Solution to Our Energy Problem
writing to you about what I think is an overwhelming, technical
solution to our energy problem (politics aside).
chosen to write to you for the following reasons:
are an independent thinker, able to critically analyze an issue.
do not have a vested, professional stake in the energy business.
education and career are not in the nuclear physics realm.
Therefore, you do not have a dogma to defend.
are an apparent advocate of free market economics and opposed to
massive government intervention.
perhaps have more confidence in ordinary people being able to come
up with solutions to problems than the government.
background is two degrees in chemical engineering, 36 years of
professional experience and I am 62 years of age. My experience has
been in coal-fired power plants, oil fields, oil refineries and much
practice in recovering high purity water from the wastewaters of
these above industries.
source I will be explaining has been in front of us for more than
half a century but mainstream science has a completely mistaken
concept about its nature. My explanation will be an interweaving of
science history and fundamental physics. This prose is tedious but
each step is necessary.
bomb was developed under the technical leadership of Robert
Oppenheimer. Obviously this undertaking was successful and I am in
agreement with its described technical details. When the bombs were
actually used, a large number of the scientists were not overjoyed by
this. I think the dropping of the bombs was absolutely necessary, so
I don’t agree with their opposition. However, I do understand their
sense of horror with incinerating hundreds of thousands of people.
war, there was a political realization of the threat of Soviet
Communism, and this awareness prevailed for several years. In the
military race with Russia, the next major step was development of the
hydrogen bomb. Oppenheimer expressed opposition to this effort on a
rational basis: “You already have thousands of atomic bombs; why do
you need a hydrogen bomb?” I think his position was reasonable.
But the military – government response to his criticism was to
believe that he was a Soviet agent and he was stripped of all access
to strategic information and participation. This even included
denying him access to articles that he wrote!
the government over-reacted and treated Oppenheimer in a terrible
manner. The government institutionally does not understand that
creative, independent thinking cannot be combined with mindless
very small number of scientists developed and tested the hydrogen
bomb. I believe they put out a complete misrepresentation of how it
works for national security reasons. This misinformation was so
complete and so tightly wrapped that it became accepted dogma
throughout mainstream science. The explanation was that deuterium
nuclei would fuse together to form helium and this would release a
great deal of energy.
is that the bomb contains no hydrogen and there is no nuclear fusion
reaction. A conventional explosive implodes a plutonium mass, which,
in turn, undergoes nuclear fission. This nuclear explosion raises the
temperature of a small mass of tritium. A rise in temperature
accelerates the tritium nuclei to become very high speed “bullets”.
They impact a large amount of deuterium, which is the target. These
collisions, between tritium and deuterium, cause fission of the
deuterium into high speed neutrons which continue the splitting of
deuterium until it is exhausted. Once the neutrons slow down, they
are simply protons – or hydrogen nuclei. Almost all of the
released energy comes from the splitting of deuterium. A very
small amount comes from the fissioning of plutonium and tritium. The
tritium actually degrades to helium-3.
consequence of this misinformation is that the mainstream, scientific
community has pursued nuclear fusion as the new source of “unlimited”
energy for the past sixty years. This scientific effort has been a
spectacular failure – because they have the wrong theory.
have to go back to the beginning of modern physics: Isaac Newton. In
1687, he published his Universal Law of Gravitation, with the basic
idea that it was an attractive force between two bodies which have
mass. Shortly after this law was published, the greatest scientific
mind in the world criticized it and said it was wrong. This was Isaac
Newton himself! In short, he said that he knew it was wrong but did
not know how to fix it. I now quote him: “That one body may
act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without mediation of
any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be
conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that
I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty
of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
words, for you and me: no action at a distance; therefore the concept
of an attractive force is completely invalid. An answer to his
problem is as follows:
kinetic theory of gravity was originally proposed by Nicolas
Fatio de Duillier in
1690 and developed later by Georges-Louis
Le Sage in 1748. The
theory proposed a mechanical explanation for Newton's gravitational
force in terms of streams of tiny unseen particles (which Le Sage
called ultra-mundane corpuscles) impacting on all material objects
from all directions. According to this model, any two material bodies
partially shield each other from the impinging corpuscles, resulting
in a net imbalance in the pressure exerted by the impacting
corpuscles on the bodies, tending to drive the bodies together. This
mechanical explanation for gravity never gained widespread
acceptance, although it continued to be studied occasionally by
physicists until the beginning of the twentieth century, by which
time it was generally considered to be conclusively discredited.
has regained acceptance, largely through the efforts of Astronomer
Tom Van Flandern. Over the past two decades, through diligent
observation, he has established the following:
size and mass of a “graviton” (the ultra-mundane corpuscle
designated by Le Sage) is about 10 to 20 orders of magnitude smaller
than that of a proton.
average velocity is about 20 billion times faster than the speed of
average distance of free travel, until it collides with another
graviton, is about 5,000 to 7,000 light years.
revived theory is working extremely well. Keep in mind that this
gravitational flux of gravitons fills the entire Universe, and in the
absence of any other entity, is entirely random and does not favor
any particular direction. This is the first of three mediums for
making the Universe.
I have not
made any contribution to this new theory of gravity.
next medium in the Universe is the light carrying medium. The
Michelson–Morley experiment, one of the most important and famous
experiments in the history
was performed in 1887
at what is now Case
Western Reserve University.
It is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against
the theory of a luminiferous
The experiment has also been referred to as "the kicking-off
point for the theoretical aspects of the Second
Primarily for this work, Albert
was awarded the Nobel
to the time of this experiment, it was assumed that there was an
aether because of electromagnetic waves (light, heat, etc). This
experiment was testing at what rate the Earth was traveling through
the aether. The result of the experiment was that there was no
difference in the velocity of light in the x, y, or z direction. It
was concluded that an aether did not exist. This conclusion then led
to treating a photon – “a piece of light” as being a singular
particle. This led to the contradiction that light was both a
particle and a wave. But contradictions do not exist in Reality.
problem with this experiment, and its result, was the unstated
assumption that the Earth would simply pass freely through a light
carrying medium with no effects of friction or
condensation/evaporation in the light carrying medium. However, the
Earth acts as an obstacle to the light carrying medium, which is
being pressured by the graviton flux. The light carrying medium
actually piles up and sticks to the Earth.
experiments have been conducted to determine what light is. If it is
actually a wave, then that fact accounts for all
experimental results. If it is a particle, then that fails to match
results in several of these experiments. The proper conclusion is
that light (and radiative heat, radio, etc) is a wave.
cannot have a wave in a non-existent medium. A wave is a geometric
form of momentum that is passing through a medium of particles, each
of which possesses the property of mass. There is a flowing sequence
of individual particles colliding with particles in front of them,
which pick up the momentum and pass it on to the next particles, etc.
One can proclaim this as “pure” energy but the “pure” energy
consists of particles which have mass and velocity. It is really the
same as the gravitational flux, except these light carrying medium
particles are at rest rather than all of them speeding along at 20
billion times the speed of light. It is thought that an elyson, the
particle that makes up the light carrying medium, is perhaps 4 to10
orders of magnitude smaller than a proton in terms of size and mass.
lone architect of this new theory of a light carrying medium is
Astronomer Tom Van Flandern. He has labeled these particles as
elysons. I have made no contribution to this new theory; I am simply
now have two mediums in our Universe. The gravitons will be colliding
with these elysons constantly. Each elyson will be moved in a
“drunkards walk”. An utterly random movement. With only these two
mediums present, we have no accumulations of elysons or dissipations
of them, i.e. no condensation nor vaporization. There is not even any
mechanism to cause waves in the light carrying medium. Any wave would
constitute an orderly movement of many elysons but each and every one
of them is moving randomly.
now come to the third and final medium required to make up our
Universe. Solid matter, or more precisely, the proton. We know that
protons can be assembled to make nuclei, molecules, crystals, rocks,
asteroids and so on. The question is: How?
is where I propose a theory and absolutely no one agrees with me.
From here on, it is my speculation. It doesn’t matter who I am.
Examine the speculation and let it stand or fall on its own merits.
has been assumed that a proton is a sphere, a predictable first
guess. Let’s drop a single proton into our two mediums of graviton
flux and elyson “sea”. What does it do?
It is in the way. The
proton is an obstacle, nothing more.
gravitons would push the elysons up against the proton where the
elysons would condense. The gravitons would then push the condensed
elysons downhill if there is a downhill. But with a sphere, every
point is at the same elevation. The elysons cannot flow in order to
get away from the gravitons. However, continued collisions with
gravitons would raise the velocity of the condensed elysons. They
cannot have elysons both condensing and evaporating at the same
position at the same time. That is a contradiction. Yet we know that
hydrogen atoms emit light. The answer to our seeming contradiction is
that a proton is not a sphere. It must have a highest elevation and a
lowest elevation. Without going into a long examination of how one
can arrive at a particular geometry, various experimental facts
dictate that a proton must be a hollow half sphere or a hollow cone
or a hollow pyramid. Let’s use the hollow cone as an example
geometry. This shape gets us out of the above problem of simultaneous
condensation and evaporation at the same location.
that the graviton flux is entirely random. So the shape of the proton
determines the local graviton “wind” at all positions on the
proton. With our hollow cone, the highest elevation point is the
outside tip of the hollow cone. The lowest elevation is the inside
tip of the hollow cone. Some elysons, which condense on the outside
tip of the cone, will flow downhill to the outside base of the cone.
They will then be pushed over the lip to the inside surface of the
cone. They will then flow downhill to the bottom of the inside of the
cone. At this position, they can retreat no further but they continue
to be pounded by the gravitational flux. This action by gravitons
transfers momentum to the liquid elysons. With no other option, they
vaporize and go outward as electromagnetic waves. Examine the
atomic physics identifies the electron as being a repulsive barrier
which does not allow further approach to the atom’s nucleus. It is
claimed that electrons are singular particles which travel in orbits
about the nucleus. It is also claimed that electrons can emit photons
– supposedly singular particles also. In this new speculation, the
electron is the continuous vaporizing of liquid elysium in the proton
“well”. The vapor goes out as waves, which account for the
phenomena of photons. Recall that previous section in this paper
explained that photons are not particles but momentum waves in the
light carrying medium – the Elysium.
presence of this single proton – with its shape – interacts
directly with elysons and indirectly with gravitons. This is thus an
atom of hydrogen. The repulsive electron is the vaporizing Elysium.
the three mediums described, there is only one kind of particle
needed to make up each medium. No additional particles are needed.
This is a classic example of Occam’s Razor. All of the particles in
all three mediums act in a passive manner; they do not attempt to do
anything. They do not need to have a consciousness, a mind. They are
not alive. All interaction between particles occurs by collision.
There is no “secret” pure energy. Any apparent pure energy can be
found to be simply particles which have mass and velocity. All
transfers or transformations of energy and force simply arise from
collisions of these various particles with one another.
the asymmetric geometry of the proton, one can derive from simple
analysis the following facts:
collision between a graviton and a proton on its outer
will impart momentum from the graviton to the proton. This would
presumably give a push and therefore a velocity to the proton. But,
any such path of a graviton, including a change in its direction
because of collision, can be negated by a graviton following this
exact path in the opposite direction. Therefore, the net effect of
push on the proton is zero.
collision between a graviton and a proton on its inner
surface will impart momentum from the graviton to the proton. This
momentum transfer will cause the proton to have a velocity in the
direction of its conical tip. Another graviton, following the exact
same path – but in the reverse direction – does not
cancel out the momentum transfer of the first graviton. Instead, it
adds the same amount of momentum transfer and increase in velocity
to the proton as did the first graviton. The net result is that the
proton travels in the direction of its tip (of the cone). Refer to
the figure below:
condensing and vaporization of elysons on the proton will also add
to the forward velocity. However, much more importantly, the outside
tip of the proton will not have an outward, expanding, repulsive
force. It will interact with another proton only through hard
contact. The base of the hollow cone proton will have a constant,
outward, expanding, repulsive force of vaporizing elysons. Any other
proton, which is approaching the first proton on its hollow side,
would be pushed away by the vaporizing elysons. The net result is
that an approach of two protons, cone tip to cone tip, is favored.
movement of elysons on the proton surface is always downhill, until
they are vaporized. This progression is not reversible. This gives
the first, fundamental explanation of why time moves “forward”
and not in reverse. Classical thermodynamics claims that
interactions at the atomic level are completely reversible but this
is not correct. The phenomena of hysteresis, and in a more general
sense, entropy, show that this is so.
see if there is an experiment, which backs up the speculation of an
asymmetrically shaped proton:
magnet is encapsulated within a vacuum chamber. The magnet is shaped
such that the two poles point
to one another, but there is a significant gap between them. At the
left side of the vacuum chamber, a stream of atomic hydrogen is shot
through a pin hole. As the hydrogen approaches and enters the gap
between the two poles of the magnet, the gas stream splits into two
equal streams. One stream goes to the North Pole and the other to the
South Pole. This behavior is an actual experimental result. Refer to
the figure below:
is proposed that magnetism is simply the random gravitational flux
being refocused into a bidirectional stream by the atomic geometry of
the magnet. It is noteworthy that the force of magnetism is constant
and never ending. It does not require any apparent energy input and
it does not give off heat. It has been found to be “instantaneous”
just like gravity. Let’s see what would happen to a hollow cone
proton entering the magnetic “field”.
The figure below shows a proton, still in a random gravitational
flux, approaching the magnet field.
entered the magnetic field:
slightest orientation of the proton tip to either magnetic pole will
push the proton to that pole. As can be seen above, the gravitons
impacting the outer surface will lose some momentum but continue to
the right. Gravitons impacting the inner surface will have their
direction basically reversed, thus granting more momentum to the
proton. Since the orientation of atomic hydrogen protons is entirely
random in the oncoming stream of hydrogen, sheer randomness will
split the entire atomic hydrogen stream into two equal
each one heading to a magnetic pole. Please note that no attractive
force is involved. It is all push.
simplest molecule is the hydrogen molecule. When two hydrogen atoms
come near one another – tip to tip – they shield each other from
the graviton “wind” just like the Earth and the Moon shield one
another. This causes a relative lack of gravitons moving along the
common center line between the two atoms. They are naturally
“attracted” to one another and finally line up tip to tip. Refer
to the figure below:
geometry of the two atoms, touching one another, determines the local
gravitational “wind”. In this situation, downhill on the outside
of the hollow cone protons is now reversed and is from the base to
the tip. Elysons, which have piled up against the proton and
liquefied, flow towards the union of the two proton tips. This liquid
forms a “glue” or chemical “bond” between the two atoms. The
vaporizing elysons, coming out of the inside of the two hollow proton
cones, keep pushing the two tips together.
chemical bonds have this character, with variations in the geometry
of various nuclei.
now come to nuclear fusion. Conventional nuclear physics claims that
fusion can only occur at incredibly high temperatures (millions of
degrees), i.e. extremely high velocities for the nuclei. It also
claims that when the nuclei fuse, there is a vast release of energy.
Neither claim stands up to common sense. Various teams at
universities or other government institutions have spent countless
billions of dollars over the past sixty years, to create nuclear
fusion reactors. They have all been spectacular failures. Fusion has
not occurred and there has been no net release of energy.
University of Wisconsin nuclear team presents a perfect example. They
predicted, according to mainstream theory, that the ideal reactants
for the greatest fusion release of energy would be Helium-3 nuclei.
They achieved their goal of millions of degrees temperature,
confinement of the Helium-3 nuclei by powerful magnets and enough
time duration to get results from the countless millions of
collisions. The results were no release of energy and an outward flux
of 140 million protons per second. Since Helium-3 nuclei are made of
three protons – neutrons, what they achieved was fission. The
colliding nuclei broke apart into singular protons.
ignored the actual results – as did the rest of the mainstream
nuclear scientists – and proclaimed that we must make a gigantic
effort to go to the Moon and “mine” all of its Helium-3 for use
in nuclear fusion reactors here on Earth. When one obeys dogma and
stays faithful to Holy Scripture, there is no limit on human
of newly forming stars show them surrounded by a large belt of black,
opaque nebulae. Apparently, nuclear fusion can
occur at “cold” temperatures!
examine the figure below:
overall gravitational pressure has compressed the molecular hydrogen
nebula enough, the molecules will break apart to atomic hydrogen –
due to collisions between the molecules. On rare, random occasions,
when two hydrogen protons approach one another – base to base –
they will once again shield one another from the gravitational
“wind”. In this case, the liquid Elysium flows downhill from the
cone tip to the base on each proton. Because the hollow, inner
portions of the proton cones are being shielded from the graviton
flux, the repulsive outflow of vaporizing Elysium will die down. But
the liquid Elysium will still flow into the inside of the hollow
cones. When the two cones mate – base to base – there will be a
fair amount of Elysium trapped inside the two cones. The graviton
flux will then hold the two cones together.
else gets trapped inside the two cones when they mate. One or more
gravitons. Even though the velocity of the graviton is about 20
billion times the speed of light, one or more of them will be
trapped. If one argues that they are fast enough to escape, then they
are equally fast enough to get in. The graviton is not alive and it
does not have any motivation. Its behavior is absolutely passive.
suppose that the joining of two proton hollow cones captures one
graviton for every one thousand elysons. Let’s even have the
elysons be at room temperature, 70oF.
A plausible ratio would be for an elyson to have one millionth the
mass of the proton, and a graviton have one millionth the mass of an
elyson. Within the cavity, the gravitons will collide with all the
elysons until they all have a common temperature, i.e. a common
speed. The fundamental principle here is conservation of momentum:
of graviton * velocity of graviton + 1,000 * mass of elyson *
velocity of elysons = a constant value.
initial velocity of the one graviton is 20 billion times the speed of
light. The initial velocity of the 1,000 elysons is “zero”.
Carrying out the mathematics, the final, equilibrium velocity of each
elyson is 5,996,000,000 meters per second. Or 3,726,000 miles per
second. We can use the kinetic theory of gases to determine the
temperature of these 1,000 elysons:
= 3 * R * T / M
= gas constant = 8.314 kg * meter2
/mole / oK
= absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin
= mass of a graviton in kilograms / mole
out the computation, we get a temperature of 14.5 million oK.
This temperature is right in the middle of observed temperature range
of an atomic bomb detonation being from one million oK
to one hundred million oK.
So, the “incredible, mysterious” nuclear energy inside the
nucleus is not incredible or mysterious at all. It comes from
gravitons and elysons being trapped within the cavity formed by two
protons joining together, base to base.
fissioning of uranium or plutonium extracts only about 2% of the
encapsulated energy in these nuclei, and there is a tremendous burden
of radioactive waste, which lasts thousands of years. If one can
fission the deuterium nucleus described above (two protons mated base
to base), the extraction of encapsulated energy is 100%., and the
waste is hydrogen gas – which is not radioactive at all.
experimental team that working along this route were the chemists
Pons and Fleischmann at the University of Utah in 1989. They worked
with electrolysis of deuterium oxide by means of palladium
electrodes. They theorized that the excess heat generated in the cell
came from nuclear fusion of the deuterium. But
what if they were actually achieving fissioning of deuterium? A
viable test, a wrong
is well known, Pons and Fleischmann were excommunicated from the
mainstream scientific world. They had committed high treason by
differing with the Holy Scripture of hot nuclear fusion.
Experimentation came to a halt.
previously explained, it is very important to understand that the
deuterium fission (supposedly fusion) within the hydrogen bomb
requires a plutonium bomb to initiate it. Besides the fact that the
hydrogen bomb is utterly useless as a source of peaceful energy, the
use of plutonium negates any value to the released energy even if it
could be captured. Possibly the experiment by Pons and Fleischmann
consisted of holding the deuterium in place on the palladium metal
surface and splitting it with electricity. If true, then plutonium is
not needed; there is no bomb explosion, and manageable amounts of
energy can be extracted. The first attempt at a new process is always
crude. But there is always rapid progress if the human experimenters
“see the light”. We went from the Wright Brothers’ first flight
to landing on the Moon in only 66 years.
submit that the fissioning of deuterium is real.
this idea of deuterium fissioning is viable, then I predict the
gas will still be a useful energy source at the small scale.
will be a far distant, second class player in generating large scale
energy. It will be used almost entirely for producing products.
would be reduced to a technical curiosity. However, if liquid fuels
are the best economic way to power vehicles, this can be easily
accomplished through the use of deuterium fission. The major
operating cost in converting coal to gasoline, diesel, etc, is the
energy requirement of the process. It is an energy consuming
process. The deuterium fissioning would supply an “endless”
energy source for converting coal to useful fuels.
greenies, like Al Gore, will scream their heads off at “the horror
of it all”, even though deuterium fissioning would not create any
power plants, deuterium fissioning would be produced to create steam
and electrical power. This would be the same as conventional nuclear
fission plants, except there is fifty times the release of energy,
pound for pound of fuel – and there is no radioactive waste.
you have any interest in this process idea, share it with other
persons in private industry. There are many well practiced, competent
physicist teams working on nuclear fusion, which could be redirected
if they viewed deuterium fissioning as a reality. Taking it to
university academics or government scientists is pointless for the
following two reasons:
ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING.
idea, which challenged their scientific dogma, would threaten their
careers and they would lose their government funding. In the world
of government, if you solve a problem, you are out of a job.
final thought: where would aviation be today if the Wright Brothers
had had to submit their design for peer review before they were
to build and fly their plane?
information on my speculation can be found at www.nuclearpyramid.com
Process Design Engineer