ENERGY SCIENCE ESSAY NO. 14
FUSION BY THUNDER?
Copyright, Harold Aspden, 1998
No. 23 is a record of the notes I compiled in preparation for my
participation in a meeting in London on May 10, 1998 at which we discussed
developments concerning the New Energy field.
It was at that meeting that
I met another speaker, Nick Hawkins, who described something quite
extraordinary. It is of such interest that I feel it necessary to present this
brief commentary and offer my own thoughts on the subject.
concerned some experimental work involving cold fusion that had taken him to
China to perform experiments in an active thunderstorm region. His thesis was
that, in thunderstorm conditions, there is something present in the atmosphere
that can enhance the activity in a cold fusion cell. His experimental findings
in his Chinese venture, where Chinese university facilities were deployed to
assist in his project, were said to be positive, with cathodes melting owing to
excess heat and other effects occurring that one hears about from reports on
cold fusion research elsewhere.
Abrikosov VorticesI had never heard before of something
called 'Abrikosov Vortices'. According to Hawkins they are 'rotating strings of
electrons' and 'their rotation gives them an axial magnetic field'.
writes, in a hand-out distributed at the meeting:
"In the 1970's Geert Dijkhuis pointed out that, just as individual
electrons adopt quantum-mechanical orbits round positive nuclei, so positive
nuclei will adopt quantum mechanical orbits round Abrikosov vortices; and,
unlike electrons, nuclei will collide there and fuse."
argument then develops along the following lines. It was noted that Dijkhuis
thought that those vortices are created in electric storms and Hawkins related
the fusion theme with the cold fusion discovery of Fleischmann and Pons,
concluding that it was of interest to try to correlate the erratic data
reporting success on cold fusion claims with whether the laboratories involved
were located in very active thunderstorm regions.
Hawkins' assessment of
available data in 1989 assured him that the positive outcome of cold fusion
experiments was very much in favour of electric storm areas, the negative
outcomes from such experiments being those concentrated in non-storm
Now, with that general introduction, Nick Hawkins proceeded to
explain how he had convinced academic interests in China to support his
experimental pursuit in trying to verify his hypothesis. He had gone to Beijing,
a notorious storm area in summer, having continuous lightning every other night,
and had performed a series of cold fusion experiments in apparatus set up on the
roof top of a university building.
He reported: "We got gamma radiation
at 4 times background and a rather melted cathode - but only on good storm
nights and under certain conditions."
So, in summary, that being the
state of my information on this subject at the time I write this, I can but
express my interest and convey my own thoughts on this rather curious
The Aether and Its SpinNow, if you have read the previous Essay
No. 13, you will have seen that there is every reason to expect a state of
spin to develop in a plasma when the radial electric field is set up by some
means or other. That plasma spin has a counterpart phenomenon in the vacuum
itself, owing to aether being a kind of cold structured plasma, and there is
good reason to interpret this action as accounting for the thunderballs
generated in electric storms. Those thunderballs can exist unseen if they lack
the energy concentration that otherwise develops ionization in coextensive air.
They may float around everywhere at times when thunderstorms are prevalent. They
can be set up by the electrodynamic pinch action in the channel of a lightning
flash which in turn produces transiently a radial electric field condition about
the axis of the lightning discharge. Alternatively, under certain conditions a
very miniature version of aether spin globules could arise from spurious radial
electric fields set up in an electrolytic cell which happens to have an
elongated cathode within a concentric anode structure.
I do not need
therefore to understand the theory of the 'Abrikosov vortices' to see scope for
connecting enhancement of cold fusion activity with the presence of thunderstorm
conditions. I just need to imagine that the aether spin involved, which is a
condition in which aether charge of one polarity sits inside an ionic material
system of charge of opposite polarity, can penetrate into a cathode of a cold
fusion cell. It might then set up within the cathode a negative space charge
sufficient to bring two positive deuterons close enough to induce a fusion
On the other hand, one must wonder whether performing
experiments on a roof top in an active thunderstorm area might be a little
reminiscent of Benjamin Franklin's kite flying and attract discharges which
could melt a cathode owing to a lightning strike. One must, however, discount
that possibility because the test apparatus would have suffered greater damage
than that in such a case.
On balance, therefore, I find Nick Hawkins'
report interesting and relevant and suggest that it points the way forward by
which one can explore how best to trigger the cold fusion reactions in a host
As to those 'rotating strings of electrons' that are said to be
'Abrikosov vortices' that seems a speculative theoretical notion. I can imagine
instead the existence of strings of electrons and positrons linked in an
alternate sequence and forming a loop which could amount to a vortex
configuration. Yes, I know that electrons and positrons will annihilate one
another in pairs, but they might then only recreate electrons and positrons in
positions advanced around the loop. Indeed, if, in their merry dance of changing
places, the electrons and positrons of each charge pair interchange positions at
the same instant there will be a flow of positive charge one way around the loop
accompanied by a flow of negative charge the opposite way around the loop and
one then has that 'rotation which gives them an axial magnetic field'.
am intrigued all the more so by this notion of the 'Abrikosov vortices', given
the latter interpretation, because in 1974 I published a paper entitled The
Chain Structure of the Nucleus, based on something I disclosed about nuclear
theory on pp. 147-149 of my 1969 book Physics without Einstein. My
subject there was precisely the closed electron-positron chains which I regard
as necessary in nuclear structure to bond nucleons together. As I see the atomic
nucleus it comprises, in the main, antiprotons which have taken up sites in the
aether lattice structure by displacing the normal negative aether lattice
charges. Those sites need to be bonded together by neutral strings, those
electron-positron chains, and so we have then a neutral composite nuclear form,
with those antiprotons having fallen into the positive holes left by the
displaced lattice charges. To complete the atomic nucleus one then needs a
positive core charge plus the usual entourage of electrons, but certainly one
can develop a very effective nuclear theory on this basis.
The key task
is to develop a nuclear theory which explains why the mass per nucleon decreases
from hydrogen to chromium in the Periodic Table of Elements and then increases
steadily as one progresses on to uranium and beyond. That was the subject of
that 1974 paper: The Chain Structure of the Nucleus. It warrants
inclusion in these Web pages and it will be duly entered as the next
27 May, 1998
To proceed to that Essay press:
Science Essay No. 15