Date: Sunday, April 16, 2006 @ 20:50:54 GMT
Topic: Science

(from DISCOURSE NO. 6 by Harold Aspden): ...Now the point of this introduction is to explain why I became interested in the action of a magnetic field in developing reaction effects inside a metal, in this case steel. I knew from my physics training that one can store energy by setting up a magnetic field within a vacuum. Moreover, I knew that one can recover that energy by switching off the action producing the field. Common sense was sufficient to say that there is something in that vacuum that can house that energy and keep it safe so that it is still there when we want to recover it.

However, I knew that physicists avoided explaining all this in simple language of the kind an engineer might use. They hid behind their formulae and the 'laws' they had devised based on certain empirical facts. They got the right answers but did not understand the processes of energy storage involved.

Ignoring the vacuum, or aether, for a moment, the question of how that magnetic energy is stored in solid metal warrants comment. Physics told me that metal, as an electrical conductor, contains free electrons, all moving about at random amongst a background of atoms having a residual positive charge, charge which was locked in place by the crystal structure of those atoms. Overall the metal is electrically neutral. However, if a magnetic field is applied to that metal, something I was doing daily in my experiments, then those electrons are, according to our physics teaching, duly deflected in their paths so that they describe helical orbits and react to produce a magnetic field opposing the one applied.

My research involved alternating magnetic fields, but this reaction occurs even with a steady field. However, in practice one sees no such reaction on the scale indicated by the accepted theory. When I searched to find how this was explained by physicists I found several attempts at explanations, itself enough to show that physicists were baffled. The problem was left in limbo by the expedient of suggesting that statistical factors were self-compensating. The empirical facts were thereby obscured by an 'unwritten' law of physics, which said that 'what is, has to be, whether you can understand it or not!'

Raad the whole text here:

This article comes from

The URL for this story is: