Cold Fusion and Zero Point
Energy
Transcripts from 21st Century Radio's
Hieronimus & Co.
Radio Host: Dr. Bob Hieronimus
Featured Guests:
Professor John O. M. Bockris, and
On June 23, 1996, Dr. Bob Hieronimus conducted a live
radio cold fusion special with Dr. Eugene Mallove, Professor John O'M.
Bockris, and Dr. Hal Puthoff. What follows are transcriptions of the
separate interviews with Drs. Bockris and Puthoff. Transcribed by Jed
Rothwell, these interviews first appeared in Infinite Energy Magazine
(P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302, or 76570.2270@compuserve.com). For
more information about Hieronimus & Co. interviews write to P.O. Box
648 Owings Mills, MD 21117 or 104220.2005@compuserve.com.
Hieronimus intro: Dr. John O'M Bockris is a
distinguished professor of chemistry at Texas A&M University. His
research interests are in the areas of quantum electrochemistry,
photo-electrochemistry, electro catalysis, and bio-electrochemistry,
corrosion, the splitting of water and low temperature nuclear
reactions. Bockris organized a significant
research group in electrochemistry at the Imperial College, working
particularly on the basic techniques of measurement of electrodes, and
also in the field of high-temperature liquids. He emigrated to the
United States in 1953, and in 1954 was appointed professor of
chemistry at the University of Pennsylvania. During the 1960s Bockris
led the largest electrochemical group in the western hemisphere. His
best known book, Modern Electrochemistry, was written with A.K. Reddy
during that time, and published in 1970. In 1972 Bockris was appointed
to the chair of physical chemistry at the Flinders University in South
Australia. There he became the chairman of the Institute of Solar and
Electrochemical Energy Conversion, and he wrote the book titled The
Solar Hydrogen Alternative. In 1974 Professor Bockris was made a
member of the Swedish Academy of Engineers, and the Serbian Chemical
society, also in 1979 he became the first recipient of the Faraday
medal, an award made by the Faraday Division of the Chemical Society.
He was given the Chemical Award of the Swedish Academy in the same
year, and numerous other awards.
Hieronimus: John, you note that in the first years of
this century, it was thought that atoms were indivisible entities
until Rutherford found that a great deal of an atom was free space,
and at the center was concentrated nearly the entire mass of the atom.
He struck N2 gas with an energetic stream of alpha particles (helium
nuclei) and produced 17-0 from 14-N. Tell us what significance this
has to the mindset which believes that to break into nuclei, you need
about a million times more energy than is given out in a chemical
reaction.
Bockris: I think that Rutherford's work was the
beginning of what we call now high energy physics. This is a very
large part of physics, and it has that basic assumption that you need
enormous energies. Now what has happened in the last five or six years
is it's been found that nuclear reactions can be made to occur, as
long as they occur inside solids, with rather small energies. Instead
of having to strike them with these enormous energies which cost so
much to set up and to have apparatus, you can do it all for 10-4 (as
it were) the price.
That's the great important thing. The cost comes down and one can
obtain nuclear reactions under very, very simple conditions.
Hieronimus: From that you concluded that it was a
general lack of knowledge of these things that you just mentioned,
concerning being able to split nuclei with much less energy, that
caused the furor against Fleischmann, Pons and Hawkins when they
suggested that palladium heavily loaded with deuterium was the site of
a nuclear reaction. Would you please flesh out this conclusion for us?
Bockris: Yes, the major part of the story since 1989 has
been with palladium. I don't think it is the only part at all; I think
these reactions occur rather widely. But 90% of the work has been done
with palladium/deuterium, and the evidence that nuclear reactions
occur in it under electrochemical conditions is largely the production
of Tritium and the production of helium. Both these substances are
very,
very unusual materials, and it is very difficult to see how they could
be produced in a normal way. They are enormously expensive to produce
classically, as we call it, by the normal means. And, incidentally,
Tritium is used in atomic bombs and is a very important military
supply. It costs a million dollars an ounce.
Hieronimus: Oh!
Bockris: The calculations show and the experimental
results show, that Tritium could be produced for a very small fraction
of that money. So of course it means a great deal to the DoD and to
the economy in general. As far as the "heavily loaded" is concerned,
what that means is that if you put the deuterium into the palladium
nothing happens -
nothing anomalous, nothing nuclear happens, until the deuterium is
very nearly up to one deuterium atom equals one palladium atom. It is
a tiny bit less than that: about 0.95 deuterium to 1 palladium, then
you begin to get nuclear reactions. They continue for some time, often
for several weeks. They die down, and you have to have fresh palladium
etcetera.
The furor I think was due to two things. On the one hand
I think a great deal of the emotion which went into it in 1989 and
'90, was sheerly emotion. I think that people were ... the old people
were arrogant and they thought they had it all, and they thought they
had to have these enormous energy releases, and when it was proved
that you could do it very simply, with lesser energy, they were very,
very annoyed! (Laughs). But there was also what you might call a more
objective objection on their side, which I, as a researcher, fully
understand, and that is: you can't go into a laboratory with this kind
of thing and say "hey guys, I am going to show you," and switch it on.
It is a very difficult thing to hit the "right wavelength," as it
were, and I would say on the average only about one experiment in five
does it. It is rather like finding a radio band on the radio. You have
to search around for it and then you get it - bing! - it switches on
and things happen. Unless you hit those conditions very, very
completely, you don't get anything at all. So a lot of people tried it
and they did not get anything and they said, "oh this is nonsense."
And those people who hung on and tried harder, so to speak, did find
the Tritium, find the helium, find the nuclear reactions. They were
successful.
Hieronimus: I was going to ask you to talk about three
models in which barriers between nuclei can become transparent. Let us
bypass that question in the interest of time, because I have a lot of
other questions. Would you discuss the conclusions in your paper "Two
Zones of 'Impurities' Observed after Prolonged Electrolysis of
Deuterium on Palladium" (Infinite Energy #5 & 6)?
Bockris: Yes. This was something we did rather recently,
where we put deuterium into palladium and we looked for impurities
which would accompany this act. The solutions we were using had
certain impurities in them, and we found these impurities were
adsorbed upon the surface, and they penetrated about 50 angstroms
below it. But when we probed further with various techniques we found
that a new series of atoms had turned up. Atoms which, indeed, were
not present at all before we
began and were not present in the solution - that's the point. So we
concluded that these atoms had come via a transmutational process.
Transmutation means the formation of one nucleus into another nucleus.
Since that time - I think we did this about a year ago - a number of
other people, particularly people at the University of Illinois [Dr.
Miley et al.] have come up with further evidence that this does occur
when you put deuterium or hydrogen into palladium, you get new nuclei,
and that is of course transmutation in the cold.
Hieronimus: On that subject of transmutation, I
understand from your conversation with Chris Bird some very limited
success was obtained at transmuting some elements into gold. After a
break here, we'll talk about that next, and then we'll get into
tritium because you were the first to find it in 1989 in the cold
fusion process.
Bockris: Right.
Hieronimus: And you believe that Fleischmann and Pons
should get the Nobel Prize for transmutation. We'll talk about that.
And then I want to talk a little bit about Texas A&M trying to label
you as a fraud, attempting to destroy your reputation.
Hieronimus: I understand from conversations with Chris
Bird that some very limited success was attained at transmuting some
elements into gold. Would you please review that scenario, and why you
ceased research into that area.
Bockris: Yes. Well, we were approached by some people
who claimed they had a technique for doing this. [Telander and
Champion; the method is classic thermal alchemy.] They wanted us to
try it out. We of course started off by telling them that they
themselves mustn't be in the laboratory and only our own people could
do it. So I had two postdocs and a graduate student try this process
out. And indeed, in very small
quantities, around 100 parts per million, we got four consecutive
experiments which did give - seemed to give, to all intents and
purposes - the transmutation of small amounts of lead and mercury into
gold, ruthenium, osmium, etcetera. However, when we went on with this,
later, we couldn't reproduce it, so we had to withdraw. But I'm fully
convinced that in the four experiments that we made we were producing
these small amounts. Since then, numerous people have done similar
things, but usually with other metals.
Hieronimus: Uh, huh. In regards to tritium, you were the
first to find it in 1989 in the cold fusion process. What is the
importance of this? Why is it a gigantic step?
Bockris: Oh, well that's very clear. Tritium is a
gigantic step. It is the real proof that cold fusion, as they call it,
exists. You may say "as they call it" because I am not too sure about
the mechanism and I think it might be a fission reaction instead of a
fusion reaction, however both would be nuclear. And no classical
chemist, the type that goes along with the chemistry in the book,
would have expected that tritium would have been formed. That's why it
is such a gigantic step.
They all thought it was totally impossible. And of course, as usual,
tremendous amounts of money are associated with all of this. The way
that we make tritium at the moment - and tritium is vital in atom
bombs [Technically, in thermonuclear bombs-hydrogen bombs. Ed.] - is a
million dollars an ounce. And it can be made in the laboratory in a
very simple apparatus for much less money. So of course people were
very surprised. I was accused immediately - and that's the usual
reaction to these things - of fraud. It was said that the tritium was
obtained by a graduate student putting it in from a bottle of tritium.
Hieronimus: That's an amazing thing to say, without any
proof!
Bockris: Well ... there was a very, very aggressive
journalist who wanted to make a name for himself and sell his book,
and he came along and said all sorts of terrible things. Threatened
the student with instant exposure and so on ...
Hieronimus: Is this the fellow by the name of Taubes?
Bockris: Taubes, that's right. And after that I called
all kinds of advisors and said "should I sue? Would it be right to sue
this man? Would it be profitable? Or sue the company that published
his book?" And every one advised me, well five out of six of my
advisors - the sixth did advise suing - but five out of six said,
"relax, relax. Your work is either going to be proved right or wrong.
If it is proved right, you don't have any more worries." And since the
time that I first claimed tritium, just about 120 papers have been
published - and
I stopped counting after 1994 - 120 papers have proved that ...
confirmed those first readings. So I am completely convinced and
completely happy. On the other hand of course, you know the mud always
sticks.
Hieronimus: Indeed.
Bockris: There are all sorts of people who read that
original article that said it was all fraud, they haven't seen the 120
papers.
Hieronimus: That is the major problem. The major media
is not sensitive to this particular area and I don't think they are
going to correct their errors.
Bockris: We tried at the time to publish data, and prove
there was no fraud, but they wouldn't hear of it. They said people
weren't interested in the disproof.
Hieronimus: (Laughs) I know, I know. I am sorry for
laughing John, but it is just so pathetic, that they can make such an
enormous error ...
Bockris: Yeah...
Hieronimus:... and then figure, ah well, it is not news,
so we don't have to correct it.
Bockris: These are not just newspapers, these are the
magazines of science.
Hieronimus: Indeed.
Bockris: One of the most prestigious magazines in the
country, and it wasn't only I, but others from Los Alamos wrote in and
said that they had seen the tritium too and it was all true. But they
were told "no, our readers are not interested in that. We have
published the fraud [story] and they are interested in that."
Hieronimus: (Laughs) Boy, nothing like protecting the
status quo. Now, Texas A&M tried to label you as a fraud. Tried to
destroy your reputation at the highest levels of the university. I
know this is a painful thing for you to discuss, but I would love to
get it on the record here. Review for us what happened.
Bockris: Time is short, but I'll just try to summarize
it all for you. I was first of all accused of scientific misconduct,
and hauled out between four of my peers. I'm called a 'Distinguished
Professor' - the highest rank of professors here - and I was tried, as
it were, in front of four of my peers: four Distinguished Professors.
And the result was I was totally exonerated. But you know that was
after three months of tremendous anxiety, employing lawyers to advise
me, and so
on and so on. And then after I had been accused of misconduct and
totally exonerated, there was then a number of colleagues in the
department of chemistry who wanted to go further and they instituted a
secret committee. My lawyer asked what's it doing, what's it about,
they said oh well, it is to see if there should be any reassignments
of duties, or any [inaudible] fines of professors. That was the aim of
this committee. That lasted for eleven months. Eleven months of
torture. In which my wife and I knew not anything about our future.
Hieronimus: That's amazing.
Bockris: We eventually appealed to the Association of
University Professors, and directly after we had done that, and
exposed our case to them, the university came forth and said they had
found I had done nothing outside the rules of the university. And as
far as I know, that's it. But, you know, this was a period of sheer
persecution.
Hieronimus: As you know, and others have noted too, the
same thing happened to Dr. Robert Jahn, at Princeton.
Bockris: Exactly. I think I met Robert Jahn for the
first time the other day, at the meeting in Charlottesville, Virginia,
of the Society for Scientific Exploration. What he has done of course
is to show that minds influence machines.
Hieronimus: Uh, huh. Yes, indeed.
Bockris: When you look at a pendulum, which is swinging
at a certain rate, you can make it go faster or slower by looking at
it. That's of course a thing that scientists would never believe at
all. The unfortunate thing is they don't believe facts. They believe
old theories.
Hieronimus: Well, let's see, I am trying to remember...
Dr. Henry Bauer in his work pointed that out so well. He has been with
us a number of times. What do you think is at the bottom of the
persecution of leading edge researchers?
Bockris: Oh, I am very clear about that! It is simply
fury and envy. You see, every scientist in the top rank is kind of
boxed in to a monetary system. They are getting good fees in
consulting, they are regarded as authorities, and suddenly something
comes along which is totally different from anything they had ever
thought of before. And ... well, they didn't think of it. So of course
the thing to do is first of all, prove it fraudulent. That's the best
thing they can do,
because that would completely expunge it. And if they can't prove
fraudulent then they will say it is all due to wrong measurements.
The measurements must be crazy and so on and so on. But the basic
motivation behind it every case I am sure is envy and fury at having
been scooped.
Hieronimus: Yeah? I think you are absolutely correct
there, sir. Uh, going back to cold fusion now, and its practicality.
What do you see as a reasonable time-line for when cold fusion
products will come on line?
Bockris: Well, I've thought about that. You can ... it
is hard to guess. Now, if you want to be very positive about it, you
can say that there are now advertisements arriving, particularly from
Moscow, that talk about household heaters which need refueling every
thirty years. And the only way to explain those advertisements - they
don't mention the word 'cold fusion' - is that these are cold fusion
heaters.
Because the only way you could have a nuclear thing I mean it has to
be nuclear for refueling every thirty years - in the household, would
be a cold fusion one which doesn't produce any harmful waste. So if
you believe that advertisement, that they really have these things,
there is something practical now. There is a company called ENECO,
which works out of Salt Lake City, and they believe that they have
some devices which they can sell right now. As to when the
universities will accept it . . .(laughs) another fifty years, I would
say.
Hieronimus: Oh, John, don't say that! (Both laugh) It's
sad but ... (laughs) you know, America has changed so much, since the
mid 1970s.
Bockris: Well, I have been in this country since 1953
and I can remember the times when all new ideas were jumped upon with
joy. This was so during the '60s, and I think into the '70s. But
something died. I don't know, it is ridiculous to put a date on it and
say it was 1972 or something, but something sometime in the '70s just
all died, and it became frozen. Science has become frozen. Physics
particularly.
Hieronimus: You believe that Fleischmann and Pons should
get the Nobel Prize for transmutation.
Bockris: I think so.
Hieronimus: Could you explain why?
Bockris: Oh, well, because they have done something
which completely changed the paradigm of nuclear reactions. Up to
Fleischmann and Pons's time, nuclear reactions were - as we said at
the beginning of this discussion - were seen in the context of
Rutherford's work. I call it Rutherford's castle. You know, you had to
hit it with some enormous sledge hammer, and then you might get a
nuclear reaction to occur. Fleischmann and Pons showed that with a
tiny "ounce of reaction," they can get a nuclear reaction to occur. So
just as the famous people in the history of nuclear reactions are
Meitner, Rutherford, Fermi, so I think the Fleischmann and Pons should
be similarly regarded. I think they would come right out at the top. I
think I have had a part in it too, but they started it, and I verified
it - showed that it was so, but I think their initiative should be
regarded in that way. I think it will be.
Hieronimus: What are you presently working on, that you
would like to share with our listeners?
Bockris: Oh, well, I am working on a number of things.
The main thing I am working on which is easy to communicate are
"green" chemicals. You know, the idea that a lot of chemicals are
toxic. And we have to use them. The particular ones I am working on
are corrosion inhibitors. A lot of the corrosion inhibitors are used
in the North Sea [oil drilling] platforms are toxic to fauna. They
knock the fish out. The fish decay and all sorts of things bad happen,
and the oil companies have been threatened by the Norwegian government
and the
British government: "stop using corrosion inhibitors which are toxic."
So I am being employed by a group of oil companies to invent corrosion
inhibitors which are not toxic.
Hieronimus: Way to go, John! Way to go! Well, it has
been a great pleasure talking with you again. I guess the last time we
talked was about three years ago.
Bockris: Yes, it was.
Hieronimus: That's a long time ago. And I would have
thought by now this whole problem would have been solved, John!
(Laughs)
Bockris: Give it another ten or twenty!
Hieronimus: Yeah, the way it is dragging its feet. Well,
we have some wonderful things we are going to be sending on to you.
And I am so happy that we share some other areas of research and
interest in common.
Bockris: Well, it is grand talking to you. You are so
interested and enthusiastic about it.
Hieronimus: We will be talking to you again some time.
Bockris: Thank you very much.
Hieronimus: You are very welcome.
Hieronimus: Our final guest for this evening is Dr. Hal
Puthoff, whose research in consciousness captivated our attention in
the late '60s and early '70s. Our friend, Ingo Swann, has noted Hal
Puthoff's importance to remote viewing research during his several
appearances on 21st Century Radio, and we may touch on that subject
later tonight, but we will be focusing most of our time on alternative
sources of energy as in cold fusion, zero point energy, and
nanotechnology.
Dr. Hal Puthoff is Director of the Institute for
Advanced Studies at Austin, TX. He is a theoretical and experimental
physicist, specializing in fundamental electrodynamics. His present
research interests range from theoretical studies of quantum vacuum
states as they apply to the availability of matter, gravitation,
inertia and energy research, to laboratory studies of innovative
approaches to
energy generation. A graduate of Stanford University in 1967, Dr.
Puthoff's professional background spans more than three decades of
research at General Electric, Sperry, the National Security Agency,
Stanford University, SRI International, and since 1985 as Director of
the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin. He has published over 30
papers on electron beam devices, lasers, and quantum zero point energy
effects, he has patents issued and pending in the laser communications
and energy fields, and is co-author of a Wiley textbook Fundamentals
of Quantum Electronics. [R.H. Pantell, H.E. Puthoff, (Wiley, 1969)]
Puthoff regularly serves various government agencies, the executive
branch, and Congress as a consultant on leading edge technology and
future technology trends. He is a member and officer of several
professional organizations, he is listed in such biographical
reference works as American Men and Women of Science, Who's Who In
Science and Engineering, and Who's Who and has been designated at
Fetzer Fellow in 1991. Welcome to 21 st Century Radio and TV News Dr.
Puthoff.
Puthoff: It is a pleasure to be here, Bob.
Hieronimus: Even though propagandists like Rush Limbaugh
say that ecological disasters are nothing more than left wing media
hype designed to tax big business, our environment is not in good
shape. And yet there is a great deal of hope that new energy
technologies can do a lot to keep us from entering an ecological
no-return zone. Before we review cold fusion and zero point energy,
would you assess, in general terms, the possibility that new energy
technology could revise
our environmental problems.
Puthoff: Actually, Bob, I am quite confident that will
be the case. Before we knew of atomic energy, we thought we were
running out of coal and maybe oil wouldn't last too long, and then we
came upon atomic energy. Now as it turned out, atomic energy has its
pluses and minuses, as you realize. But still, it was a new energy
source that just hadn't been thought about before, but once we had it
we could exploit it. I think at this time we are entering a new phase
in which a lot of new energy research is going on, whether it is solar
energy, wind energy, and so forth ... but also the so-called zero
point energy
that we will be speaking about tonight. I think that holds out a lot
of hope for the future environmental situation and that as far as we
know it is a completely benign energy source. As far as ecological
concerns go.
Hieronimus: Well, Gene Mallove, who says hello, says you
are going to be very excited when you see the next issue of Infinite
Energy, with Dr. Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa's PAGD reactors.
Puthoff: I am looking forward to seeing that. I have
heard of it, but I have not had a chance to look at the data.
Hieronimus: Well, I was really excited when I read that.
Now, we have spent most of our evening discussing cold fusion, so let
us start our conversation by talking about zero point energy, and one
of your papers I read recently. You stated that quantum theory tells
us that empty space is not truly empty, but rather contains an
enormous amount of untapped electromagnetic energy known as zero point
energy or ZPE. Would you define this energy for us, please?
Puthoff: I'd be glad to. As you say, it is the energy of
empty space. There were arguments starting way back at the time of the
Greeks about whether space is really empty or isn't it. Democritus
thought that it was empty and that is how you have room for the atoms
to bump around. You had Aristotle coming along saying no, I think
space is full of something because we have waves of heat energy and
they must travel in
something. That argument went back and forth but finally when quantum
theory was developed, it became absolutely clear that space, if you
look at in a microscopic scale, is more like the base of a waterfall
with a lot of frothy, seething activity going on, rather than just
something like a placid, empty space. In fact John Wheeler likes to
point out that in the volume of a coffee cup, for example, in empty
space, there is enough energy to evaporate all of the world's oceans.
This is, by the way, not a fringe concept. It is a basic underlying
concept in modern quantum theory.
Hieronimus: But where does this energy come from?
Puthoff: Well, it turns out that every particle in the
universe has some charge on it, whether it is the electrons and
protons in our bodies, or in the Sun, and then all the way out to as
far as we can see throughout the cosmos. It turns out that all of
these particles are undergoing a little tiny quantum jiggle, or
quantum dance, and in that process they are radiating energy. Any
given particle is jiggled about by that energy, and in turn radiates
back, so what we have on a cosmological scale is sort of the
electromagnetic equivalent to putting a microphone by a speaker and
getting the squeal. We have a
giant sort-of feedback system, with all the particles generating this
quantum zero point energy, continually reinforcing itself, just like,
for example, the squeal in the microphone.
Hieronimus: You have read Beyond the Big Bang by Paul
LaViolette haven't you?
Puthoff: I have seen it, yes.
Hieronimus: What was your opinion of that book?
Puthoff: I think that although it is sort of counter to
the prevailing mainstream view, these are the kinds of ideas that we
seem to have a renaissance of these days. I certainly applaud his
efforts to open up new ways of looking at things. I have not come to a
final opinion as to whether I think he is correct about it. But I
think this is the kind of probing and thinking that makes science
today a very exciting time.
Hieronimus: Yeah, it sure does. Going back to zero point
energy, can such energy be mined for practical use?
Puthoff: Up until about a decade ago, it was thought
that the answer was no. The reason being that, for example, we are
surrounded by heat bath - the temperature in here is say 75 - and
physicists had learned by attempts to quote "mine heat energy" that it
always took more energy to make use of [ambient heat] than you got
out. So although we can do that with refrigerators and heaters and so
on, you are having
to pay an energy penalty as great as what you get out. It was kind of
assumed that the surrounding zero point energy, which is everywhere,
was maybe like a heat bath, and that you couldn't tap it. But back
in'84 there was a researcher at Hughes laboratory, by the name of Bob
Forward, who pointed out that there was an effect called the Casmir
effect that in fact showed that on a microscopic scale it is both
experimentally and theoretically confirmed that indeed some of this
background energy could be turned into some other form. Once that was
realized, then it was the case that the proof of principle was there,
so now physicists and engineers like myself are interested in finding
out how to do it efficiently, and what technologies you need to turn
it into a market-viable energy source. To the people who are working
in the field, it is now at the point of solar energy or thermonuclear
fusion or whatever: the principle has been proved, it is a case of
trying to find a viable way to do it.
Hieronimus: This I found really fascinate- ing: that
"inertia is a subtle feature of the structure of the universe, that
has perplexed generations of physicists from Newton to Einstein."
(Reading from Puthoff's paper.) That part I understood! But in an
article for The Sciences you and your co-authors Bernhard Haisch and
Alfonso Rueda traced the problem of inertia as a zero point field
Lorentz force. Please explain how this is.
Puthoff: I am glad to do that. This is one of the most
exciting pieces of effort that I and my colleagues have worked on.
Also, it solved a problem for us, which I think you would be
interested in. Whenever we would pose the idea of tapping this energy,
and that there was so much energy even in empty space right in your
face so to speak, the question was always, well if there is all that
energy there, why don't I notice it? And in fact it turned out that
this study of inertia was the first case where you can actually talk
to a layman and get him to realize that you do notice it. For example,
if you are standing on a train or a bus, and it takes off with a jerk,
and you suddenly find yourself flat on your back, it is as if a 200 lb
man came up and knocked you down. So you have to ask yourself "what is
it that actually knocked me down?" What it actually is, is that you
ran into that wall of zero-point energy and it held you back, and
knocked you down. So the next time you are on an airplane and find
yourself pressed back in your seat, you are actually feeling you might
say the wind from the vacuum zero point energy. This vacuum Lorentz
force that term is just a standard term for a magnetic force that
engineers are familiar with in the laboratory - and whenever you have
a charged
particle moving through a magnetic field it feels the force. Well, it
turns out that the magnetic field associated with these zero point
fluctuations is always there and since our bodies are made up of
charged particles - even the neutrons that are neutral are made up of
charged quarks - it turns out that they feel the Lorentz force.
Whenever you try to accelerate a body there is this resistive force
that holds you back, and that is what we experience as inertia. So
when you are trying to move your car down the street when its battery
has gone dead, all that effort it takes to get it moving is the fact
you are actually pushing against the vacuum. Unlike an ordinary wind,
just moving at constant velocity, you don't feel this force at
constant velocity but you do feel it whenever you are trying to
accelerate or to accelerate an object.
Hieronimus: Okay, here is a big question. Quantum
fluctuations of distant matter structure; the local Lorentz invariant
vacuum fluctuation frame of reference, and acceleration relative to
this frame results in the retarding force that we label 'inertia.' Now
you note that the implications of this discovery are far reaching in
regard to gravitational effects in general and gravitational mass in
particular. Please review this conclusion for us.
Puthoff: As you noted, this concept of inertia and
gravitation is something that has been struggled with by physicists
since the times of Mach and Einstein and Newton. Up until now,
generally we have assumed that gravity and inertia are just something
we are kind of stuck with. That it is there: that's it, we cannot do
anything about it, no one is making any anti-gravity machines, we are
not getting rid of inertia for our spaceships, that is just what we
deal with. So even with the developments in general relativity by
Einstein, which have
been extensive - we now understand certain concepts about space being
curved and that tells particles where to move, and so on - still, that
has been at the phenomenological level. When we started our research
into the zero point energy underpinning of these kind of phenomena,
the thing we realized is that gravity, inertia, and a number of other
phenomena are really consequences and results of this underlying
energy bath, you might say, that we are in. And so, having that
knowledge and developing some equations about what effects it has, we
are now at a point where we can consider: okay, if we understand how
gravity is produced by this underlying energy, and if we understand
how inertia is a consequence of this underlying energy, we can now ask
new kinds of questions. Can we manipulate this energy? And the answer
is yes. And if that is the case, then isn't there the possibility that
we might someday be able to induce gravitational effects or
counter-gravitational effects, or reduce inertia, and so on. We come
at a level below the usual view, where rather than just saying: well,
we are stuck with gravity as it is, or stuck with inertia as it is, we
have now gone to a deeper level where we can possibly talk about
manipulating these forces. And of course, that has very broad
implications.
Hieronimus: Maybe we can later touch on what kinds of
implications those would be, in space travel. You also note that
"probably the most important aspect of the discovery of the intimate
connection between inertia and the vacuum fluctuations is that the
number of independent physical concepts upon which the structure of
modern theory is built is reduced by one." Why is this so important?
Puthoff: Every time we advance scientific theory by
reducing the number of things we think are out there, it gives us an
understanding that lets us begin to first of all more deeply
appreciate exactly what is going on, and secondly begin to get an
engineering handle on how to manipulate something. Back in the old
days, it used to be thought that
heat was a separate kind of fluid force that inhabited bodies. Some
were hot and some were cold, and so on. At that time, without the
understanding, it was difficult to, for example, come up with the idea
of building a steam engine. But then as we reduce the number of
independent variables we realize that heat really has to do with
simply the amount of energy that, say, gas molecules happen to have as
they run around and bump into each other, and bump into the walls, and
as we gain that understanding we can then start thinking about how can
we use that force to push on a piston and build some kind of engines.
People come at it from different standpoints. In some people's minds,
just reducing the number of variables and cleaning up our
understanding is a very esthetic and captivating enterprise, but to
those who are practical minded, it also means that you have a chance
to do some engineering and having some fun making things.
Hieronimus: Uh huh. Well, now we can get to some cold
fusion. Earlier tonight, we reviewed the progress being made in cold
fusion with Dr. Mallove and Dr. Bockris. From your perspective, what
is cold fusion? Is it a fusion process?
Puthoff: I guess at this point, I may have a minority
view. I don't actually think that it is fusion. One of the complaints
that people have about fusion is that all that heat coming out I would
expect - one would expect - there to be a lot more radioactivity, a
lot more neutrons, x-rays and so on and yet the amount of actual heat
that comes out is extraordinary, at least as claimed in some
experiments, in comparison to the number of so-called fusion products.
So, I am
entertaining the possibility that although there may be some low level
fusion going on, and certainly Professor Bockris going over the data
on the transmutation of elements makes it look as if there is some
fusion going on, I think though that it may be possible that the
greater amount of heat energy coming out is a result of a zero point
energy extraction process. And there are a couple of researchers in
addition to myself who have been trying to work out the theory of how
that might be the case. I think that so-called cold fusion phenomena
are very complex and may involve more than one process. Of course,
being a zero point energy chauvinist, I think it is zero point energy.
Maybe I can be forgiven for saying 'well cold fusion is probably from
zero point energy' but actually we have gone beyond that, and we have
made some predictions we are trying to check out in the laboratory. I
think at this point, to be honest, we just have to say we do not yet
know what this phenomenon is. We know some of its characteristics.
Probably because of the transmutations, some fusion may be going on,
but in terms of the extraordinary amount of heat, although there may
be some new nuclear processes that we do not understand yet, that are
responsible for the heat, there are also some good arguments why zero
point energy may be being released as well.
Hieronimus: Do you believe cold fusion is going to be
commercially controlled by someone like, say, the power companies?
Puthoff: That is really a tough question. Um ...
Hieronimus: Well, you get extra points if you get this
one!
Puthoff: I've got some answers to it. (Laughs)
Hieronimus: Okay!
Puthoff: As it turns out, the cold fusion process, or if
I can even broaden it out to include the zero point energy processes,
some of the experiments in which these effects apparently are seen are
really sort of garage level experiments. If someone hits on a good,
solid, robust embodiment, this is the kind of thing that I think you
would find a lot of people could be dealing with in their garages, and
at least for small scale applications not going to the power
companies. Now I think that since power companies do have a large
economic structure and so on, I think they will of course get into it
as anyone else would, but I think that it is sort of like ham radio:
yes, there are commercial radio stations but you have a lot of ham
radio operators out there building their own rigs and talking to each
other and so on. I think there is a chance more like in wind energy
and solar energy where there will be smaller scale entrepreneurs who
may actually feed energy into the grid as the wind people are doing at
this point. So I think that although the power companies may get
involved at some point I think you will see also sort of smaller scale
entrepreneurial activities going on....
When the idea of the hydrogen atom was ..... first put
forward in the form that you often see it on textbook covers, where it
looks like a tiny little solar system with the electron planet
circling the nuclear sun, one of the questions at the time was: why
doesn't the electron simply radiate its energy away and spiral into
the nucleus, in a way similar to the way our satellites have certain
losses and spiral into the planet? At the time, the answer was simply,
well it is just the
magic of quantum theory, it doesn't obey classical rules, and for some
reason hydrogen atoms are like little perpetual motion machines. But
in fact, from the standpoint of the zero point energy approach, we now
recognize - and the calculation has been done, in fact I published on
it myself - we show that indeed you expect an electron in a hydrogen
atom to radiate its energy away, but it picks up energy from the
background zero point energy and therefore is sustained by it. What
that means in terms of physics is that is shows why atoms can be seen
as perpetual motion machines, it is just that they always have an
energy input from the background to make up for the losses. One of the
embodiments of cold fusion we are looking at is the possibility that
when hydrogen atoms enter into metal lattices the conditions for that
balance change. And as a result, calculations can be done to show that
some energy is released. There you have a case where by playing very
smart with the hydrogen atom you have a chance to change its orbit
under certain conditions and possibly getting a release of energy.
Hieronimus: You mentioned that you do not believe that
cold fusion is going to spell the end of power companies. In your
conversations with Chris Bird you noted that the Arab oil producers in
the Middle East should be brought into the investment picture, which I
thought was really interesting as to why. Because that would keep them
from standing in its way.
Puthoff: That's exactly it. In our business plan, under
the assumption that we might really bring this to market, we have
looked at all the potential "enemies" and in every case there is a way
to work out a win-win situation. And so, in terms of talking to the
ordinary oil companies here, I had a chance to talk with Scotty Hahn,
president of Penzoil, and research directors and presidents and
vice-presidents of a number of other oil companies, talking to them
about the zero point energy future. They said they would definitely
welcome it, because right now if they take oil out of the ground and
make pharmaceuticals and plastics they have a big profit margin, and
they do not use much of the resource. But when they put it into cars
and homes it is sort of like burning Van Goghs and Picassos to heat
your house.
Hieronimus: Indeed.
Puthoff: They said you wouldn't have any trouble with
us, but you might have trouble with the people who get it out of the
ground. So there our approach is simply to go to them and let them
know this is happening. If they capitalize the development of it then
as oil goes down their investments will still win.
Hieronimus: Well, we are running out of time and I had
many more questions. Let me ask one. Consciousness is the key, in my
opinion, to human existence. Disagreeing with that are major
institutions like Johns Hopkins University. In your opinion, does
consciousness cease to exist without a brain?
Puthoff: I am of the opinion that it does not cease to
exist. If you need a substructure, or substratum, of course the vacuum
energy gives you as much energy and activity as you need. There are a
number of physicists who are exploring these new areas. I realize we
don't have time to talk about that.
Hieronimus: Yeah, well maybe some other time we can,
huh?
Puthoff: All right!
Hieronimus: Would you join us again in the near future?
Puthoff: I would be glad to.
Hieronimus: Thank you.
Dr. Hal Puthoff