Ball Lightning

[Richard Hull]

This subject has recently been revived by my long time friend and associate Scott Fusare.

This subject has long captivated me, but its very nature was like that of cold fusion, CANR-LENR and the like. It appears real, but there is no theory, no empirically fixed replicability, and in general no money in the effort. Thus all these subjects are slowly picked at like a scab that woun't go away simply because it is all so visible and scientifically annoying.

I am currently reading a fabulous wake-up paper by D.J. Turner, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol 17, No.3, pp 435-496. It is entitled, "The Missing Science of Ball Lightning".

In this paper Turner, a long time private researcher and theorist on ball lighting, gives a 60 page treatise with copius references. It is a must read for all interested. He hints at his belief that ball lightning is at the cusp point between physics and chemistry. This is something I have long held out as being at the core of cold fusion, CANR-LENR and of the strange water arc energy release phenomena. Water, its chemistry and its physics, is at the core of all of these processes. Turner mentions that water's near infinite compressibility and near infinite dilution of chemical salt ions allow for long lived ionic states in said medium at the critical point of water vapor. (374 deg C. @ 221 bar). he notes that this is a grossly understudied field due to it complexity and non-profitability.

I Quote, "It became clear to me that there are, in fact, many areas of classical physics in which the basic science is much less well understood than most physicists would like to believe. This knowledge reinforced my conviction that what we do not understand about vapour-phase electrochemistry is connected in some way with what we do not understand about ball lightning."

And, " It is currently impossible to define the thermodynamic properties of ions at infinite dilution in saturated water vapour."

Finally, "This seems to have deterred good scientists from investigating areas that involve both chemistry and really messy physics." (combinationally)

I feel, along with Scott, that really tremdous energies are just not needed to make ball lightning. Yes, seed energy is needed, but it appears that a fast dv/dt couples with moist air and the presence of large dielectric interfacial surfaces in a manner that is deeply involved as seed conditions far more than just supplying mega-joules of energy.

Turner hints that the plasma is an acreted, long lived, self enclosed ionic state within the pervue of the chemistry and physics of water vapor. He notes that a gravitational field may be demanded for these processes to take place.

Much amateur effort could be lauched here. This, I feel, is where a lot of old fashioned Roentgen-Becquerel like "pokin' around in the lab based on annicdotal evidence and reported conditions might conquer the issue of replicability long before any theoretical precusor exists, again, much as in the case of Roentgen and Becquerel's masterful discoveries. For engineers were designing better x-ray tubes and doctors were using x-radiation for diagnostics long before there was even the slightest theoretical foundation for the rays. Theorectical nuclear physics dragged way behind daily discoveries in the early 20th century. Here is another fecund area for "poke-around" research.

Who knows, Fusion may be at the core. I would just love to super saturate air with D2O, get a ball lightning nucleated around it and place the BTI bubble detector near it. (ball lightnings couldn't be tested for nuets with any electronic counter).

Interestingly, Sono-fusion/sono-luminescense are a vapor-phase in a medium. Posssibly Deuterium atoms in a lattice are a form of ultimately diluted vapor phase in a metal (CF). Water arc energy releases have been shown to rely heavily on the microscopic water vapor state created by the electrical explosion. Food for thought and, perhaps, experiment.


Richard Hull

[ChrisSmolinski]

That sounds extremely fascinating, Richard. I found the article online:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/js ... turner.pdf

This does indeed appear to be one arena where a dedicated
researcher, with a modest lab, and willing to put forth a lot of hard work, could
make some interesting discoveries. Long before the properly degreed even
know something is going on.

[Richard Hull]

Chris, thanks for the URL!! I neglected to include it..... I edited your post so that the URL would be clickable. Your original was not a clickable listing. I altered nothing else in your post.

This is a long paper, 60+ pages, and it is suggested that those with a fast connection and a fast printer, might print it out for reference material.

Richard Hull

[Starfire]

See Scott Fusare's post in files

[erich_knight]

Dear Mr. Hull,

Have you read Clint Seward's paper It also provides a theoretic base for ball lighting , he is president of Electron Power Systems :
Ball Lightning Explained as a Stable Plasma Toroid


Erich

[MARK-HARRISS]

Got any photographs of the stable plasma in action?.

Mark H

[Mark Rowley]

Richard,
Here is a brief but interesting paper on ball lightning which was created by a tesla coil discharge in a steam vortex.

http://home.dmv.com/~tbastian/lightning.htm

Mark Rowley

[Richard Hull]

An awful lot of ifs in that paper by King. I don't put much faith in his work. His name is bounced around a lot in some new energy circles but with no results.

I asked Scott to post the URL for the paper in the Files section earlier today. I am glad he did. It is now reference here as well as in the files.

Richard Hull

[Scott Fusare]

Moray King is, in my opinion, simply a more humble version of Tom Bearden. You can read several of his papers in the Proceedings of the International Tesla Symposium, 1986 has the most if I recall correctly. He has much to say but with absolutely zero attempts at any experimentation to support his wild theories.

For those that would dig deeper into current BL theories I would like to suggest the following:

15/01/02 issue of Philosophical Transactions A (Royal Society journal). The entire issue is devoted to BL and makes for wonderful reading. The theories presented are primarily the newer electrochemical ideas. There is also a great compendium of previously unreleased Russian reports.

"Ball Lightning: An Unsolved Problem in Atmospheric Physics"
by Mark Stenhoff, Plenum Press, 1999, ISBN:0306461501
A great overview, particularly of the many theories bandied about throughout the years.

Perusal of the IEEE and Phys. Rev. will turn up some interesting (but mostly older) papers. Some are experimental but most are theory related.

This is a tough phenomenon for mainstream science to embrace given some of the more esoteric properties that BL seems to posses. Its very existence was an open debate in academic circles in the not too distant past. It recalls the dismissive attitude that used to be taken on the phenomena of Sprites. I suppose anything this rare and transitory is guaranteed such a reception.....

No one theory that has thus far been offered up explains all the properties reported. Some choose to simply ignore that which their theory does not explain, other dismiss the offensive properties as being the misinterpretations (or outright fabrications) of the uneducated masses. This ignores the fact that many highly respected scientists have been witness to ball lightning (allegedly even Niels Bohr). My personal belief is that science still lacks the framework within which a good theory could be constructed. I think a better approach is an empirical attempt at reproducing ball lightning. There are statistical “common themes” in the voluminous sightings. Of course, this is easy to say – no one has yet succeeded! Plasma balls in your microwave oven and Golka’s burning metal spheres floating on water are NOT (in my opinion) ball lightning.

Let me close my spiel with a quote from Turner’s paper “Reproducibility in the formation of lightning balls” (Journal of Meteorology, vol. 21, #214 – Dec. 1996):

“Furthermore, the model suggests one reason for the difficulty in preparing ball lightning in the laboratory. This has been the failure to recognize that its stability has equally important electrical, hydrodynamic and chemical aspects. Nature appears to find it somewhat easier to balance these influences than scientists do.”

He is, of course, referring to his own theory. I don’t find his theory completely satisfying, but I do heartily agree that an interdisciplinary approach is needed. We in the “amateur scientist” (or whatever we choose to call ourselves) community may be in a unique position to contribute. Many of us fall into the “jack of all trades, master of none” category in a scientific disciplinary sense; I think this is just what is needed. We are self funded and not obliged to play the “publish or perish” game that currently paralyzes academia. Most of us do not fear making a “fool’s experiment” and that alone is a powerful tool for potential advancement (and, of course, self delusion if good scientific practice and rigor are forgotten).

Scott

[David Rosignoli]

Bill Beaty has a ball lightning book reference located here:
http://amasci.com/tesla/ballbook.html

And a generic ball lightning page here:
http://www.amasci.com/tesla/ballgtn.html

An excellant reference for science anamolies is found here:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/
(try a search for ball lightning)

Also, issue 7 of the Electric Spacecraft Journal had an interesting reference to Gorgons (enormously large ball lightning - many 10's or 100's of meters in diamter - emerging from volcanoes).

I agree that BL (at least the one I like to think of - moving through solids intact, ...) is not really Microwave Oven plasma balls or molten metal shooting from a switch. There are many different descriptions of BL, some more suitable to a purely chemical makeup than others. Stanley Singer wrote a good book (The Nature of Ball Lightning?) that summarizes the different characteristics and different theories on how it worked.

I think one of the problems is the lack of a good definition to it. There isn't just one type.

Has anyone here replicated it and, if so, how did you do it?

Thanks.

[Richard Hull]

For me, ball lightning and its related phenomenon is EXTENDED IN TIME and readily observable over a period of seconds at a minimum! One second blobs caught out of the corner of the eye, flying rapidly around in a ballistic tragectory just isn't it. It is hot debris. Thick, white hot noddules in a Tesla coil arc are also not ball lightnings, by my definition. I have made hundreds of these over the years that lasted up to 20-30 video frames. 2/3-1 second.

Richard Hull

[Adam Szendrey]

I agree. A plasmoid (no matter how it's created) is not ball lightning, in it's self. We could replicate ball lightning very easily if that would be the case, and it would not be an enigma. Ofcourse a ball lightning is probably made up of plasma, but in a very special configuration, which causes various anomalies, which had been witnessed.

Adam

[Richard Hull]

As Scott and I muse over ball lightning we become more convinced that lower energy, high field conditions drive these events.

Moreover, ball lightnings appear very concious of high dielectric constant, planar surfaces in their motions. No direct link to any magnetic phenomena is seen across the vast majority of reports. I feel that seed conditions might relate to a special circumstance related to silicatious earth with a controlled moisture content. This can be coupled or un-coupled from a layered thermal stratification near the ground of different moisture and particulate contents.

The high report rate of glass windows fostering entry into dwellings both with and without apparent damage speaks highly of a purely electronic phenomena that is electrostatic or pure charge at it core.

A sudden field collapse in the right conditions seems to be the progenitor of such events, on whole.

Ball lightning, self-contained plasma, self feeding plasmas or whatever you like to call them hint at a major opening in our understanding of apparently classical issues that were so messy and complex that they were never perceived or just left behind. With modern information sharing, digital cameras, video cameras and the like, a lot of old easy to sweep under the rug physics and science just might be emerging from the darkness; mostly because it demands explanation with more viable reporting methods and more adroit observers. On a parallel track lay the CANR-LENR regions and perhaps CF.

So much of the world is physics at the core that physicists look at all branches of hard science as DEVOLVING from physics into lesser hands. (chemists, aeronautical, mechanical and electrical engineering.) As such, the physicist feels he is naturally in the "cat bird's seat", but alas, the physicists themselves are so narrowly focused within their own domain, that they have zero skills, for the most part, in other areas where such skills might push the envelope with a multi-layered, multi-faceted individual. Indivdually, they are babes in the woods when it comes to the doing or grasping a crisp, fresh overview of many related systems.

We, as various individuals, have to earn no living nor obey any real master in these areas. We are also not afraid to poke and peek about, nor afraid to admit ignorance, but instead move into all areas that are necessary to get through a goal post. We are also not afraid to ask a specialist in the field of necessity. Nor do we assume we have an eagles view, but, instead work more from a sense of direction rather than a grand plan.

We lack money and funding, but can certainly improvise. High end physicists require funding to move more than an inch or two at a time. After, all it is a job!

What can we do? Only time will tell.

Richard Hull

[walter_b_marvin]

Most physicists are as hard working as anyone, and many do get their hands dirty. What is really occurring, is for the first time in human history, The world's libraries are fully open to everyone. This has sparked a revolution in all sorts of endevors, including ameteur science. I say ameteure but that does not nescessiarly mean ameteurish, as this forum proves time and again. Science is devolving from the physics, but that is due in a large part to the sucess of physics in explaining the physical world in a predictible, and therefore usefull, way.

[Richard Hull]

I agree fully. Physicists are indeed working hard as are we all in this day and age. Unfortunately, except for a very few physicists at the bleeding edge, most are just like us, working to feed a familiy and clothe themselves. This means that at times, all jobs, no matter how good they seem, are not far removed from a form of prostitution. The "Johns", our employers, tell us what to do and when to do it.

Daily life, in an ideal case, within the main stream, is divided more or less into thirds.

One third (8 hours) is devoted to work or avocation which varies for most between a form of slavery, at worst, reducing the worker to a mere drudge........... or a form of prostitution with more or less willing prostitutes where needed skills or special services differentitate the upper classes. A microcosomic number of people break out of this mold and not only enjoy their work but command it, bending the work to their will and reaping for themselves a joyous experience everyday. (maybe 1 in 10,000).

The second third of the day in a normalized ideal life is given over to eating and sleeping, more or less. This is almost unavoidable. Few folks get far more than 8 hours sleep and those who get less than 4-5 hours sleep over a long haul can set themselves up for problems with health issues.

The final third of the idealized daily routine is free time which can be filled as needed with home chores, hobbies, th' kids, etc. Some of this time is related, unfortunately, to rather odious, dutiful tasks in normalized lives. Taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, fixing the sink/toilet, putting new plugs in the car, shopping, helping friends, etc.

If we examine our lives, we have to either define ourselves, and our very existence, by either our work as a content, happy and successful prostitute secure in our effort and well rewarded........ or define ourselves by what kernal of time we are truly ourselves, unfettered, unencumbered and free mentally and emotionally. It is your, my, and our choice how we define ourselves.

As noted, few if any scientists, chemists, physicists or engineers can go off, willy-nilly, within their jobs, even though they may be happy at them, and do that which inspired them in the first place. Those that can do so have moved far up within the hierarchy and are often again constrained in other ways. (intellectually, administratively, etc.)

Prostitution at the job, can be a good, rewarding and happy life for many.

I choose to define myself not by my job, although I am happy enough there and tolerably rewarded. I choose to jealously guard and block off vast amounts of that third of my life that is truly mine so that I might follow my heart and mind. With other things in my life and duties about the house this usually means I am up quite late and 6 hours of sleep is the norm.

Still, one has to determine many aspects of ones life that defines oneself, for an undefined person is a person in freefall to the grave, just another worker bee, a drudge or a dis-gruntled prostitute. Such a person is, of course, useful to a society just as the worker bee is vital to the hive, but what a sad existence unless the faculties within are so dim or unfocused to the point where simple creature comforts and perpetual consuming represents an adequate existence.

Again, physicists are not so black as I sometimes paint them, which is for emphasis only. Most are happy, accomplished and willing prostitutes like myself within our respective fields of endeavor. We are constantly aiding in the common societal good, but often not in persuit of that which beats mightily within our hearts at any given moment, while prostituting our skills and services.

Richard Hull

[walter_b_marvin]

Richard,

Is it the johns or the ladies of the evening that are in control?

In times of acient greece ladies of the evening were self governing and an honored profession. It is only the puritanical streak of relatively modern origin that makes them less so.

The point is if you can demonstrate your usefulness in laymans' terms you can name your price, as for example, Einstein did. And many others. Money and science have been bedroom partners for centuries beginning with Galielo, and I see no end to that relationship.

[Richard Hull]

I believe as Mark Twain did

"Only one man, alone, is worth anything at all.
Two will start and argument.
Three or more will want to start a war."

That which moves all forward is based often on seeming divine insight or damned fine luck, usually on the part of one individual.
On the first part we must envoke the hand of god and the other rely more on simple brownian motion. It matters not a whit which moves a man in that great moment.

Sorry to have diverged so, but it is the philosophy of science and the experimental imperative that moves us forward. The amateur scientist, if possessing modest disposable sums has the opportunity to advance a number of efforts.


Richard Hull

[David Rosignoli]

The key message being "ideal case".

I would say the first third is more than 8 hours for most people. There is 8 hours for labor, plus commuting time (0.5 to 2 hours).
More like 10 hours. I find myself commuting for 1.5 hours total every day.

The second third is also more than 8 hours. On average, most people get 6-8 hours of sleep. But for eating....Ah, breakfast, lunch, and dinner together could come to 2 hours, more if you are actually preparing meals and washing dishes. So, 8 to 10+ hours here.

So, anywhere from 16 hours to 20+ hours not devoted to your own interests. The remaining 4 to 8 hours must be divided among chores, family / friend /pet duties, exercise?, and hobbies/research, assuming you aren't exhausted from the other hours of working.

Still, I agree with Richard's comment. But if you do one thing a lot (<put favorite area of interest here>), then something else tends to suffer (health, typically).

I wonder how Jack Lalanne spends his time......

[Richard Hull]

Dave is correct in pointing out the less than "typical ideal".

Workaholics devote 10-15 hours nearly daily to work, excluding the commute, live in townhouses or apartments, come home to bathe, eat, evacuuate, and maybe catch a moment on the boob tube. I know a gang o' folks like this.

Viewing this rat-in-a-maze lifestyle helped me forge a more uniique definitiion of myself very early on. Amazingly these workaholoics define themselves at work! Which is OK I guess, until they get canned and go postal.

Richard Hull

[Paul_Schatzkin]

RHull wrote: "Ball lightning, self-contained plasma, self feeding plasmas or whatever you like to call them hint at a major opening in our understanding of apparently classical issues that were so messy and complex that they were never perceived or just left behind."

I'm just jumping in here to say that I find this subject intriguing. I'm working my way through this thread and have saved a copy of Turner's paper so that I can spend some time with it later.

I'm interested in this subject because it has come up a time or two in the course of my research on Townsend Brown, who regarded "ball lightning" with some reverence.

I have yet to learn anything that would shed any more light on the subject than what others have already found (i.e. more questions than answers -- which is par for the course where Townsend Brown is concerned...), but the fact that Brown took note of the phenomenon and lent some credence to whatever forces are behind or within it has got my attention.

BTW, I think Ryan has finally got the "subscribe via e-mail" function of these forums working, or at least has the beginnings of a solution at hand. If that's the case, then I should be considerably less scarce around these parts in the weeks ahead. Hope I've got something constructive to add....

--PS

[Fusioneer]

This is a re-post of my introduction to this forum. With some comments added here at the top with regard to Ball Lightning (BL) that elsewhere I refer to as an EMT which is short for an ElectroMagnetoToroid. Ball Lighting was the entry point for my sojourn in the world of physics starting some 33 years ago. It was the treble hook God set in my mouth to draw me along a pathway of discovery that has been my reward for dilegence in these topics. Many other researchers have provided me with a set of very fine clues to tempt and lead me on in my investigations. Many people have taken almost an identical research path (Edward Lewis comes to mind) but somewhere along the way they fell short perhaps because they developed a particular idea that they pursued and never could get over. Always it was a matter of not excluding any of the data with regard to BL. Since there is a high interest in neutrons in this forum a particular BL report that came out of Scientific American ought to be of interest. I’ll insert the entire article right here to save you treks to the library.

Curious Phenomenon In Venezuela
Cowgill, Warner; Scientific American, 55:389, December 18, 1886

During the night of the 24th of October last, which was rainy and tempestuous, a family of nine persons, sleeping in a hut a few leagues from Maracaibo, were awakened by a loud humming noise and a vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of the house.
The occupants, completely terror stricken, and believing, as they relate, that the end of the world had come, threw themselves on their knees and commenced to pray, but their devotions were almost immediately interrupted by violent vomitings, and extensive swellings commenced to appear in the upper part of their bodies, this being particularly noticeable about the face and lips.
It is to be noted that the brilliant light was not accompanied by a sensation of heat, although there was a smoky appearance and a peculiar smell.
The next morning the swellings had subsided, leaving upon the face and body large black blotches. No special pain was felt until the ninth day, when the skin peeled off, and these blotches were transformed into virulent raw sores.
The hairs of the head fell off upon the side which happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred, the same side of the body being, in all nine cases, the more seriously injured.
The remarkable part of the occurrence is that the house was uninjured, all doors and windows being closed at the time.
No trace of lightning could afterward be observed in any part of the building, and all the sufferers unite in saying that there was no detonation, but only the loud humming already mentioned.
Another curious attendant circumstance is that the trees around the house showed no signs of injury until the ninth day, when they suddenly withered, almost simultaneously with the development of the sores upon the bodies of the occupants of the house.
This is perhaps a mere coincidence, but it is remarkable that the same susceptibility to electrical effects, with the same lapse of time, should be observed in both animal and vegetable organisms.
I have visited the sufferers, who are now in one of the hospitals of this city; and although their appearance is truly horrible, yet it is hoped that in no case will the injuries prove fatal.

*** C. Cagle's notes*** Cowgill was attached to the U.S. Consulate at Maracaibo. This fairly remarkable event has many of the attributes of a "classic" ball lightning event. Humming is frequently reported as being associated with many other BL events. This is actually a wonderful clue to an oscillatory mechanism? What seems most remarkable of all, however, is that the physiological effects, both on plant and human life, have the distinct 'signature' of exposure to radioactive particles. The particular effects are consistent with exposure to a strong neutron flux in the near region of the phenomenon attendant with possible related products (such as beta particles, alpha particles, and various daughter products from thermal or epithermal or even fast [over .1 Mev] neutron induced decays) as might be expected from exposure to such a flux. The severe skin burns associated this event could be taken as evidence of hydrogen and nitrogen recoil related to the interaction of thermal neutrons with hydrogen in the water in the skin of the victims and with nitrogen in the skin tissues. It is interesting to note that in 1886 radioactivity was unknown. Likewise, electrons, protons, alpha particles, and neutrons were years away from discovery.

Other evidence for neutron creation out of plasmas exist. If you can get your hands on a book titled 'Project Sherwood' (The U.S. Program in Controlled Fusion) by Amasa S. Bishop - Library of Congress Cat. No 58-12602 - you will be able to find at least a dozen references where large quantities of neutrons (in bursts) were generated by various pinch devices which were early attempts at harnessing fusion. They called them 'spurious' neutrons or 'false' neutrons because they did not have the energy signature of fusion neutrons. They did not pursue the source of these neutrons with any vigor. Had they done so they might have discovered neutron creation in the 1950's.

Also see: S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, "Neutron Generation in Lightning Bolts," NATURE, 313, 773 (1985). <end of article and comments>

The thing that should make all Fusor people sit up and take notice is the suggestion that BL was producing (actually creating) neutrons. The Farnsworth Fusor device perhaps is a mechanism that isn’t inducing fusion but rather is capable of creating ex nihilo neutrons. You’ll have to forebear for the moment and wait until I post a few notes on the nature of the unit charge before you pooh pooh the idea of ex nihilo creation of mass. I actually have the details worked out and once you realize that elementary charged particles are really just bundles of velocity potentials (where a velocity potential is a discrete quantum relationship between one quantum particle and another) then things fit rather nicely together and you will come to realize that the introduction of new mass into the universe is a natural process and occurs all of the time. Once the mass is present in the universe then we see that it is subject to all conservation laws. So, some of my concepts are going to conflict with the agenda of any person who is more devoted to his conceptions and his interpretations of his own experimental efforts or data than he is to the actual truth of the matter. I should think that one would easily be more impressed with the idea that he has actually built a device that created matter ex nihilo than he would be with the idea that he may have built a device that has facilitated fusion reactions to occur. Be sure and take a look at the graphic of an oscillating electromagnetotoroid and pay attention to my descriptions below. Regards. C. Cagle

repost of introduction follows.

Okay, fellows, gals, fellow fusioneers, I’m Charles Cagle. Eccentric physicist, fusion researcher, iconoclast, generalist, poet and prophet. My website is http://www.singtech.com and I’m the inventor of the SKYBOLT(tm) reactor design. SKYBOLT is an acronym for Singularity KatalYsiert Beam Output Low Temperature. (Katalysiert is a German word meaning ‘Catalyzed’). My approach to physics is straightforward. I brook little nonsense. I have a low tolerance for pseudoscientific beliefs and for those who tenaciously cling to them and regurgitate them to the innocent thinking that they are educating them when in reality they are attempting to indoctrinate them into a particular set of beliefs that generally has no actual relationship to physical reality. I am certain that many things believed to be facts in modern physics are not facts at all but rather are pseudoscientific concepts that generally cannot stand the light of day and are often not supported by any data whatsoever. I’m a strong advocate of the methods of doing ‘science’ proposed by Rene Descartes and I recommend that most people read his ‘Rules for the Direction of the Mind’ and recognize that his criticisms of science in his own day (prior to 1650) are especially appropriate and applicable to the mainstream science people of our own day. Knowledge, true knowledge, is achieved by intuition and by deduction. Inductive methods people need not apply. Theory making is for people who have mistaken physics for a profession in which they can make up ‘just-so’ stories and get them published in professional journals. Physics as a profession is today overrun with pathological liars and charlatans. These people have firmly ensconced themselves in the catbird’s seat at all levels.

For my own accomplishments (none of which are published in recognized professional journals), I lay claim to a number of things all of which are subject to scrutiny and substantiation by any person who cares to make the effort. First, I claim that I’ve discovered the true ‘General Case’ with regard to the interactive behavior of elementary charged particles. This means that Coulomb’s Law is not the general case and never logically should have been accepted as the ‘General Case’ as soon as a single exception to it was found. I chide the old physicists saying ‘Naughty, naughty, naughty’ for ignoring reasonable epistemological standards or rules with regard to the manufacture of theories dealing with the interactive behavior of elementary charged particles. Of course, most, if not all of them, are dead. And for the true intellectual and social harm they have caused, they damn well ought to be. For believing and promulgating the nonsense that their elders stuffed into textbooks the next two generations of physicists also ought to be taken out and horsewhipped somewhat. Where is a good horsewhip when you need it?

My new ‘General Case’ is fairly simple. Elementary charged particles (as interacting pairs) that have a common de Broglie wavelength [Lambda(sub c)] calculated from a center of momentum frame that is equal to or greater than the interparticle distance will behave opposite to the expectation of Coulomb’s Law.

Here’s a full articulation or a full statement of the General Case:

General Case - Coulomb's Law is a special case subsumed under a General Case which describes the interaction of charged particles under all dynamic interaction possibilities and which contains four simple parts:

1) "If like-charged fundamental particles have a common de Broglie wavelength greater than or equal to the interparticle distance then they will attractively interact."

2) "If unlike charged fundamental particles have a common de Broglie wavelength greater than or equal to the interparticle distance then they will repulsively interact."

3) "If like-charged fundamental particles have a common de Broglie wavelength less than the interparticle distance then they will repulsively interact."

4) "If unlike charged fundamental particles have a common de Broglie wavelength less than the interparticle distance then they will attractively interact."

Parts three and four correspond to behavior which one would expect with respect to Coulomb's Law but they are subsumed under the 'general case'.

What is meant by a 'common' de Broglie wavelength?

The de Broglie wavelength, lambda, of a particle is defined as:

lamba = h/(mv) where h is Planck’s constant, m is mass and v is velocity.

Two interacting particles have de Broglie wavelengths which are specific only to that relationship. In a universe of n particles a single particle has n-1 de Broglie wavelengths (and momentum states). Since we're concentrating on a specific relationship then we can arbitrarily distribute the absolute velocity between the two particles into parts inversely with respect to their mass to arrive at the single unique solution of a 'common' de Broglie wavelength. This establishes a frame where they have equal and opposite momentum.

Newton's Third Law - Gary S. Settles wrote the following for Grolier's Encyclopedia:


"According to Newton's third law of motion, which is also known as the principle of action and reaction, every action (or force) gives rise to a reaction (or opposing force) of equal strength but opposite direction. In other words, every object that exerts a force on another object is always acted upon by a reaction force. The recoil of a gun, the thrust of a rocket, and the rebound of a hammer from a struck nail are examples of motion due to reaction forces."


But Newton's third law of motion, as articulated above, could be erroneously argued to contain the implied idea that two particles which have relative motion don't really have equal and opposite momenta until they interact in some local and physical fashion (such as an elastic collision). But the fact is that each particle already has an equal and opposite momentum with respect to n-1 other particles in the universe. A locally observed collision merely expresses the equal and opposite momentum for the involved particles in a specific frame with respect to a local observer, however, every particle already has an equal and opposite momentum with respect to every other particle in the universe antecedent to any collision. If it didn't then there would be implied the idea of a preexisting preferential inertial frame which idea is anathema to modern physics.

So this is just a simple way to define whether or not two particles had (or have) a common rest frame or are occupying a common momentum space.

The classical derivation is straightforward as we consider two particles that are in the same rest frame. With respect to any third particle in the universe which has motion with respect to them they will have equal and parallel velocities.

Now we know that the force between parallel current carrying conductors is given by:

F=2K*I1*I2*l/R

where I1,I2= Current in amps = q/t and l = length of parallel conductors in meters (or v*t for particles),
K= 10e-7 nt/amp2 R= distance between the conductors in meters F= newtons

If the currents are antiparallel (moving in exact opposite directions) to one another then the force is repulsive. And we know that there is no force between them (other than gravity) when they are not carrying a current so that the implication is that the relative motion of the charges is related to the force between them.

This follows from the idea is that a charge in motion is the simplest definition of a current and that a charged particle in motion is really a microcurrent element.

So it is that any two like charged fundamental particles which are in the same rest frame (recall that they have parallel velocities with respect to any third particle in the universe which has motion with respect to them) are really two parallel current elements and so will be attractively interactive.

If those two particles are oppositely charged they still will have parallel velocities but they will be antiparallel current elements and according to the equation would repel one another.

Any two particles which have relative motion already have antiparallel trajectories. Remember, at the quantum or discrete particle level a particle doesn't have a single discrete velocity with respect to an ensemble of particles but has rather a multiplicity of velocities. In a universe of n particles each particle has n-1 velocities as it is juxtaposed with respect to every other particle in the universe of which there are exactly n-1. Therefore, it always has n-1 momentum states or one with respect to each and every other particle in the universe. This viewpoint disavows the Copenhagen Interpretation which posits that a particle's state is probabilistic and is adequately described by a wave equation so that the act of observation or measurement collapses the wave to a single observable (presumably demolishing the quasi-existence of other states). One might argue that a particle has an infinite range of possible momentum states with respect to a single other particle suggesting that the absolute velocity between them can be arbitrarily distributed in parts to provide a continuous spectrum. This an invalid argument which is easily refuted by considering the axiom that quantum particles can only have motion with respect to other quantum particles and not with respect to any arbitrarily contrived coordinate system.

Using a few simple logical arguments and known data it is trivial to demonstrate that the so-called ‘Nuclear Strong Force’ is, in fact, entirely electromagnetic in nature and is deducable from Maxwell’s equations and the simplest concepts of the relativity of motion between quanta.

All of this throws an incredibly nasty monkey wrench into modern physical theory because if the ‘Strong Force’ is a pseudoscientific fiction then that means that so are ‘Gluons’ and ‘Quarks’! How embarassing for the recent recipients of the latest Nobel Prizes in Physics. This is where the horsewhips ought to be gotten out and used publicly.

Fusion never occurs between kinetically driven colliding fusion fuel nuclei. Never. Fusion energy research has plowed along based upon the accepted concepts of what causes fusion fuel nuclei to undergo nuclear fusion in fusion weapons. Even though fusion weapons work the actual mechanism doesn’t work like the theoretical descriptions of it say that it works. Knowing why it works so well even though it doesn’t work like the theorists have thought that it works requires an extra level of knowledge about the coupling of soft x-ray photons with deuterium and lithium in the lithium deuteride compound that constitutes the fuel for a fusion weapon. In fact, it requires that you know what photons really are and that you understand the nature of gravity and all the properties of a gravitational field. But you can’t understand the nature of gravity without first coming into a knowledge of the nature of charge. I’ll make the bold claim that I’ve discovered a perfect model for the unit charge and that when I came up with that correct model it became intuitively obvious how to unify electromagnetism and gravity. So, I’ll claim that I’ve accomplished that as well. When you understand the true nature of a gravitational field then you also can deduce that it has a property that the so-called gravitational theorists and experts on ‘gravity’ didn’t know existed. I guess that means they weren’t experts after all, eh? That property is that a gravitational field produces a charge separation effect. Photons, I’ll happily disclose to you, are, in fact, tiny gravitational charge packets. When you put all of this new physics together then you have the foundational knowledge to begin to build a working nuclear fusion reactor. But there’s more....

That ‘more...’ is that you need to come to an understanding of the dynamics of flux loop structures that I call EMTs which is short for ‘electromagnetotoroids’. I’ve called myself the world’s authority with regard to flux loop dynamics with good reason. I’ve discovered properties and dynamics of flux loop structures that no one else has ever even thought about let alone written about. It is easy to make discoveries when you have the advantage of having a correct model for charge and have deduced the nature of the unit gravitational charge as well. I’ve found that ordinary flux loops that are characterized mathematically as vector fields like Del X E or Del X H can actually oscillate between modes first displaying the characteristics and properties of a magnetic dipole and then of an electric dipole (for the Del X H mode) respectively. I also deduced that large scale flux loop systems, when in the H-loop mode, can make quantum scale copies of themselves at their inner equator along their poloidal axis and that such quantum scale copies actually have the properties of and indeed are nothing more or less than neutrons. And the process of their production is not a conservative process. I’ve discovered that flux loop structures produce their own monolithic gravitational field and from there have been able to deduce the existence of a new form of matter which I have called ‘Isaacium’ that consists only of protons and neutrons from which electrons are completely excluded by the previously mentioned ‘charge separation effect’ of a gravitational field. This Isaacium accumulates in rings along the toroidal axis of the flux loop. Large scale flux loop structures are the underlying physical aspect of stars and stellar jet systems. Within stars are formed Isaacium rings that can go supercritical and will differentiate into a wide variety of atomic species should the overlying gravitational field be displaced from the Isaacium. The primary energy producing mechanism of a star is fission, not fusion. The solar cycle occurs because the Sun’s EMT oscillates between modes. During solar minimum it is in the Del X E mode and displays the properties of a magnetic dipole. As solar maximum is approached the Sun’s EMT undergoes a mode change to the Del X H vector field mode and the dipole magnetic field disappears to be replaced by the properties of a large scale electric dipole structure. That’s why you have polar coronal holes during solar maximum where such ‘holes’ are indicative of large scale electric field gradients in the polar regions. Stellar Jet systems like HH30 are large scale oscillating flux loop structures which alternatively produce matter in their cores and then eject that matter in huge solar system sized blobs. There is a mechanism for the ex nihilo creation of matter contrary to dogma that states otherwise. The fact that you can see the ejected matter from such stellar jet systems like HH30 demonstrates the reality that these systems are creating new matter and ejecting that new matter. I’ve got the physics for how all of this works and we can even point to the fact that the Earth’s own EMT periodically generates mass in the core of the Earth making the Earth grow cyclically. Do a google search using the arguments “Earth Expansion Maxlow” and you’ll find the site of James Maxlow, Ph.D. who has successfully defended his doctoral thesis at Curtin University in Australia that claims that the Earth has grown 6.3 fold in volume since the period known as the Jurassic. Other planets grow, too. If you can get over the mantras of conservation then you’ll be prepared to learn how the universe furnishes itself with new matter. You’ll learn the basic physics behind the design of a fusion reactor that is destined to be successful. You’ll realize that the basis for the radiometric dating of rocks has been all wrong. You may even figure out that the Earth had a radius of about 2139 miles just 5000 years ago. This is all probably too much for most of you. But what will you do when the Earth’s EMT is stimulated into mode change and begins producing mass in the core of the Earth again and the magnetic field of the Earth is down and the lithospheric tension rises rapidly and fractures along major orogens like the North American Cordillera so that the Rockies began descending at the rate of hundreds of meters per hour. What will you do when you see the Hawaiian Islands slip beneath the sea in a single day? Will you be ready to part with the money to fund a working fusion reactor then? Wouldn’t you like to have a small portable energy source when the infrastructure of the whole world is collapsing? When are you going to step up to the plate and contribute to this technology?

Peace to all men of good will.

Charles Cagle