Help support the research

Dear Warren,

Your efforts are appreciated, even though Sen. Hatch will probably never see your letter.  We will expand for you what you were speaking of in your letter to the Senator; perhaps the following material might be of interest to his chief technical staffer.

The technology you were referring to, involving the quantum potential which has been weaponized in secret by five nations, could of course do the job, once the technical effort was made by our nation to develop it.  That too is not likely to happen in the near future unless it is ongoing in some kind of classified program; most conventional U.S. scientists have been in opposition to Bohm's hidden variable theory [1] (from which the QP comes), although that is slowly changing.

There are other, somewhat less controversial systems and approaches which also offer a good choice to nuclear waste remediation.  Although I've not studied it in depth, I'm persuaded that Dr. Santilli's approach is valid and well worth funding.  Santilli's hadronic nuclear theory [2], for example, predicts that under proper photon (or proton) bombardment unstable nuclei can be transmuted directly into stable nuclei, and that is certainly consistent with some of the most recent findings in forefront thermodynamics and chemical physics [3,4,5].  Some development of Santilli's hadronic nuclear waste remediation approach has been accomplished, and Dr. Santilli has not only a powerful mathematical model for his process, but also there have been successful experiments validating the approach. [9]

The problem facing innovative research and researchers is basically due to our rather staid national laboratories and a somewhat "frozen" approach to nuclear physics --- although slowly that is softening a bit it seems, particularly with some of the younger scientists in those agencies.  As Max Planck stated, "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul.  What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."

That progress usually takes a half century or more, unfortunately --- which is why, in military research, when one wishes something really important done and done quickly that is pushing the state of the art, one forms a "skunk works" to bypass the predictable hostile opposition by the organized scientific community.  We got the original atomic bomb quickly (4 years) by simply bypassing the orthodox scientific community and its predictable objections.  Right up to the explosion of the bomb, there were pundits predicting it could never happen.  As Arthur C. Clarke put it, "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right.  When he states that something is impossible he is very probably wrong."

Clarke also observed:  "...there are other ways of starting reactions, besides heat and pressure.  The chemists have known this for years; they employ catalysts which speed up reactions or make them take place at far lower temperatures than they would otherwise do... Are there nuclear, as well as chemical, catalysts?  Yes, in the Sun, carbon and nitrogen play this role.  There may be many other nuclear catalysts, not necessarily elements... there may be entities that can bring about fusion at temperatures and pressures that we can handle.  Or there may be completely different ways of achieving nuclear synthesis, as unthinkable today as was the uranium reactor only thirty years ago."

From a high level point of view, the only real reason one does not usually get nuclear transformations in conventional chemical reactions is mostly due to what is called the Coulomb barrier.  Simply put, in a time-forward or "normal" reaction mode, like charges repel.  Hence the free protons (i.e., the H+ ions that freely occur in innumerable solutions) repel each other. Except for very small distances, the EM repulsion force between two H+ ions (two protons) far overpowers the strong force that binds nucleons together into a nucleus.  So essentially two H+ ions (two free protons in solution) almost never get to approach each other so closely that each enters the strong force region of the other.  Significantly entering the strong force region is necessary to overpower the EM force between them.

However, that repulsion of like charges is not a universal law of nature after all --- as an example, the law is reversed in a time-reversed situation, where the "video tape of the reactions must be played backwards", so to speak.  Of all things, leading edge thermodynamics has now strongly shown why, and experimentally shown that it does occur.  Let me summarize that work briefly.

Modern thermodynamics is based on statistical mechanics, and so it uses that statistics.  However, it has long been recognized and admitted that the statistics do not apply for a single charge, atom, ion, or molecule or a small number of same.  So for very short times and at very short distances, it has long been accepted that chemical reactions can run backwards momentarily. But scientists also comfortably assumed that these momentary deviations are so small and so rare, and die so fast, that they are of little significance.  Consequently the deviations have just largely been ignored.

Statistics of course is subject to, and exhibits, fluctuations in the statistical groupings (and reactions) that emerge in it.  Some years ago, Evans and Searles [3] at the Australian National University expressed the statistical variations etc. in a rigorous expression called the transient fluctuation theorem, or fluctuation theorem for short.  Variations for various situations were shown [4] and a generalization was published by Crooks [5].

The fluctuation theorem allows one to compute in a given circumstance how often the second law will be violated, by the small fraction of "reversed reaction zones" that do occur, and the theorem has been experimentally validated.  In other words, the statistics of statistical mechanics also predicts that some of the time and at some levels of magnitude chemical reactions can and will run backward.  As an example, in such a momentary time-reversed situation, two H+ ions will attract each other rather than repel.

In that case, there is a finite probability that two H+ ions will approach so closely that each enters the weakened strong force region of the other, so the two ions form a quasi-nucleus.  Then as the fluctuation decays, the reaction reverses back to normal, but this means the strong force increases much more rapidly than the electric force of attraction can reduce to zero and then repel and increase to normal repulsion.  The preferred decay then can be the flipping of a quark in one of the protons, converting it to a neutron (the only difference between a proton and a neutron is the orientation of one quark).

So the quasi-nucleus in that case decays into a normal nucleus, but one having one proton and one neutron --- in short, a nucleus of deuterium.  We published several reactions based on this fluctuation and reaction reversal effect [6,7], and the emergence of the new products of those reactions are in fact detected in a great many of the now more than 600 successful cold fusion experiments worldwide, in multiple laboratories and in multiple nations. There is a whole new extension of nuclear chemistry just crying to be born, if the totally inappropriate conventional science community's savaging of cold fusion researchers and work  can be overcome.  If the theory and experiment conflict, the scientific method calls for changing the theory and accepting the experiment.  Unfortunately the received view is often dogmatically and vociferously defended by some scientists more noted for their stridence than their own scientific contributions, who engage primarily in ad hominem attacks.

However, the solid experimental proof of this "reaction reversal" occurrence (which is already present in microscopic quantum equations anyway) continues to grow by leaps and bounds in chemical physics and thermodynamics forefront research.

Of course, in these "reversed reactions" one is dealing with negentropy occurring instead of entropy, hence the second law of classical thermodynamics is violated.  As stated, the second law has always been accepted to be violable for very short times and at very small sizes, but the time-lengths and the size levels at which violation occurs have now been dramatically extended.  Indeed, we have argued that the second law as presently stated is an oxymoron. It implicitly assumes that first some negentropy occurs to produce some ordering, then subsequently that ordering is progressively disordered.  By stating that only the subsequent disordering of order is possible, the law implicitly assumes its own contradiction (that some order can be produced in the first place).  Hence it is an oxymoron as stated, and we have proposed a restatement that is consistent with both ordering and disordering and also is consistent with modern experiments.

Recently, Evans et al. [8] have experimentally demonstrated (and shown it to be consistent with fluctuation theorem predictions) that --- surprisingly --- such "reactions running backwards" violations of the second law can and do occur at up to micron (colloidal) level and for up to two seconds.  E.g., we point out that in water there are some 30 billion molecules involved in a cubic micron, so this violation is far different that "a few molecules" beating the average of the statistics.  This fully vindicates my 1998 assumption of such time-reversal zones [6,7], occurring in cold fusion electrolyte experiments, where reactions can and do run backwards (now proven possible for up to two seconds and at colloidal size). We also explained the strange but rigorous nuclear radiation detector instrument anomalies at China Lake, by using the time-energy aspects [6,7]. So the derived D+ reaction formed by fluctuation induced reversed reactions between two H+ ions can and does occur in theory, and a substantial number of cold fusion experiments do indeed show the emergence of the anomalous deuterium.

We also showed several other examples of new reactions that would occur, giving anomalous nuclear transformations, and the transformations --- including the emergence of tritium and alpha particles --- and again those example reaction byproducts do show up in a substantial number of the successful cold fusion experiments.

This successful prediction of new experimental results alone should open up a very serious avenue of research into a vast new set of "reversed reactions" providing nuclear transformations at low spatial energy (but very high time energy).  The scientific community should be spurring and funding research into this area with great priority; it certainly can eventually lead to cheap and successful nuclear waste remediation.  It also may be that Dr. Santilli's already proven processes [9] can be shown to be using fluctuation reversals.  If so, then he is already far ahead down that road. He has a prototype process that has been demonstrated and that does work, in my opinion, and has applied it to other chemistry reaction extensions including Magnegas [9].

To show the profound and unexpected length to which the old second law of thermodynamics (law of progressively increasing entropy) can be violated, a new paper by Evans and Rondoni [10], just in press, is astounding.  For disequilibrium steady states, a system can exhibit not only negative entropy, but the entropy can increase its negativity toward negative infinity as time passes. In short, the system consumes entropy, steadily and continuously.  So purely negentropy reactions and systems --- systems which turn disorder directly into order, and thereby "run backwards" and continuously produce negentropy --- are possible and rigorously predicted.

They also exist in nature, and Evans and Rondoni have found the mechanism for producing the initial ordering that is implicitly assumed by the old statement of the second law.  The simple charge (the source charge) is also an example of a ubiquitous Maxwellian system which produces COP = infinity and produces continuous negentropy [11].  Let me explain:

An "isolated charge" (classical view) is actually a special kind of dipolarity, in the modern quantum field theory view.  Clustering around the observable charge are hosts of virtual charges of opposite sign -- the well-known polarization of the vacuum (well-known in particle physics, not even appearing in electrical engineering). Together with its clustering charges, the "isolated" charge is thus a special dipolarity consisting of opposite charges.  In 1956-57 Lee and Yang strongly predicted broken symmetry in physics [12].  So revolutionary was this prediction that physicists jumped upon it immediately.  Wu and her colleagues [13] proved it experimentally in early 1957. 

Again, this was such a great revolution that in an unprecedented move the Nobel Committee awarded Lee and Yang a Nobel Prize in the same year, in December 1957. One of these "broken symmetries" that was proven was the asymmetry of opposite charges.  This means that the "isolated charge", considered as a special dipolarity, continuously absorbs EM virtual energy from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates it into real observable photons, and pours out that real, observable, usable EM energy in all directions at light speed. This steady output of real EM energy extracted from the vacuum forms the associated fields and potentials and their energy, expanding in all directions at light speed.  My publication of this explanation of the source problem and its associated fields and potentials in 1998 [11a] allowed the solution to what had been called the most difficult problem in quantum and classical electrodynamics [14].

With the surprising continuously increasing negentropy permitted to systems in disequilibrium steady states [10], now we finally have the thermodynamics demonstration of the permissibility of such giant negentropic processes as the long vexing enigma of the source charge which produces all EM fields and potentials and energy!  The charge is in a disequilibrium steady state with respect to the vacuum flux, which is highly disordered.  In the disequilibrium steady state, the source charge steadily consumes entropy, which means it receives input disorder (disordered EM virtual energy from the vacuum) and coheres it into order, re-emitting it as real, observable photons in all directions and steadily producing what I called "giant negentropy" in 1998 [11].

But now giant negentropy is rigorous and has a very solid scientific basis, both theoretically and experimentally.

So not only can science develop nuclear remediation permissibly by a much-extended chemistry accounting for the extended thermodynamics, but we can also develop EM systems freely extracting and outputting real EM energy from the seething universal vacuum.  Every charge in the universe already does it, and every joule of EM energy in the universe --- in space or in matter --- was extracted from the seething vacuum by the asymmetry of the associated source charge.

So the nuclear wastes problem, the ever-increasing electrical energy demand problem, the coming shortage of cheap oil and its escalation of world oil prices, and the problem of our present energy systems requiring pollution and destruction of the biosphere to support them, can all be solved scientifically if the leaders of the scientific community will simply get with the program already shown in forefront science.  The basic proof that nature permits these new interactions and has always permitted them,  is already there and published in the leading scientific literature.  If one foolishly argues that macroscopic COP>1.0 EM systems are not possible, then he must explain why every source charge does exhibit COP = infinity and does emit energy freely and continuously --- two aspects already established by innumerable experiments. 

He should simply read the scientific literature where such systems and interactions are already verified --- e.g., the Bohren-type experiment [15] which outputs some 18 times as much EM energy as the operator/researcher inputs.  This type experiment dealing with the "negative resonance absorption of the medium" has been in physics since the late 1960s [16], and is routinely performed every year by many nonlinear optical departments in our universities.

Sadly, the leaders of the scientific community seem to be decades behind in applying what forefront science has already shown.

If that mindset of the scientific community --- which dogmatically holds on to now-archaic limitations in older thermodynamics, nuclear chemistry, and electrical power systems --- can be changed, then that will free our sharp young grad students and postdoctoral scientists (and our great national laboratories) and they will be unleashed on these problems.  If that happens, in short order all these problems can be quickly solved, for far less than we have spent in decades of research toward hot fusion, which has spent billions for half a century without adding a single watt to the power line, and without any remediation of nuclear wastes and its storage problem. So the problem is in getting our scientific leadership to recognize these new areas just emerged into legitimate science, and get them to fund research in these areas at a very brisk pace.

If the scientific mindset barrier can be overcome with a new kind of "fluctuation theorem", the solution to many of our world problems can follow in short order.  One just has to read the physics literature and see what has already been proven --- and then not wait another 50 years before applying it.

Very best wishes,

Tom Bearden

References

[1]  David J. Bohm, "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden' Variables, I and II." Physical Review, 85(2), Jan. 15, 1952, p. 166-179 (Part I); 180-193 (Part II).

[2]  Five papers summarizing Santilli's theory and approach are given in Journal of New Energy, 4(1), Summer 1999.

[3]  D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, "Equilibrium microstates which generate second law violating steady states," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648

[4]  (a) D. J. Searles and Denis J. Evans, "The fluctuation theorem for stochastic systems," Phys. Rev. E, vol. 60, 1999, p. 159-164; (b) D. J. Searles and D. J. Evans, "The fluctuation theorem and Green-Kubo relations," J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 112, 2000, p. 9727-9735, (c) D. J. Searles and D. J. Evans, "Ensemble dependence of the transient fluctuation theorem," J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 113, 2000, p. 3503-3509. (d) D. J. Evans, D. J. Searles, and E. Mittag, "Fluctuation theorem for Hamiltonian systems: Le Chatelier's principle, Phys. Rev. E., Vol. 63, 2001, 051105/1-4.

[5]  Gavin E. Crooks, "Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 60, 1999, p. 2721-2726.

[6]  T. E. Bearden, "EM Corrections Enabling a Practical Unified Field Theory with Emphasis on Time-Charging Interactions of Longitudinal EM Waves," Explore, 8(6), 1998, p. 65-74; also published in Journal of New Energy, 3(2/3), 1998, p. 12-28.

[7]  T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, Chapter 10: Cold Fusion: Low Spatial-Energy Nuclear Reactions at High Time-Energy.

[8]  (a) G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans, "Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales," Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601; (b) A good summary of the fluctuation theorem and its importance is given by Blau, Phys. Today, Sep. 2002, p. 20.

[9]   See publication by Institute of Basic Research staff, "Application of Hadronic Mechanics to New, Clean, Overunity, Fuels and Energies," http://www.i-b-r.org/ir00020.htm.

[10]  D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., Vol. 109, Nov. 2002 (in press).

[11]  (a) T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proceedings of Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p. 86-98.  Also published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23.  Also carried on DoE restricted website http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ and on www.cheniere.org. (b) T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum, ibid., Chapter 3. Giant Negentropy, Dark Energy, Spiral Galaxies and Acceleration of the Expanding Universe.

[12]  (a) T. D. Lee, "Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions," Physical Review, 104(1), Oct. 1, 1956, p. 254-259; (b) T. D. Lee, Reinhard Oehme, and C. N. Yang, "Remarks on Possible Noninvariance under Time Reversal and Charge Conjugation," Physical Review, 106(2), 1957, p. 340-345.

[13]  C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson, "Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Physical Review, Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413.

[14]  E.g., see D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii.  Quoting: "The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics." Maxwellian electrodynamics and electrical engineering still utilize an archaic EM model that assumes every charge freely creates energy from nothing, without any energy input at all, and continuously pours it out in all directions to form the associated EM fields and sources expanding in all directions at light speed.  Hence our classical electrodynamicists and electrical engineering departments, professors, and texts are unwittingly the greatest perpetual motion machine advocates in human history, and have not recognized it or resolved the problem.  Neither have our Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, National Research Council, great national laboratories, or universities. This is sad since the solution to the source charge problem has been in physics for some 45 years now, and proven both theoretically and experimentally, resulting in the award of a Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang. The sad result is that there is not now and there never has been a single electrical engineering department, professor, or textbook that even knows and teaches what really powers an electromagnetic circuit.

[15]  Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"  American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it.  Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?'}," Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327.  The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18. [16]  E.g., see papers by V. S. Letokhov, such as "Generation of light by a scattering medium with negative resonance absorption," Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., Vol. 53, 1967, p. 1442.; particularly see V. S. Letokhov, "Laser Maxwell's Demon," Contemporary Physics, 36(4), 1995, p. 235-243.

Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:38 PM
To: Tom Bearden
Cc: Marcia Stockton
Subject: Scalar Energy plug to Sen Orrin Hatch
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 17:56:23 -0700

Having spent 2 months reading and re-reading the website material, finally grasping and endorsing the concept, I wanted to tell you I have tried to open a review of the work by my State Senator, Orrin Hatch. It is after hours at work now, when I often review your site, therefore I am emailing you from my office, not my home.

While my email may not get to the Senator, it seemed appropriate to do and I wanted you to know about it.  Heck, I don't even know if this will get to Tom B.

 I see posted discussions on your site, that Tom has answered, that he felt worth putting on the net and don't know how the correspondents get to him.

Here is a copy of my email to Senator Hatch  through the link on his website:

Senator Hatch,

There appears to be a new, substantiated technology that could provide a relatively inexpensive and speedy nuclear waste neutralization process. I am wondering if it has been considered by our government. And if not, to ask that it be reviewed.

The information is on the internet, specifically mentioned in connection with the neutralization of our atomic/nuclear weapon systems, http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/102802.htm.

The parent site, http://www.cheniere.org has numerous other applications of this new technology that should be of interest. There is a level of frustration in the presentations because of traditionalist reluctance in acceptance of the theories, but the underlying information is certified in the site articles and in the science itself.

I would appreciate your open minded review of the site offerings.  If you find any value in it, I ask you to consider ways to push the work forward and protect the principals.

I really don't like nuclear waste in Utah.

Thank you,

Warren D******