original tube which he named “The Fusor”. This was the summation of a lifetime’s discoveries and development. I believe it is the most advanced electron power tube ever designed.

The Fusor is a device which produces controllable hot fusion reactions and does not utilize magnetic confinement. The design is a radical departure from all the designs of its time frame. The Fusor is comprised of a spherical anode which concentrically surrounds a cathode. A plurality of ion guns are mounted on the anode exterior in spherically spaced and diametrically aligned relationship so that their beam axes intersect at the cathode center. Ions from the guns are propelled and focused into the center of the cathode. This establishes in the cathode interior a series of concentric spherical sheaths of alternating maxima and minima potentials: the “virtual electrodes”.

Ions never touch any surfaces in these tubes. Magnets are never needed. The ions which “fall” into the center-most virtual electrode have fusion energies, and are contained at a density sufficient to produce fusion reactions. Charged particles are literally compressed into the required density in the central region by the process of inertial containment… a term in the art which Farnsworth first coined.

Oscillating ions are concentrically gathered in a series of charge sheaths which conform to the optically focussed fields and which represent the distributed kinetic energies of ions in the poissor. Potential escaping pre­reactive ions encounter successive electrostatic repulsions until they are forced back into their center. The Fusor System proved stable throughout its forgotten seven year research history.

With developed potentials of sufficiently high magnitude the fusion reaction can be sustained and controlled at will. Furthermore, fusion energy produces powerfully escaping nuclei which perform work against the anode field. This ionic pressure augments the applied field and appearing as a dramatic surge in field strength: one that may be directly harnessed and used in external loads as electrical power.

The Fusor Patent The fears of a “runaway reaction” were handled in the natural equilibrium maintained by the poissor core structure… as stars self maintain their output by expanding and reducing plasma density. Poissors were found to be remarkably resilient and resistive to instabilities. Farnsworth solved the confinement and conversion problems in one design. The field symmetries and process involved in achieving this variety of hot fusion seems macro-analogous to those characteristics being now explored in “cold” fusion.

On October 8, 1960, the Mark I produced a steady­state neutron count when deuterium was admitted into the device with very low power application. The central feature during these tests was not the neutron count itself. What was sought in these tests lay in the control of the reaction under increasing power application. Farnsworth established and charted increasing neutron counts with increasing application of electrostatic power. It is suggested that the reader obtain and study copies of the Fusor (patent 3,386,883).

STEADY PROGRESS

With deuterium gas in the Mark II Model 2 Fusor a count exceeding 50 M­neutrons cc/sec was recorded at 80 Kv. and 30 rnA. input. This device produced 1.3 G-neutrons/sec. in a sustained reaction for more than one minute. These reactions were stable, completely under the operator’s control, and could be repeated.

On October 5, 1965 the Fusor Mark II­, Model 6 was tested. A reconfigured, high­precision ion gun arrangement produced l G­neutrons cc/see at 20 Kv. and 1 mA…. a record achievement. On December 28, 1965 tritium was admitted into the test chamber… producing 2.6 G-neutrons/sec. at 105 Kv. and 45 mA.. With a mixture of tritium and deuterium on the very next day Dr. Farnsworth’s team measured and recorded 6.2 G-neutrons/sec. at 170 Kv..

The Mark III Fusor produced startling high records in quick succession. By the start of 196.5 the team was routinely measuring 15.5 G-neutrons/sec at 150 Kv and 70 mA. The final problem to be tackled involved the poissor itself. Self-containing and tightly layered, the fusion poissor would not admit fuel into its core once the reaction had begun. It must be remembered that this Fusor was softball­sized. A Fusor having a diameter of just one meter would permit greater ignition power for a smaller time period… while multiplying output power volumetrically.

SUSTAINED FUSION REACTION

Dr. Farnsworth reported that his team achieved a self­sustaining reaction on several occasions… and could repeat the effect. He once invited his wife to watch a test­run of this feat. As power was applied to the Fusor the neutron­reading meter achieved a steady threshold and there remained… until a slight increment of power was applied. Then the needle went off the scale. Dr. Farnsworth cut the applied power… but the needle remained in place for thirty seconds or more as the reaction continued.

ITT gradually absorbed the entire project. All related patents were assigned to ITT as success was achieved in steady steps. While steady progress was being achieved at a modest cost (examine the photographs), lTT was being influenced by powerful professionally hired “opinion makers” to drop fusion research. Suddenly even Wall Street analysts were publishing their “concerns” for ITT and its absorption of the Farnsworth subsidiary. Farnsworth himself was made the focus of every corporate death-word. These outlandish accusations indelibly remain in newspapers from the time period.

The suppression and assassination of technology is historically the response of frightened competitors… response to an impending breakthrough which might wipe out competitors. Crowd pleasing philanthropists become predators when possible usurpers appear.

Piercing voices appeared from everywhere against Farnsworth. A large reception at the Waldorf was astir with executive unrest concerning the Farnsworth research project While dressing, Farnsworth suffered a mild stroke. The AEC was mounting the nuclear fission race and the “anti­fusion” race simultaneously… and using every tactic to achieve total dominance of the energy field. He was relieved of his research project

The effect of such disappointment upon those whose lives and hopes are involved in such research is never superficial. In them ride the dreams of whole societies and futures. Those who harm such individuals do not survive in the long run. The price for the dreamer, however, is dear. Dr. Farnsworth suffered another stroke on a plane ride back home. He then retired to convalesce.

During his recuperative period at home he decided that the Fusor should be developed to its complete perfection. ITT had formally and publicly stated that the Fusor was a “dead­end”. Farnsworth thought that since this was their attitude, he might have a try at re­obtaining his patents. He therefore contacted ITT and honestly announced his intentions. The answer was negative and impersonal… a curious response for a device which was a “dead-end”… given to such an eminent personage whose inventions maintain the entire ITT operation to this day.

COOL DOWN

In quick successions, ITT asserted its complete ownership of all Fusor applications in the future. ITT warned Farnsworth that it would dominate all Fusor research forever… despite its “unfeasibility”. ITT then cut all formal financial ties with Farnsworth and left him virtually bankrupt. ITT now holds the Farnsworth patents… and bears the social debt of responsibility for suppressing Fusor technology.

In July 1969 Farnsworth built a small Fusor lab in a Brigham Young University cellar room. With purchased equipment from ITT he continued his research with generous University support. Creditors were crowding him on every side. During this time an offer came to him from SONY. He felt unable to continue. Physically ill for a long time and emotionally scarred, he died from pneumonia in 1971.

The aim of my article is not simply to re­expose mere technical facts… but to explore deeper issues of science and society. Hot fusion was achieved, scrutinized, assassinated… and suppressed. It is remarkable that few individuals in the fusion research teams across the world are even aware that their goal was realistically attained. The device which attained this feat was elegantly simple, but the movements of these social energies must first be clearly understood.

Several questions now demand simple answers. What names were behind the obvious and deliberate attack on Farnsworth’s Fusor project? How have these forces managed to keep Farnsworth’s work completely suppressed? How is it that ITT never re­exarnined and duplicated the Fusor Project? Why are outrageously huge funds yet being supplied for Tokamak projects? Are these grant mix­appropriations deliberate or are they the inertial results of forgotten knowledge? Is the synthesis of artificial social myths accumulating ignorance among those who originally produced them?

UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY

Those who are familiar with the lure of science archives understand very well that more potential technology lies dormant than is currently addressed, discussed, or implemented. Much of modern scientific research is the weak echo of work already completed within the last century. There are those who prefer to collect grants and assure themselves of bureaucratically “safe” experiments rather than ris} their yearly salaries on radically new scientific ventures.

Survivalism among academicians is no less savage and ruthless than among other groups with whom we more often associate base behavior. There are those who use projects in “throw away” fashion just to survive. There are those whose jaded personalities have taken a survivalistic stance and already accept that hot fusion is a dead­end… but a steady income.

This kind of pessimism in the scientific field promotes status-quo technology and eventually blocks He paths toward adventure arid discovery wherever and whenever it can. Unfulfilled minds become pessimistic. Unchecked pessimism becomes maliciousness.

The true and original artists of contemporary science are difficult to name except for those in radical technological ventures. It is rare today to find that kind of explosive scientific development which absolute saturates Victorian journals between 1880 and 1910. Yet we recognize that our Victorian mentors were responsible for the paths upon which we are now traveling.

More radical discovery and technology were forged during the Victorian time period than is actually engaged today. Science also seems to have great difficulty in making simple assertive statements as did our forebears… who produced a far greater weight of accomplishments. Science speaks of “statistical agreement” and “reasonably close correlations”. Not one individual is willing or able to simply say “yes” or “no”.

I was not surprised when scores of non­committal authority pleasing academicians came forward to refute new hydrogen energy. It was rather like watching reflexive behavior in laboratory animals. I believe the next regulatory step will be to ban the production of these designs and devices outright. We should be prepared for the corporate onslaught. I personally believe that we should take our options as global citizens… and cultivate the new technology among disadvantaged nations.

LIGHTS OUT

One observes that the scientific community automatically digests potential possibilities whenever new unexpected discoveries manifest themselves. This again is that rigid kind of scientific dogmatism which holds forth the graven image of “the model” before the truth. The cultivation of new discovery is an unknown art in our day… except among a rare few.

What is “unexpected discovery”? Is it not the piercing reminder that theoretical models can never replace or truly confine natural reality? Yet there are those who have inwardly replaced reality with the model… and defend the model to the death. The bright light of any natural anomaly or unexpected discovery is hated precisely because it is feared. The model for many scientific personnel is secretly their “lifeline”… their mantra. These personalities are easy to identify. Unfortunately, in positions of power, they are formidable dissuaders of new technologies.

Newly recognized phenomena and unexpected anomalies distinguish natural reality from all models. The trained scientific historian scours the sometimes rotting refuse of discarded periodicals with particular regret In these discarded stacks lie observations of enormous scope which were faithfully committed by their discoverers to the academic storehouse in hopes that these would be honored, evaluated, and admixed into newer awareness.

Why is unexpected discovery feared and hated by financial dynasties ? New technology spell. ruin for those whose status­quo policy has eliminated them from the competitive race. Most very wealthy individuals are never passionate Makers. Neither are they true philanthropists. While removing the future on the one hand they make publicly acclaimed contributions on the other. The banal misuse of powerful positions wields control to stop progress.

Regulating what discoveries are “permissible” precedes limiting “what can be known”. In other words the control of discovery precedes the control of knowledge. The control of knowledge precedes the control of awareness. Most of the world’s greatest scientific potentials lie tragically forgotten in libraries throughout the world. It is indeed remarkable to discover forgotten scientific history in the journals and patent registers because such hinds” often answer current technological problems from a more fundamental level than is imagined. The libraries themselves are being systematically gleaned and old “inadmissible” knowledge is being eradicated.

UNPRECEDENTED MAGNITUDES

Several purposes underscore this paper. The first is recounting the story of Dr. Farnsworth’s Fusor. The second concerns knowledge forgotten. We must never take the study and preservation of archival records lightly. The third aim encourages realization concerning “undefeatable” problems: they are intended to stop our progress along false paths. The fourth purpose lies in understanding the social ramifications of social dreams, new energy, new technology, and the corporate regulators of these social energies. The fifth is purely scientific: new hydrogen energy has produced tiny poissors in the solid state (Iyengar, Srinivasan).

The advent of new hydrogen energy research represents a natural phenomenon of unprecedented magnitude… a sociological event. Here we find ourselves in possession of devices which operate on tap water… and which produce prodigious amounts of heat with insignificant electrical stimuli! The need for palladium metal is not always a strict requirement… titanium and even nickel suffice under certain conditions

A mystical belief of mine deals with the suppression of truth by corporate regulators… and the global consequences of such suppression. Discovery itself is a phenomenon. Discoveries are granted as tools of survival against future needs on behalf of our race.

Of discovery I may say that suppression and manipulation results in an unstoppable reaction… the frightening release of newer, simpler technologies in every corner of the world. This phenomenal dispersion so assaults would­be controllers that no one regulator may ever seize, quench, or destroy the new technological species.

There are new discoveries to be made everywhere… they never cease appearing. As stars which appear in the blackness of space, so too the miracle of discovery endlessly manifests. This new energy revolution is itself a phenomenon… and win yield to those who pursue it the promise fulfilled.

Related articles:

1. The Farnsworth Multipactor Tube
2. Introduction to Dielectricity and Capacitance
3. Eric Dollard on “The Fallacy of Conductors”

Hydrogen is the lightest and most abundant element in the universe as well as the source of all energy. Deep within the sun and stars, nuclear fusion converts hydrogen into helium. The energy that is released when four hydrogen atoms become a helium atom is the energy which fuels all life. Evidence of the incredible amount of energy contained within a hydrogen atom is the thermonuclear or hydrogen bomb, which exploits nuclear fusion to release its destructive power.

In our natural environment, hydrogen exists primarily in combination with other elements. In order for hydrogen to be useful as a fuel, it must exist as H2 or “free hydrogen.” H2 must therefore be produced, unlike fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal and oil which can be directly mined or extracted. In this sense, hydrogen is a secondary source of energy, analogous to electricity. The energy used to produce H2 is stored, with some losses, within the H2 molecule. This energy can then be kept in storage, used on-site, or transported to a remote location for energy conversion. The fact that hydrogen must be produced is a major consideration when examining its effectiveness as an energy carrier, and is the biggest stumbling-block to widespread use in commercial applications.

Free hydrogen exists at normal atmospheric conditions as an odorless, colorless gas. It is stable and will co-exist harmlessly with free oxygen (O2) until an input of energy drives the exothermic (heat-releasing) reaction which forms water. This reaction from a higher energy state to a lower one generates a positive output of energy. For over a century it has been predicted that a system will be developed in which hydrogen, extracted from pure water using energy derived from the sun, is used as a fuel or as an “energy-carrier,” and will serve to provide the demands for all of society’s power requirements. The beauty of the system being that solar energy and water, the sources, are practically limitless and that the resulting energy conversion is relatively pollution-free with the only waste product being pure water. A seemingly perfect cycle, beginning and ending with energy and water.

In 1870, Jules Verne predicted with impressive foresight the use of hydrogen fuel in his Sci-Fi classic Mysterious Island. Verne describes a process whereby, “…water will one day be employed as fuel, that hydrogen and oxygen which constitute it, used singly or together, will furnish an inexhaustible source of heat and light, of an intensity of which coal is not capable. …Water will be the coal of our future.” Where is this technology that has had 100 years to come to fruition? An examination of the history of hydrogen research as well as a look at today’s research and development helps to provide some answers.

History

Probably the first recorded event of the production of hydrogen in the laboratory is contained within 15th century alchemical texts. The alchemists dealt extensively with the transmutation of metals, a procedure which required the dissolution of metals in salts or acids. At the time, the existence of the element hydrogen was unknown to the alchemists, although they were aware of the presence of something different in these metal/acid reactions. Theophrastus Bombastus “Paracelsus” (1493-1541) was purported to have said, when he dissolved iron in spirit of vitriol, “Air arises and breaks forth like the wind.” He was most probably referring to the production of hydrogen. Still, little was understood of the gas’ properties. Its burnability was not noted until the 17th century by Turquet de Mayerne.4

It was the common belief in 17th century Europe that air itself was a basic element. Some perceptive individuals suspected that there existed a property of air which was required for the combustion and the sustenance of life. Some important figures involved in this quest were the Dutch physician Herman Boerhaave (1668-1738), the English scientist Robert Boyle (1627-1691) (who developed Boyle’s Law) and the English physician John Mayow (1645-1679) all of which were outspoken in their belief in a “life-giving” substance within air.

It was also believed that there existed a substance called phlogiston which imparts burnability in matter and that combustion was the release of phlogiston. This theory was first published in 1697 by the German scientist Georg Ernst Stahl (1660-1734). Henry Cavendish (1731-1810), believing in the existence of phlogiston, attempted to describe some of its properties. He succeeded in isolating carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen gas (H2) and dubbed them “fixed air” and “flammable air” respectively. He was able to obtain precise measures of hydrogen’s specific weight and density, although he thought he was studying a pure state of phlogiston. Cavendish also discovered that igniting a mixture of flammable air and oxygen (air) produced water. These were to be pivotal investigations into the properties of hydrogen.

The French chemist Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794) continued the study of flammable air, repeating Cavendish’s experiments, and eventually produced hydrogen and oxygen in the laboratory via the dissolution of metals in acid. He was also able to split water molecules using a heated copper tube. In another experiment he combined hydrogen and oxygen and produced water. These experiments, in 1785, were to prove definitively that H2 and O2 are the basic constituents of water. It was his important publication, The Method of Chemical Nomenclature, in which Lavoisier named the “flammable air” hydrogen, and the “life-sustaining air” oxygen. Lavoisier was eventually executed after the French Revolution in 1794 because of his associations with the pre-Revolution French government, a loss heavily mourned by the international scientific community of the day.

The discovery that “flammable air” was fourteen times lighter than air led to the use of hydrogen as a bouyant in aeronautical balloons. A French physicist Jacques Alexandre Cesar Charles (1746-1823) was the first to use hydrogen in a balloon known as a “Charliere,” in which he was able to fly to an altitude of 3km in 1783 (use of hydrogen continued on into the 20th century, eventually being replaced by helium due to its inert properties, thus reducing chance of explosion).

Soon after Alessandro Volta built his first electric cell near the turn of the century, two English scientists, William Nicholson and Sir Anthony Carlisle, discovered that by passing an electric current through water, hydrogen and oxygen could be produced. This process, called electrolysis, was to become an important method for the production of hydrogen. In 1839, Sir William Groves was able to reverse the process, combining hydrogen and oxygen with platinum electrodes and a sulfuric acid (H2SO4) electrolyte to produce electricity and water, inventing the first fuel cell.

Early in the 19th century, the Reverend William Cecil presented a paper to the Cambridge Philosophical Society entitled, “On the Application of Hydrogen Gas to Produce Moving Power in Machinery.” Basically, the paper described a hydrogen-powered engine in which hydrogen and oxygen were combined and ignited. The ensuing vacuum generated a moving force via the air that rushed in to fill the void. Although there is no record that the engine was actually built, Cecil’s proposal pioneered the study of hydrogen’s use as a fuel.

On into the 20th century, hydrogen’s development as a fuel source had achieved little progress until the Scottish geneticist J.B.S. Haldane presented a paper to Cambridge University in which he proposed that Britain could meet it’s increasing demand for energy by using wind energy to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen. The gases, first liquefied, can be stored in underground reservoirs until needed. They can then be recombined in combustion motors or “oxidation cells.” This paper, presented in 1923, offered a glimpse into the potential of a solar-hydrogen fuel system. At a time when the use of fossil fuels, especially coal, was prevalent, Haldane emphasized the scarcity of fossil fuels and the eventual necessity of an alternative source of energy.

Haldane also pointed out that liquid hydrogen has three times as much heat per pound of hydrocarbon fuel. This is an important factor when developing hydrogen fuel for use in air and space travel, where weight is of a prime design criteria. However, the lightness of hydrogen allows for only about one-third of the energy per unit volume. An aircraft using hydrogen will be able to fly higher and farther due to the lighter fuel load than an aircraft using the energy-equivalent amount of jet fuel.4, 13 The tanks, however, must be much larger and take up to one-third of the fuselage in current designs for commercial aircraft.4

In the 1930′s, interest in hydrogen as a fuel reached a new height. In Germany, two men were extremely influential in hydrogen research; Franz Lawaczeck and Rudolph Erren. Lawaczeck, a German turbine designer, was sketching designs for hydrogen powered cars as early as 1919.4 His work, in collaboration with the German-American J.E. Noeggerath, and the German inventor Hermann Oberth, led to ideas for developments in efficient pressurized electrolyzers, liquid hydrogen use as a rocket fuel, and the transportation of hydrogen in pipelines for use as an energy-carrier.

The most influential pioneer of the 1930s would undoubtedly be Rudolf Erren. An expert in the combustion process, Erren began developing hydrogen engines in the late 1920s. He advanced the concept of injecting hydrogen into the air-fuel mixture of combustion engines, serving to heighten the output of the combustion process. Erren, working in cooperation with the German, Australian, and British governments, converted buses, vans, rail cars, and even submarines to be powered by hydrogen or any combination of hydrogen-fuel mixtures.4, 7 However, a conflict of interests brought about by World War II, made it impossible for Erren to work with both the British and German governments and Erren’s efforts to expand the technology were fruitless. Eventually the government research money was cutoff and Erren’s research fell into a period of disquiet.

Other important developments of the 1930s included the work of the German engineer Hermann Honnef, who designed huge wind-power generators which could theoretically produce up to 100 megawatts of power, stored as hydrogen. Although they never went beyond the drawing board, Honnef’s ideas were predecessors to much of the wind-turbine technology used effectively today.

Hydrogen was also being used to supplement fuel in large dirigibles in both Germany and England. In the 1920s and 1930s, before switching to helium, hydrogen was the primary bouyant used in large passenger balloons. These “Zeppelins” were able to fly to altitudes of 2400 feet at 75 mph. The fuel used to drive the motors was typically a benzol-gasoline mixture. In order to maintain proper bouyancy, the captain was required to blow off hydrogen as fuel was consumed. An innovative solution was to combine the blow-off hydrogen with the main fuel in the internal-combustion engines. In this way they were able to decrease fuel consumption.4 England also used this strategy in their R101 airships, and were also able to reduce the requirements for hydrocarbon fuel.

Zeppelins are still what people most associate with hydrogen, and the Hindenburg disaster is probably the most well-known event involving hydrogen. The Hindenburg’s association to hydrogen has created a negative public image of the gas, and has perpetuated the myth that hydrogen is extremely dangerous. The Hindenburg was actually designed to use helium as the bouyant. At the time of the ill-fated journey to New Jersey, helium was extremely hard to come by due to U.S. trade embargoes. They used hydrogen, the next best thing, but the ship was not equipped with the necessary safety features required to deal with the flammable gas. The explosion was well covered by the media at the time. Little known is the fact that most of the deaths (there were thirty six casualties) were not attributed to the actual explosion, but occured when many tried to jump to safety and died on landing. It is now established that hydrogen is, in fact, less dangerous than most fuels used today.10

In the United States, I.I. Sikorski, who developed the first working helicopter, was looking into the use of hydrogen as an aircraft fuel. In 1938, he presented his ideas to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, suggesting that the use of liquid hydrogen would permit, “… a great change, particularly with respect to long-range aircraft…” “This would make possible the circumnavigation of the earth along the equator in a nonstop flight without refueling. It would also enable an increase in the performance of nearly every type of aircraft.” His statement would prove prophetic in the years to follow.

The next decade saw little in the way of forward progress in hydrogen research and development, presumably due to the distractions of World War II. Any existing collaborations between German and English scientists disintegrated, and funding went elsewhere. The only significant events were the redistribution of fossil-fuel resources, which led many countries to start looking for sources of domestic energy. This factor contributed directly to the work of J.S. Just in Australia, who found that hydrogen, produced via off-peak electricity, cost roughly the same per mile as gasoline in trucks.7 Plans were made to develop commercial-sized electrolysis plants, but were scrapped after the Allied victory in 1945 made oil available and cheap once again.

One Australian who continued hydrogen research was R.O. King, who relocated to the University of Toronto in Canada to further the cause. From 1948 to 1955, King led his team of scientists at the University of Toronto to conduct numerous studies into the use of hydrogen as an alternative to gasoline in ordinary internal combustion engines. They were able to show that hydrogen was indeed feasible in this capacity, the primary constraint being that the compression ratio in the engines had to be kept below seven to one13. These studies in Toronto showed that combustion engines can be converted to run on hydrogen simply and cheaply.

During the same period, the British scientist Francis T. Bacon began development of the hydrogen-air fuel cell. This fuel cell, called the Bacon Cell, substituted an alkali (potassium hydroxide (KOH)) for the acid as the electrolyte, eliminating the problem of corrosion of the electrodes. The Bacon Cell was used as the model fuel cell which was to become an integral part of NASA’s space program.

In the 1950s, the U.S. Air Force was using hydrogen fuel in experimental high-altitude, long-range reconnaissance aircraft. Based at the NACA Lewis Research Center in Ohio, the Air Force converted a B-57 to run on liquid hydrogen. The pilot had the option to switch from the conventional kerosene fuel source to hydrogen. This was fed under pressure from the wing-tip fuel tank to a heat-exchanger where the cryogenic liquid was heated to a gas and burned normally in one of the two jet engines. Although the program was a success, the use of other fuels proved to be more cost-efficient, and the use of hydrogen as an aircraft fuel was discontinued.

At the same time, Lockheed, in conjunction with Pratt & Whitney, was developing a high-altitude, supersonic spy plane to run on liquid hydrogen fuel. This plane, the CL-400, got as far as wind-tunnel testing before the program was discontinued for technical and logistical reasons. A large amount of drag was introduced due to the larger volume requirements of liquid hydrogen storage. This required more power to keep the plane in flight. One positive outcome was the determination that liquid hydrogen did not require more safety precautions than that which were required for hydrocarbon fuels. This is an important step in helping to dispel the “Hindenburg Myth.”

Lockheed and NASA have since continued development of an advanced supersonic transport (AST) using liquid hydrogen fuel (LiqH2). Studies in the tradeoff of reduced fuel consumption with LiqH2 versus increased drag have shown that the LiqH2 AST would still be 43% more efficient (environmental advantages also play a part in the consideration, with reduced carbon emissions, less noise, and lower NOX emissions).4 Still, the final considerations are economic, and hydrocarbon fuels are still cheaper than hydrogen, when production, storage, and transportation are accounted for. Until the scarcity of fossil fuels makes their price increase to a higher level, government support of LiqH2 aircraft will be lacking.

In the 1960′s NASA developed the use of the hydrogen fuel cell for use in the Apollo missions to the moon. The fuel cells, utilizing expensive platinum electrodes, provided electrical power on-board, as well as generating drinking water for the crew’s consumption. It proved to be a highly reliable system and is still used today in the Space Shuttle missions.

Also, during the 1960s, an Australian electrochemist John O’M. Bockris, while working as a consultant with General Motors, began advancing the idea of a “hydrogen economy.” In this ambitious energy concept, the cities of the United States could be supplied with energy derived from the sun, and the energy stored using hydrogen. GM studied the use of hydrogen for a time, yet did not pursue the technology to any significant degree. Bockris continued his crusade, and the phrase “hydrogen economy,” which has nothing to do with economics, has become an important concept.

In 1966, 16 year old Roger Billings modified a model-A Ford to run on hydrogen. Billings went on to convert many late model automobiles to run on hydrogen using their internal combustion engines. In 1972, he won the anti-pollution category of the Urban Vehicle Design Competition with a hydrogen-fueled Volkswagen. Billings soon teamed up with other interested parties to form one of the most influential advocates and developers of hydrogen-fueled automobiles, the Billings Energy Corporation of Provo. He has demonstrated the feasibility of hydrogen use in buses and mail trucks. Roger Billings is still in the forefront of hydrogen technology, speaking out and demonstrating the advantages of hydrogen use in transportation and home appliances. Since that time, literally hundreds of automobiles have been converted to run on hydrogen.

The “energy crisis” of 1973 produced a major impetus for a renewed interest in alternative fuel sources. The OPEC situation and the realization that fossil fuels were not only running out but environmentally undesirable, led to a shift in public opinion. The renewed public interest was so strong that it generated an incredible amount of publicity. Most of the major publications printed stories about hydrogen. Articles appeared in Business Week, Readers Digest, Time, Scientific American, and Fortune. Hydrogen had become a popular solution to the prevailing urgency to find a source of domestic energy.

The upsurge in interest led to the formation of advocate groups. The H2indenburg Society, formed on the 35th anniversary of the Hindenburg disaster, was dedicated to the “safe utilization of hydrogen as a fuel.” The purpose was to educate and dispel many of the myths which deemed hydrogen to be a dangerous, useless substance. Originally an informal group, popular interest led to the necessity for the formation of the International Association for Hydrogen Energy in 1974. Another important group, the Institute of Gas Technology, also played an important role in generating public awareness and support for hydrogen research. Other associations that have sprouted up since then include the American Hydrogen Association and the National Hydrogen Association.

Great gains were made in the research of hydrogen in the 1970s, but interest waned in the decade to follow. The reason was once again economics. Hydrogen was still too expensive. Although the environmental aspects were appealing, they could not outweigh the fact that natural gas, oil, and coal were much cheaper and easier to use. Also, the “crisis” in the Middle East dissipated when OPEC loosened its grip, and the price of oil leveled off.

Most advances since the 1970s have been made using hydrogen in motor-driven vehicles, either in conjunction with other fuels, or used in electric vehicles. Since 1982, Georgetown University has been developing a fuel-cell/battery-operated bus. The buses have been used in California, Washington D.C., and Chicago with favorable results. Canada’s Ballard Power Systems developed a 20-passenger bus to run on a hydrogen fuel-cell. Daimler Benz, in Europe has also developed vehicles which run on metal hydride storage systems. A press release dated May 14, 1996, gave details of a newly unveiled fuel cell vehicle available to the public. The NECAR II fuel cell vehicle has room for six people. The fuel cells produce an output of 50 kW and enable a top speed of 110 km/h. The range of the vehicle, on full hydrogen tanks, is more than 250 kilometers.1

Daimler-Benz has also mentioned development of an automobile that will produce hydrogen on-board, using methanol. A successful method of producing hydrogen “on the go” would be a major step in hydrogen evolution, and would create a revolution in transportation, even if hydrocarbon fuels are still used.

Other automobile manufacturers, such as Mazda and Renault, have developed hydrogen powered vehicles, although none have been slated for public availability as of yet. Some U.S. companies, pushed by stiffer environmental legislature, and deadlines to produce “zero-emission” automobiles by the year 2000, have increased the push to make available a hydrogen-powered passenger vehicle. There is little evidence that the American automobile manufacturers are able to meet any of the environmental goals set by State and Federal legislatures. Whether this is technical inability or a conflict of interests is unclear.

In the United States, recent legislation has paved the way for hydrogen programs. In 1990, the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen, Research, Development and Demonstration Act (PL 101-566) led to the enactment of a 5-year management and implementation plan for hydrogen research and development. The Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel was established for coordination and consultation.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (PL 102-486) authorized the Department of Energy to administer the five year R&D program. In accordance with the Matsunaga Act, the program would include investigation into renewable production of hydrogen, transportation of hydrogen via existing natural gas pipeline systems, hydrogen storage for vehicle use, and fuel cells for hydrogen powered vehicles.

The Hydrogen Energy Research Program was introduced in the Hydrogen, Fusion and High Energy and Nuclear Physics Research Act of 1994. The bill authorized $134 million over four years. The main goal is the demonstration of the practicability of using hydrogen in transportation, industrial, residential, and utility applications by the year 2000. The bill passed the House but did not pass the Senate. The Hydrogen Future Act of 1995 was a toned down version of the original bill which reduced the emphasis on demonstration projects, and instead focussed more on R&D. The bill passed congress and is now in effect with much funding going into R&D.

Today, interest in hydrogen seems to be on an upswing once again. Recognition of the benefits of hydrogen has reached a global scale. The continued demonstration of the attainability of a renewable, clean-burning fuel has captured public awareness, and has won the support of those governments which aid in funding research and creating infrastructure webs.

Present Technologies

There are four processes which must be considered when developing a hydrogen-fuel system. These processes are:

1. Production

2. Storage

3. Transportation

4. Energy conversion

There are many alternatives from which to choose when developing a hydrogen system. The factors in which each alternative is considered, involve efficiency, economic feasibility, and environmental impacts. How these factors are weighted against each other is open for debate. Currently the prevailing trend is to consider cost-effectiveness above all else. Recent trends in legislature and public concern are shifting emphasis more towards renewable and pollution-free considerations as a priority for development of hydrogen technology.

Hydrogen is a secondary source of energy, not a primary source like oil or natural gas. Therefore, in order to be utilized hydrogen must first be produced. There are many ways in which hydrogen can be produced. Methods of production include chemical, electrochemical, photochemical, biological, and thermochemical processes.

The simplest method to produce hydrogen is to dissolve metals in acid. For example, when zinc (Zn) is placed in a solution of hydrochloric acid, it reacts to produce zinc chloride and hydrogen.

Zn + 2HCl > ZnCl2 + H2

This reaction can be reproduced simply in the laboratory, although the amount of hydrogen produced is minimal. Still, this method was used to a large extent during World War II when scrap aluminum was dissolved in sodium hydroxide (lye) in order to generate hydrogen. The hydrogen was then used to inflate unmanned balloons for weather observation and raising radio antennas.13 This method is relatively expensive, and is not considereda method for mass production (today, research is being done with scrap iron to produce hydrogen, for use in transportation as a method of producing hydrogen onboard). Small amounts of hydrogen can then be economically produced to provide the needs of a small hydrogen-fuel system.

The cheapest, and by far the most widely used method for producing hydrogen is steam reformation. Steam, and a carbon-based feedstock (usually methane or natural gas), are combined under high temperature and high pressure to produce carbon dioxide and hydrogen. It is estimated that 95% of hydrogen produced in the US is by the steam methane reformation method.8 Most of this hydrogen is used in industrial applications. Although hydrogen can be produced in this manner for about $0.65 per kilogram, the environmental consequences of the use of hydrocarbons are still a concern. The production of carbon dioxide, a “greenhouse gas,” as well as nitrogen oxides (NOx) contribute to the pollution of the Earth’s atmosphere. Also, the limited resources can only make the cost increase as the supplies of fossil fuel sources decrease. A newly developing renewable option is the use of biomass, or recycled carbonaceous material, as the feedstock in the steam reformation process. The air pollution problems still exist, but it will be an intelligent use of a waste product.

Another method for producing hydrogen is electrolysis. Electrolysis involves the application of a small voltage (approx. 2V DC) to pure water. The electrical energy decomposes the water molecule into its constituent elements, hydrogen and oxygen. This technique has the advantage of producing hydrogen directly from water, with none of the environmental drawbacks which accompany processes using fossil-fuels. Still, the relatively low-efficiency (currently 60-65% with a theoretical maximum of 85%) of the process, and the high cost of electricity make this an expensive option.10 The cost of producing hydrogen via electrolysis is about $3.00 per kg.8

The method of electrolysis is the most attractive for those interested in a completely clean, renewable process using solar energy to produce the electricity. Photovoltaic cells, hydropower, and wind turbines are currently being used to generate the electricity required to electrolyze water for hydrogen production.5, 6 Other renewable options include geothermal, tidal, wave action, and thermal gradients in the ocean. Although most of these processes do not produce sufficient amounts of energy to provide hydrogen on a large scale, on-site electricity production coupled with a small on-site electrolyzer can produce enough energy to provide for the energy needs of a household along with fuel for the family automobile. This allows hydrogen to be produced easily without having to wait for an infrastructure to develop.

Other attempts at water-splitting have involved super-heating water to temperatures high enough to liberate the hydrogen from the water molecule (thermochemical). The temperatures required are in the range of 5000ø _ 6000ø F. Adding chemicals such as sulfuric acid can lower the required temperature but the bottom line is that the only feasible way of generating the heat required is by way of a nuclear reaction. Nuclear power generation, needless to say, has severe safety implications. There is still research being done in the thermochemical production of hydrogen which doesn’t require nuclear power plants. An example would be solar power plants in which the heat of the Sun is focused into a tiny point where the heat accumulates, much like a magnifying glass. Yet there are still environmental concerns due to the chemicals involved, and the nitrogen oxides which are formed from a heat reaction in air (which has a high concentration of nitrogen).

Photoprocesses involve the use of light energy for the production of hydrogen. These methods in one way or another, attempt to mimic the natural phenomena of photosynthesis. In plants, chlorophyll captures light energy and uses it to produce complex sugar-phosphate compounds. The most astonishing fact is that this chemical reaction, basically CO2 + H2O + light energy > sugars + O2 occurs at room temperature! Much research has been done to reproduce this feat. Photobiological techniques which coax photosynthetic plants, algae, and bacteria into respiring hydrogen, photochemical techniques which synthetically duplicate the photosynthetic process, and photoelectrochemical techniques which use layers of semiconductors separated by water are being researched today.4, 8 These are promising technologies, but are still in the experimental stage. If efficiency improves, then photoprocesses may play a part in the future of hydrogen.

Storage and Transportation

Hydrogen is typically stored as a liquid, or as a gas. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these storage options, the choice of which depends upon the ultimate use.

Hydrogen becomes a liquid at temperatures below -423.13ø F (-252.9ø C). Liquefication of hydrogen is very energy-intensive, with one-third of the energy content of the hydrogen used in the liquefication process.10 This is offset by a reduction of volume requirements for hydrogen storage, with much less storage space required for a liquid than a gas. Less volume needed for storage, makes liquid hydrogen the preferred form of hydrogen used in the Aerospace industry with NASA being one of the largest consumers of liquid hydrogen in the world.4, 12

Once in liquid form, hydrogen can be transported in pressurized tanks by truck, barge, or rail. Due to the very low boiling temperature of hydrogen, losses due to boil-off can be considerable. Insulation of the tanks is of utmost importance to reduce these losses. If insulated properly, hydrogen can be stored for as much as five years without significant losses.9, 10

Hydrogen can also be stored as a pressurized gas. As a gas it can be transported via pipelines, using existing natural gas distribution lines. A concern would be possible embrittlement of the lines due to absorption by the metal fittings. Storage of hydrogen as a gas is the most economical method, but due to the necessity for larger tanks, weight and space requirements can be a problem. It is estimated that the mass of a pressure tank is 100 times the mass of the hydrogen stored within it.10 Higher pressure means less volume required, but the walls need to be reinforced to withstand the greater pressure. Although hydrogen is extremely light, the containers necessary to store gaseous hydrogen can be heavy and bulky.

Another method of storing gaseous hydrogen involves metal hydrides. Certain metals such as magnesium, titanium, or iron, have an affinity for hydrogen. Under certain conditions, these metals will absorb gaseous hydrogen, and store it within its molecular structure. When the hydride is heated, the hydrogen is released. Although energy is required to store and to release the hydrogen, this option has proved attractive for use as a storage medium onboard automobiles. The main reason is that it is much less energy-intensive than the liquefication process, although heat energy is required to release the hydrogen.4 Also, safety and space concerns are reduced when metal hydride storage is used in automobiles.

There are a variety of other methods being developed for hydrogen storage. These include carbon adsorption, glass microspheres, onboard partial oxidation reactors, and recyclable liquid carriers. Some of these options appear promising, but they will still take some time to develop.

Power Conversion

There are two ways of using hydrogen to generate power. One is simple combustion. The use of hydrogen in internal combustion engines has been used extensively. The other is the conversion of hydrogen into electricity in a fuel cell, which is essentially electrolysis in reverse. Both of these have their advantages and disadvantages.

Internal combustion engines can be easily converted to run on hydrogen, or a hydrogen-fuel mixture.7, 10 The noxious emissions are greatly reduced, with water being the only by-product if pure hydrogen and oxygen are used. Nitrogen oxides are still formed from the high heat of combustion, and are still a source of air pollution.

Over the past two decades, most research has gone into the development of the fuel cell. The operation of a fuel cell involves the combination of hydrogen (anode) and oxygen (cathode) in the presence of an electrolyte. Output voltages range from 0.7 to 1.12 V.10 The type of fuel cell varies depending on the electrolyte used. Fuel cell types include the Phosphoric acid fuel cell, the alkaline fuel cell, and the solid oxide fuel cell. The most common type, the alkaline fuel cell, is still used by NASA on board spacecraft.7 Another type of electrolyte being developed is the proton-exchange membrane which uses a solid polymer to facilitate the reverse electrolysis process. This solid polymer, which is much like plastic kitchen wrap, conducts protons, and is very conducive to the purpose of an electrolyte. Although membrane costs are high, this type of fuel cell appears very promising, and is currently being used in advanced research (Schatz Lab, Humboldt State University, California).

The use of hydrogen is at an all-time high. It is possible to convert any car sitting in the driveway to run on hydrogen. It is being proven every day that hydrogen can be used as a replacement not only for gasoline, but natural gas in heaters and stoves in the home. Hydrogen could some day replace electricity as the primary energy-carrier via high-voltage power lines, being transported in pipelines and converted to electricity on-site.

Production of hydrogen is also becoming easy to do for anyone with access to about 2V of DC electricity. Many homesteads generate enough electricity using windmills and solar panels to supply the household’s needs. A small electrolyzer added to this system could easily produce enough hydrogen to fuel a vehicle. It is clearly possible that anyone with a little ingenuity and skill can convert the household to use hydrogen, convert the car to run on hydrogen, and generate the electricity for hydrogen production using only solar energy, all for about the cost of a mid-sized American sedan.

Any in depth study of hydrogen reveals the vast array of system configurations for hydrogen power. The bottom line is that any system which utilizes hydrogen in any capacity is going to be better off for it. Harmful emissions are reduced, efficiency is increased and water(the original source), is produced. On a larger level, it would seem possible that use of hydrogen alone or in conjunction with other fuels would be a major step in the right direction, and bring us a little closer to a more harmonic cycle of energy use.

References

1. Daimler-Benz A.G., “News Release: Fuel Cell Vehicle NECAR II”, National Hydrogen Association Web Page (http://www.paltech.com/ttc/NHA/), 1996.

2. David Halliday, Robert Resnick, and John Merrill, Fundamentals of Physics, John Wiley & Sons, 1988.

3. Gladys Hefferlin, and W. C. Hefferlin, Hefferlin Manuscripts: Part I & II, BSRF, op.

4. Peter Hoffmann, The Forever Fuel: The Story of Hydrogen, Westview Press, 1981.

5. Peter Lehman, and Christine Parra, “Hydrogen Fuel From the Sun,” Solar Today, Sept.-Oct. 1994.

6. Peter Lehman, and Charles E. Chamberlin, “Design and Performance of SERC’s Prototype Fuel Cell Powered Vehicle”, Presented at the 7th Annual National Hydrogen Association Meeting, April 2-4, 1996.

7. James MacKenzie, The Keys to the Car: Electric and Hydrogen Vehicles for the 21st Century, World Resources Institute, 1994.

8. Daniel Morgan, and Fred Sissine, “Hydrogen: Technology and Policy”, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Committee for the National Institute for the Environment, 1995.

9. Joan M. Ogden and Robert H. Williams, Solar Hydrogen: Moving Beyond Fossil Fuels, World Resources Institute, 1989.

10. Michael A. Peavey, Fuel From Water: Energy Independence With Hydrogen, Merit Products, Inc., 1983.

11. William K. Purves, Gordon H. Orians, and H. Craig Heller, Life: The Science of Biology, Sinauer Assoc., inc., 1992.

12. Luther W. Skelton, The Solar-Hydrogen Energy Economy: Beyond the Age of Fire, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1984.

13. L.O. Williams, Hydrogen Power: An Introduction to Hydrogen Energy and its Applications, Permagon Press, 1980.

14. Steven S. Zumdahl, Chemistry, D. C. Heath and Co., 1986.

Related articles:

1. TOP SECRET: Science Fiction
2. The Broadcast Power of Nikola Tesla (Part 2)
3. The Broadcast Power of Nikola Tesla (Part 1)

The mainstream scientific community dismisses the idea of “Free Energy” or “Over-Unity” machines because they say that the behavior of such machines violates the “Second Law of Thermodynamics.” The purpose of this article is to squarely face this issue from an alternative science point of view. Many engineers and inventors, working in the alternative energy field, still mistakenly believe that the “Laws of Thermodynamics” are universally true. For them, the “free energy” machine can only be a clever scientific slight of hand where the machine becomes “outlaw”, breaking some fundamental universe law. For progress to be made in this field, the limitations and errors inherent in the “Laws of Thermodynamics” must be exposed. Only then will people realize that scientific experimentation is the only reliable tool for revealing the behavior of physical reality.

In order to bring this about, it will be helpful to quickly review some of the pivotal historical events which helped shape the modern scientific era with regards to thermodynamics. Before the year 1800, perpetual motion machines were considered possible and heat was not regarded as a form of energy. Both of these long standing assumptions, dating back thousands of years, were effectively toppled by the ideas of Hermann von Helmholtz in 1847 when he postulated that since no one had ever been able to build a working perpetual motion machine, that just probably, it was not possible. In order to deny the possibility of perpetual motion and hold the argument together, he had to assume that energy in the system was being conserved. It had long been observed that mechanical devices could not transfer energy perfectly. There was always some friction in the working parts. Friction was not only known to impede the transfer of energy in the machine, but it was known to produce heat. In order to simultaneously explain the work loss and the heat gain, so that conservation could be satisfied, Helmholtz postulated that heat was a form of energy consisting of a small, random motion in the molecules of matter. He went on to speculate that the loss of work in the machine as large scale motion was still present as heat in the small scale motion of the molecules in the material the machine was made of. He suggested from this that both the heat and work must be considered energy, and that it was the total that was conserved, rather than the heat or work separately.

By 1850, Rudolf Clausius was able to synthesize the work of Helmholtz, James Joule, Sadi Carnot and others to express a generalized statement that has become known as the “First Law of Thermodynamics.” It states that “energy can be changed from one form to another, but it is neither created nor destroyed.” By the time this thought became universally believed, it had totally transformed the intellectual landscape of mechanics, physics and energy dynamics. This was a clean break from the set of thoughts and assumptions that had come forward from antiquity. A new era in science had begun.

In understanding these historical developments, it is important to realize that besides the new theoretical explanation about the nature of heat, all of the other data that led to the new theoretical generalizations was derived experimentally. This can be illustrated by an observation made by Sadi Carnot in his extensive work regarding the behavior of heat in machines. He states that “in all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed that is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work, an equal quantity of heat is produced.” This statement by Carnot was based on hundreds of experimental measurements. After such convincing experimentation, it was not unreasonable for Clausius to conclude that heat could be converted into mechanical work. It was, however, a theoretical leap of logic to conclude that energy, in general, could be changed from one form to another.

Before we go on, it is important, for our purposes, to be reminded that this new idea expressed as the “First Law of Thermodynamics” consists of a number of overlapping ideas and assumptions that can be expressed as follows:

1) Perpetual motion machines are impossible

2) The nature of heat is reduced to the random motions of molecular matter

3) Energy can be changed from one form to another without any explanation as to how this conversion is actually accomplished in any specific case

4) Energy is not created in or destroyed by its passage through a mechanism

5) All forms of energy behave the same way

All of these ideas are fundamentally inherent in “The First Law of Thermodynamics.” From an alternative science point of view, the experimental work of Carnot and Joule will stand for all time. It is the intellectual overlay of Helmholtz and Clausius, on this experimental work, where the problems are introduced. The theory of conversion and the ideas about the nature of heat will be taken up again later in this article, after more ground work has been laid.

The “Second Law of Thermodynamics” evolved out of further studies of the behavior of heat in closed systems. Remarkably, there is no one statement that is universally recognized as the definitive expression of this so called “Law”. Among the more popular statements which reflect the general understanding of the “Second Law of Thermodynamics” are the following: “In a closed system, entropy does not decrease”, “The state of order in a closed system does not spontaneously increase without the application of work”, “Among all the allowed states of a system with given values of energy, number of particles and constraints, one and only one is a stable equilibrium state”, and “It is impossible to construct a device that operates in a cycle and produces no other effect than the production of work and exchange of heat with a single reservoir.” For those who can fathom the language, these statements clearly do not all express the same idea. Some have broad ramifications while others are more narrowly defined. All of these statements grew out of the idea, expressed fairly well as the last statement in the series, that a perpetual motion machine could not be made that operated on the principle of a work/heat exchange when this process was limited to a known quantity of heat at the start. After that amount of heat was converted to work and the temperature of the reservoir was reduced to the ambient temperature outside, no further work could be expected to be produced. This is not only reasonable, but it is backed up by thousands of experiments. As long as the “Law” is clearly and narrowly defined as a statement that reflects upon the behavior of heat in closed systems, this author has no problem with agreeing completely.

Problems arise, however, with some of the more generalized interpretations of the “Law” such as “the state of order in a closed system does not spontaneously increase without the application of work.” In order to understand why this statement is not universally true, it is important to clearly define our terms. We must understand what is meant by the “state of order” in a system, and we must define the boundaries of the “closure” of that system. In the first case, the “state of order” in the system is generally regarded as the temperature. Understanding this, we can rephrase this statement to say, that in a thermally isolated enclosure, the temperature will not increase unless work or energy is added to the system. Here again, by clearly defining our terms, and limiting the discussion to heat and work, we have a universally true statement backed up by mountains of experimental data. If, however, we define the “state of order” as a generalized “quantity of energy”, and we further define the “closed system” as the Universe, we are led to believe that under no circumstance is it possible to create a condition where the concentration of energy will increase spontaneously. This is not true!

While it should be understood that most known chemical processes, standard electrical equipment and heat generally do behave this way, the Etheric Energy Field of the planet does not. The Etheric Energy Field behaves in direct opposition to the more generalized understandings of the “Second Law of Thermodynamics” and this fact is backed up by considerable experimental data. One of the best documented examples of this is the spontaneous temperature rise observed in the “orgone accumulator”, invented by Dr. Wilhelm Reich in 1940. Here, a simple enclosure made of alternating layers of organic and inorganic material, allows the ambient density of the Etheric Energy Field to become more concentrated in the local area, without the application of work. This new and higher energy concentration is then reflected as a spontaneous rise in temperature. This situation does not break the “Second Law” in the narrow case, because we admit that new energy is entering the system. It does break the “Second Law” in the general case because this energy is entering without the application of external work. Reich’s accumulator was designed as an attempt to shield and isolate this energy from its presence in the environment. His data clearly showed, however, that he was not able to isolate the energy effects inside the accumulator because the Etheric Energy Field easily penetrated the walls of the enclosure. He eventually realized that with regard to Etheric Energy Fields, it was impossible to “close the system” in the local sense. This is important to understand because it directly refutes the assumption that the universe consists only of closed systems at all levels of activity.

Here then is a major problem with how the scientific community regards the “Laws of Thermodynamics.” When the discussion is limited to the behavior of heat in closed systems, the “Second Law of Thermodynamics” is a well tested and accurate description of what happens under those circumstances. It is when it is incorrectly assumed that all forms of energy behave this way and that enclosure of the system is possible at all levels, that grossly false conclusions can be drawn from what started out as experimentally derived observations. The scientific community-at-large obviates these problems simply by denying the existence of the Etheric Energy Field because it doesn’t fit within their intellectual model. Unfortunately for them, the mounting experimental evidence is making this increasingly hard to do.

Certainly, the best evidence to date of the existence of the Etheric Energy Field and its capability of being drawn to high concentrations without the application of work is demonstrated by the Etheric Weather Engineering techniques developed by Trevor James Constable and his Atmos Engineering group. As a member of this group, I have personally seen how simple Etheric Energy projectors, that do no work in the classical sense, can cause the etheric potentials in the atmosphere to rise to such high concentrations that millions of gallons of water will precipitate from the air for hours at a time.

When these Etheric Energy projectors are motorized, they draw a few hundred watts of electric energy. If the rain produced is dropped behind a dam and then released through a hydro-electric turbine, the electrical energy gain in the system can be enormous, on the order of 100,000 to 1. This method of creating “free energy” is a practical reality today. While I know of no community using this method for supplying its energy needs, it is eminently practicable. This example is theoretical in the sense that it has never been done, but it is a good model of other “free energy” systems under development around the world today.

Because the input to motorize the Etheric Energy projectors is electric and the output from the hydro-electric generators is electric, many people might mistake this for a so-called “over-unity” system. There is nothing “over-unity” about this situation. Each and every component of the machinery used in this system has operational and frictional losses. The energy tapped by the system is the atmospheric ether and all of the energy gain in the system occurs outside of the equipment. The fact that a small electric input yields a huge electric output does not mean the system is operating “over-unity.

The problem with the “over-unity” concept goes back to the “First Law of Thermodynamics” and its inherent idea about the ability to convert one form of energy into another. This assumption includes the idea that these various conversions are accomplished at known and accepted rates of exchange. The idea of efficiency of conversion requires that the various rates of exchange are fixed and act as an upper limit for the calculation of a ratio that approaches one (100%) where the numerator of this fraction is the “output” and the denominator is the “input.” Since it is generally agreed that every machine experiences so-called losses, the idea that this ratio could be greater than one is, of course, ridiculous. This, coupled with the assumption in the “Second Law” that all energy systems are closed, (meaning that no new energy can enter the system in-between the “input” and the “output”) makes the idea of an “over-unity” system even more impossible than a mere perpetual motion machine. The line of logic embodied in the “Laws of Thermodynamics” is flawless. The problem doesn’t exist in the logic, but it does illustrate that logic alone is not enough to reveal the truth. The problem exists in certain interpretations of these “Laws.” Let’s go back and look at the “First Law” again in light of our “over-unity” discussion. “Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it is neither created nor destroyed.” This seems simple enough to understand. Underneath the surface, however, there is an assumption that this also means that energy will not spontaneously appear or disappear from the system. This is also a necessary condition if conservation of energy is to be satisfied LOCALLY as well as UNIVERSALLY.

This discussion becomes relevant, for instance, in describing the operation of the rotating magnet generator, the so called N-machine or Space Power Generator (SPG). Most of the important work in this field has been done by Bruce DePalma and Parmahamsa Tewari. The following is a brief summary. The rotation of the magnet sets up two force fields that act at right angles to each other. These two force fields are the radially distributed inertial frame of space (centrifugal force) and the intersecting axially distributed magnetic field of the rotating magnet. The area of magnetized, polarized, inertial space appears to open up a region through which new energy can enter the system. When careful measurements are taken of current flows in the generator and in the external circuit, evidence suggests that electric charges are appearing at the periphery of the generator and disappearing at the center of the generator that do not actually pass through the generator. This experimental finding may explain why this configuration of electric generator experiences less mechanical drag than standard generator designs for each unit of electrical output produced. While energy is probably not being created or destroyed in the universal context, it is apparently appearing and disappearing from the machine during operation in the local space. This extra energy can be used to produce useful work in external circuits. Tewari has shown that twice as much hydrogen can be generated from an electrolysis cell run from the output of a SPG than if the cell is run directly. It is impossible to rationalize the behavior of this style of electric generator with the ideas of simple conversion and local conservation as they are postulated in the “First Law of Thermodynamics.”

In a standard generator, if all losses are ignored for the moment, conventional theory says if 550 Ft-Lbs of work are applied to the input shaft in one second, 746 Watts will be delivered at the output. If I blindly believe that the generator simply has the mysterious ability to convert the mechanical energy into electrical energy, I don’t ask the following questions: what is the mechanism of this conversion?, where does the torque go?, and where does the electrical energy come from? The apparent observation that the generated current produces a motoring effect that opposes the input torque should not be interpreted as a vindication of the conservation rule, but as an admission that this is an inefficient way to generate electricity. The Space Power Generator experiences far less drag per unit of electrical output than a standard generator.

This opens up a much larger discussion about the validity of the conversion idea all together. Are there actual and universal equivalents between the various forms of heat, mechanical work, and electricity? At this point, all we know for sure are the various measurements that have been taken from the devices that demonstrate these energy translations. For instance, in 1845, James Joule found that if he placed a small paddle wheel in a bucket of water, he had to apply 772.5 foot-pounds of mechanical work to spin the paddle wheel to raise the temperature of one pound of water, one degree Fahrenheit. This has led to very careful calculations that now set this “universal conversion” between mechanical work and heat at 778.26 FT-Lbs = 1 BTU. For paddle wheels in water, this is no doubt true. But what happens if paddle wheels are not used? Is there another method that does not use paddle wheels in water to convert mechanical work to heat that does the job better, with less expenditure of work for the same heat gained? The answer is yes. In fact, there are numerous patents on record to accomplish this. One uses rotating parallel disks, not unlike the design of Tesla’s turbine, to heat water with less than half the mechanical expenditure.

Once again, we have entered a new scientific era where the exact equivalence between mechanical work as foot-pounds, electrical work as watt-hours, and heat work as BTU’s is not known! A wide variety of physical experiments have demonstrated a broad range of differing energy translation effects. The intellectual edifice of Clausius’ conversion idea is crumbling, and no one should allow their thinking to be constrained by it any longer. The results of physical experiments have all but disproved it. The “First Law of Thermodynamics” should be seen only as an outmoded, intellectual MODEL that is not supported by all of the experimental data. Likewise, the idea of “over-unity” should be abandoned by those working on “free energy” systems as it is an intellectual contradiction based both on the belief in conversion and the ability to circumvent it. “Over-unity” is an oxymoron that should be removed from the vocabulary of the alternative science community.

This brings me back to the other problem presented earlier, namely, the nature of heat itself. Is heat, as Hermann von Helmholtz suggests, simply the random motion of molecular matter, or is it something completely different, whose presence causes molecular matter to exhibit random motion? This is a very long and involved exploration that has already been handled masterfully by Rudolf Steiner in March of 1920 and published as his Warmth Course. I will summarize some of these ideas briefly.

The ancient’s believed that there were four “elements” that all physical reality was composed of. These were Earth, Water, Air and Fire. In modern language, we can restate this as follows. There are four “states” that all matter appears as. These are solid, liquid, gas and heat. From an etheric science point of view, heat is the fourth state of matter and the transition state between matter and ether. Here is why. The only difference between the appearance of ice, water, or steam, for example, is its temperature or internal heat condition. Heat is absolutely fundamental in all considerations regarding matter because a change in heat is the only element required to bring about a change of state from solid to liquid or from liquid to gas. In solid matter, the “atoms” are very close together and they bind each other in a way that allows them to hold their shape without being in a container. Heat can be added to the solid and its temperature will rise, correspondingly, until the melting point is reached. At this point, adding more heat does not raise its temperature, but rather causes the material to change state as the solid melts into a liquid. Once all of the material is liquified, adding more heat once again causes the temperature to rise. In liquid matter, the “atoms” are less close together and they bind each other in a way that allows the liquid to take the shape of whatever open topped container it is put in. As more heat is added to the liquid, the “atoms” move farther apart until the boiling point is reached. At this point, once again, adding more heat does not raise its temperature, but rather causes the material to change state as the liquid boils into a gas. Once all of the material is gaseous, adding more heat once again causes the temperature to rise. In gaseous matter, the “atoms” are so far apart that they will hold no shape at all and can only be contained by a complete enclosure. As more heat is added to the gas, the “atoms” become so dispersed that eventually, all that is left is the heat. The relationships between heat, temperature, matter and state are quite complex and cannot easily be reduced to simple explanations. Steiner’s explorations of these relationships go into great detail, forming a seamless line of logic, backed up by a great deal of experimental data. Anyone interested in the nature of heat should study Rudolf Steiner’s Warmth Course.

While this may make no sense to people trained in mechanistic thought processes, it is much closer to the truth about heat than the ideas of Helmholtz, with which Steiner was completely familiar. Helmholtz’s idea that the nature of heat can be fully described by the random motions of molecular matter is far too simplistic. It ignores many of the well known behaviors of heat and matter as well as the existence of the Etheric Energy Field. It should be considered an “interesting” historical attempt to describe heat that is not supported by all of the experimental data.

For those who are not familiar with etheric science, it might be useful to review some of the characteristics of the Etheric Energy Field at this time. The Etheric Energy Field is made up of an extremely fine, mass-free fluid. Its activity can be divided into four main levels. These different aspects of the Ether have been called: the Warmth Ether, the Light Ether, the Tone (or Chemical) Ether, and the Life Ether. The Etheric Energy Field, as a whole, penetrates all matter, flows around and through the planet in well defined ways, exhibits elastic characteristics, and spontaneously moves from low concentrations to high concentrations before discharging. Understanding all of these factors has made engineering the weather a practical reality today. Many other amazing technologies also become possible when the ether is fully understood. Likewise, many aspects of today’s science that are still confusing eventually become clear.

One area of the greatest confusion lies in the field of electrical science. The entire study of what has been called “static electricity” is just a confusing encounter with the Light Ether as it behaves under certain circumstances. When fully understood, so-called “static electricity” will be seen to be neither static nor electricity. Normal electricity always flows from high potential to low potential and usually requires metallic conductors to flow along. On the other hand, “static electricity” does not discharge in the same way, and readily moves and collects on both conductors and insulators. Because “static electricity” behaves more like ether than electricity, I am going coin a term for this form of energy when it is present in wires and circuits. I call it “ETHERICITY”, to distinguish it from electricity all together.

In some ways, ethericity behaves like electricity and in some ways it behaves differently. This has been the source of confusion. Up until now, most people have thought that there was only one kind of energy moving in electrical style circuits. This can now change. Electric appliances are designed to run on the discharge of electric potential from high to low, as in the draining of a battery to power a load. Properly designed circuits employing ethericity run the appliance on the charging phase, as the energy spontaneously moves from low potential to high. Once the behaviors of ethericity are clearly understood, it will be just as easy to run motors and lights from this source as we now do on electricity. In the 1940′s, Dr. Wilhelm Reich demonstrated both lighting and motoring effects running on the Etheric Energy Field that he tapped using his “orgone accumulators” and special circuitry. But many other ways have been discovered to harness ethericity. The patent office has many designs of so-called “electrostatic” motors on file that work quite well. They all run on ethericity, including some powered by circuits set up between the ground and a wire suspended high in the air. Many types of capacitors will spontaneously charge up on days with low relative humidity. This, too, is the classic appearance of ethericity. I have seen how an “electrostatic” generator failed to do anything, one humid morning, until the moment that sunlight fell on the metallic surfaces. It then jumped to life. This was one of the most convincing demonstrations I have ever seen that “static electricity” (ethericity) is related to light (the Light Ether).

Here then are some of the known characteristics of ethericity that engineers and inventors should understand:

1) Ethericity can be accumulated from the ground or the air at almost any location

2) It can be “reflected” down wires (this is not conduction)

3) Flows of ethericity can be interrupted by diodes and Mosfet type devices

4) Its potential can be raised or lowered in air core transformers

5) It can be stored in capacitors

6) It will operate neon style lighting, when the potential is high enough

7) It can create fields of opposing forces in coils and motor windings

“Free energy” is here in the Etheric Energy Field. Etheric Energy can be accumulated without the expenditure of work, and then released in controlled ways to perform work, in properly engineered systems. Understanding this fact presents engineers and inventors the clearest and most direct path to follow. Systems that precipitate heat directly from the ether have already been demonstrated in Dr. Reich’s accumulator. Placing one of these accumulators over a moving body of water increases the precipitation of heat dramatically. This is a rich vane of truth waiting to reveal its secrets to the systematic researcher. Likewise, power circuits that run on ethericity for lighting and motive power are waiting to be perfected.

Researchers in the “free energy” field should not concern themselves with the ideas presented as the so-called “Laws of Thermodynamics”. The “First Law”, with its ideas of conversion and conservation, is essentially incorrect. There is no way to convert mechanical energy into etheric energy, actually make one into the other. This one example is enough to disprove the universal interpretation of the conversion idea all together. Beyond this, the energy forms that can be transmuted by the action of certain kinds of machines, apparently do so within a wide range of activity, depending on the geometry of the machine. This throws into question the idea of conservation, especially local conservation. These experimental findings render the “First Law” without any basis in fact. The real universe does not behave in accordance with these ideas.

In the narrow case, the “Second Law” is really only a statement which describes the behavior of heat under certain circumstances. This much is basically true, as it is founded on experimental observation. In the general case, however, the “Second Law” is an intellectual extrapolation that does not accurately describe the behavior of physical reality under all circumstances. It embodies an erroneously concept of a mechanical universe which mysteriously burst forth (Big Bang) as a fully wound spring that has been unwinding ever since (“in a closed system, entropy does not decrease”). It is a lifeless, empty vision that ignores the Source of the energy it started with and closes the minds of its adherents to the solutions at hand.

Learning how to tap the non-thermodynamic forces in nature is the hope of the future. A modern society needs light, heat, and motive power, all of which can be derived directly from the Etheric Energy Field without consuming limited physical resources owned by monopoly interests.

In this society, theoretical science has been elevated to a very high level of prestige. Under this system of belief, the real needs of humanity have not been well served. It is time that these incorrect theories be carefully examined and discarded, so that experimental science can once again take the leading role in defining the nature of physical reality. Only then will Etheric Science be free to offer its bounty of solutions to a desperate and waiting world.

Bibliography

1) The Cancer Biopathy by Dr. Wilhelm Reich

2) Man or Matter by Ernst Lehrs, Rudolf Steiner Press

3) The Cosmic Pulse of Life by Trevor James Constable, Borderland Sciences

4) Warmth Course by Rudolf Steiner, Mercury Press

5) Cosmic Formative Forces by Guenter Wachsmuth, Borderland Sciences

6) The Vril Compendium by Gerry Vassilatos, Borderland Sciences

7) Loom of the Future by Trevor James Constable, Borderland Sciences

Related articles:

1. Hydrogen Power – Science Fact or Science Fiction?
2. The Farnsworth Fusor