To:  ecornell@jilau1.colorado.edu; Eric.Cornell@Colorado.EDU; Carl.Wieman@Colorado.EDU; Deborah.Dirjin@Colorado.EDU; John.Dirbohn@Colorado.EDU; Chris.Greene@Colorado.EDU; Murray.Holland@Colorado.EDU
CC:  David.Lind@Colorado.EDU; Allan.Franklin@Colorado.EDU; James.Shepard@Colorado.EDU; John.P.Cumalat@Colorado.EDU; Neil.Ashby@Colorado.EDU; Albert.Bartlett@colorado.edu; Walter.Wyss@Colorado.EDU; staff@infinite-energy.com; LA4Park@iwvisp.com; Jfd@Colorado.EDU; kraushaa@stripe.colorado.edu; Peter.Kunz@Colorado.EDU; hsa@unm.edu; sialpert1@juno.com; hzero@unm.edu; chandler@unm.edu; Finley@tagore.phys.unm.edu; jrgreen@unm.edu; dwolfe@unm.edu; pwross@Princeton.EDU; jcollins@free-energy.co.uk
(Alden Park, Joseph Dreitlein, Jack Kraushaar, Dale Kunz, Harjit Ahluwalia, Seymour Alpert, Howard Bryant, Colston Chandler, Dan Finley, John Green, David Wolfe, Patrick W. Ross, John Collins)
BCC:   (Lowell Wilkins, Klaus Halterman, Roger Ross, Travis Laker, Christopher Park)
From:  Alden E. Park, LA4Park@iwvisp.com
Date:  8 May 2007
Subj:  Try BEC-deviant experiments using horizontal magnetic fields to help solve solar corona riddle & repeat McKinley low friction demonstration

All,

BEC Site Preliminary Comments.  I am not an experienced researcher in the field of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) but I have some important comments that I think should be carefully considered by many.  I saw on the Internet site http://jilawww.colorado.edu/bec/ the reference to ultracold atoms.  The BEC certainly includes both major meanings of cold (cold with respect to translation motion of atoms and cold with respect to the greatly ignored academic subtlety of internal rotation of nuclear-ground-states).  Maybe when it becomes relevant, the distinction should be better specified.  I noted the photo on http://jilawww.colorado.edu/bec/BEC_for_everyone/index.html and I think that the BEC experimenters in general need to more explicitly state that they are using pretty much vertical magnetic fields when they do their magnetic trapping.  I imagine that one could make a magnetic trap having pretty much vertical magnetic fields and the photo suggests to me that such was the case.  I am convinced that BEC won't work if the experimenters are somehow able to "turn their equipment on its sides" and use strong pretty much horizontal magnetic fields to do their magnetic trapping.  I am thinking beyond the more obvious reason that gravity might then allow the atoms to work their way out the side of the magnetic trap.  I am not suggesting that the BEC experimenters shore up that problem and try to create BEC using horizontal magnetic fields for their magnetic traps.  Such would probably be an exercise in futility and there would still be no BEC.  There is a subtle problem/opportunity beyond the obvious problem.  I am thinking about some BEC experimenters potentially trying to tackle some new goals/opportunities.

New Goals.  I am thinking that some BEC experimenters might want to consider "turning their equipment on its sides" or rather build new equipment to try to study some aspects of the solar corona/photosphere in the laboratory and possibly then they could offer some guidance to the hot fusion community about how the hot fusion community should more correctly proceed if they really want to produce power somewhat like it is done on the sun.  I think that some BEC experimenters should use horizontal magnetic fields with a more long range goal of producing very high temperatures from velocity nearly stationary (with respect to translation) (yet little-interacting) nuclei (or rather atoms) and in essence pursue a solution to the solar corona riddle where energy seems to come out of nowhere.

Power from Gravitons.  The energy does not come out of nowhere but I think it comes from two-part gravitons that cause nuclear ground-states rotating about internal horizontal axes to rotate with even higher angular speed about internal horizontal axes because of the slight time delays between the two attractively downward parts of gravitons.  A lower charge is pulled downward slightly before an upper charge is then pulled downward (both by a single graviton composed of parallel and antiparallel equal strength E fields traveling together).  One can not say that there can not be soliton solutions of electromagnetic radiation traveling together, as the photon is an example of such.  If some BEC researchers succeed in the new non-BEC (or graviton power) goal, then aspects of the solar corona/photosphere can be studied in laboratories on earth (JILA tower, for example) that practically could previously only be studied from afar (for example by observation of the solar corona during total solar eclipses).  They could also help redirect the hot fusion community into more fruitful methods for success for power production.

Old Incorrect Fusion Assumption.  The hot fusion community has implicitly been making an incorrect assumption for decades that the power of the sun comes from hot fusion and this assumption has been maintained despite a persistent lack of observed solar neutrinos.  Curiously, they have had greater success using strong horizontal fields (for the magnetic confinement approach), though a horizontal magnetic field as opposed to a vertical magnetic field has little explicitly to do with the controlled hot fusion confinement paradigm (other than there being a need for confining the nuclei for long enough time).  If they want real success (producing power in a similar manner to the way that it is done on the sun), they should go to an opposing paradigm based on graviton power and drop the controlled hot fusion confinement paradigm.  They should try to produce somewhat translation stationary (cold) ground-state-nuclei that are allowed to highly rotate about horizontal axes (each axis going through the center of each nucleus) with little interference from other nuclei or atoms (so that they can internally be extremely hot).  (Based on past experience and based on attaining the goal of new internal rotation of nuclear-ground-states about horizontal axes, they would be wise not to remove the horizontal magnetic fields.)  After waiting a sufficient time for the nuclei to acquire large internal rotations from gravitons (the process quickens or the power obtained from gravitons greatly increases accordingly as the initial angular speed about internal horizontal axes is increased), photons scattering off such highly rotating nuclear-ground-states will have their energies greatly enlarged and so explaining the 1000000K temperatures of photons coming off the edges of the solar corona.  One needs to be careful, as the process can have a run-away effect.  If the temperatures get too high and if there are too many atoms, the process may need to be rapidly slowed or halted (so as not to become dangerous), say by supplying a large vertical magnetic field or by quickly translationally applying many atoms that have rotationally cold nuclei somewhat like the blowing out of a candle.  There may not be many horizontal magnetic field lines in the solar corona but in the lab we can use them as a crutch to help bring about a desired condition.

Rotating Nuclear-Ground-States.  If one is having difficulty understanding what is meant by "internally rotating nuclear-ground-state", one might ask oneself (and then answer to oneself) thought questions such as, for a given single "perpetually purely isolated" ground state of a nucleus with zero angular momentum, does there exist a coordinate system centered at the nucleus with respect to which the nucleus has precisely zero angular momentum?  Then try the question for other such nuclei with sufficient isolation that they do not interfere with each other.  Then (ignoring any translation differences in found frames) compare the angular velocities of any such found frames with respect to each other.  Is there rotational variation with respect to any such found frames?  Are all the found frames rotationally frozen with respect to each other?  Though the nuclear-ground-states would not vary with respect to primary or normal quantum numbers, they could vary according to a multitude of "lesser" values of variables or in essence hidden variables associated for example with the absorption of a pair of quantized E fields from a graviton (creating a net "lesser" variable difference which could be simply thought of as an unquantized difference in angular momentum associated with the nuclear ground state).  Such variations would seem to be ignorable, but Bessler long ago found a means whereby such initially small variable differences could be made to increase and to constructively accumulate and become large.  Another way of viewing the situation is similar to the energy states of the unbound continuum being unquantized.  Though the bottom or ground state of the nucleus is quantized, the particular value is not precisely tied rotationally to any single universal reference frame (ignoring translation position and translation velocity differences), assuming there exists some way to slightly apply an extra tiny rotation to that nuclear-ground-state.

Some Experimental Options.  I would think that there are options with respect to dealing with the gravity leakage problem.  One option is just to let the leakage out of the sides of the magnetic trap just occur as there may still be enough time for the nuclear-ground-states to acquire large rotations about internal nuclear axes.  I don't know if that would give enough time.  Such a leakage might help keep them (the atoms) better separated which is a good thing.  Another option might be to somewhat fight the gravity leakage problem by applying charges to the atoms (say removing an electron and balance out the gravity force using a vertical E field). That would create qE' spreading problems (maybe not so bad from a non-interference of nuclei standpoint) and avoiding the problem of conflict.  The charged atoms would also cause forces, qvXB, that would likely destroy the magnetic trapping.  I suspect that the second option should not be taken as the atoms would spread apart too quickly.  That is don't apply charges to the atoms.  One could also give up the magnetic trapping (just use the laser cooling), but still have horizontal magnetic fields and allow pressures to be larger.  It may initially work to not try the laser cooling since the laser cooling would tend to cool the rotations of the horizontally rotating nuclear-ground-states, also.  One possibility is to apply the laser cooling and then turn it off while leaving on the horizontal magnetic fields.  There are many variables to explore from a research standpoint but there would be guidance in going in the direction in which the largest excess power is generated.  Still the simpler and safer solution to the problem would seem to be the preferable solution.  The rotations of the non-interfering ground-state-nuclei about their internal horizontal axes would be unstable in the presence of a horizontal magnet field.  The trick is getting the ground-state-nuclei to begin their rotating about their internal horizontal axes.  One approach (beyond the obvious approach of just waiting) to getting them to begin to rotate is the physical presence of rotating materials for example as was the case with the Bessler wheels (see below) the nuclei would tend to rotate approximately with the angular speed of the body in which they are embedded.  This would likely create difficult experimental approaches.  Another material approach would be a Ranque-tube-like approach with low pressure gases rotating around a horizontal axis to encourage rotations of ground-state-nuclei as gas atoms swirl around and around a horizontal axis which axis also should correspond to the central horizontal magnetic field lines being applied.  There would be smallest translation velocity at the central axis of any Ranque-like tube.  This approach would seem to be more experimentally viable.  Another approach would be to apply some weaker rotating horizontal magnet fields while using a gas say deuterium.  Regular hydrogen might be more of a challenge in that regard but if one can get the nuclei rotating to acquire additional rotations/power from the gravitons one could use more hydrogen to study some of the properties of the solar corona or put in helium-4 to study red giants which are even harder to study in the laboratory.  Passing on findings to say Princeton (where I imagine they should be capable of working with weak plasmas since they deal with strong plasmas regularly) might be advisable for further studies of the solar corona, solar photosphere, and red giants (confirming hopefully any JILA findings along the way).  I think that the red giants are not using hot fusion to produce their power but in somewhat a similar fashion to the solar corona of our sun the red giants get power from the gravitons providing power to the helium-4 nuclear-ground-states rotating about their individual internal somewhat horizontal axes (at the edges of the photospheres of those stars).  I don't know if the BEC experimenters can crack the solar corona riddle but I think that with their skills that they would be in a good position to pretty much begin to solve it.

Correctness of Some Last Words by Einstein.  I recall reading in Infinite Energy something to the effect that Einstein wrote about three years before he died that his theories of continuous structures might be castles in the sky.  His statement was basically ignored by many others.  (I suspect that Einstein's faulty theories of continuous structures with respect to gravity should be replaced by the more correct idea of huge fluxes of gravitons emanating from matter/energy, as there are many opposite charges within neutral matter and energy repositories sending out huge fluxes of E fields).  It seems to me that there may be some BEC experimenters who are in a good position to partly test out Einstein's idea (regarding the demise of his theories of continuous structures) and simultaneously lead to a solution to the solar corona riddle.  The question is will they do so now or will they wait for someone else to do so later?  Some have wondered what BEC is good for.  I imagine that one thing BEC is good for is for probing boundaries of it not working which opens the door to new physical realms to be considered.  Solving the main riddle of how the sun produces power without hot fusion could create environment friendly graviton power reactors that could produce much power, as there would not even be any problem with massive numbers of neutrons destroying the first vacuum containment wall (as there would not be any nuclear reactions) and no release of carbon dioxide (as there would be no initial chemical reactions since it only works off of very local matter-graviton reactions) so as not to impact global warming in that way.  Large energy or frequency photons could be produced but the photons could be made less energetic if there is more interaction between the nuclear-ground-states so as to reduce their respective rotations.

Some of My Background/References.  For those getting this email (besides the BEC experimenters, whom I don't recall ever meeting) this may jog some people's memories of who I am.  I graduated from the University of New Mexico (UNM) in 1975 having double majored in both Mathematics and Physics with cum laude honors also in each. I was selected for the honor societies Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, and Kappa Mu Epsilon.  I worked summers at Sandia 1971-1974.  I was one of the 38 UNM students chosen to Who's Who Among Students in American Universities and Colleges for 1975.  During the summer of 1975, I worked for LASL at the Los Alamos Meson Physics Faculity (LAMPF).  During the summer of 1976, I was a grad student laborer working at EPICS (Energetic Pion Channel and Spectrometer) at LAMPF.  In graduate school at the University of Colorado (CU), at Boulder, I was a Teaching Assistant with an office in Gamow tower.  After passing the comps (written and orals) on my second attempt, I was a Research Assistant at the cyclotron (Nuclear Physics Laboratory).  I was not motivated enough to complete a Ph.D.  I was kindly granted a Masters in Physics in 1979 since I previously had passed the comps.  Since 1980, I have been serving my country as a civil servant employed as an Electronics Engineer at China Lake, California.  The thoughts, beliefs, and opinions that I give in this email or my Internet site are my own and do not represent the United States Government.  I have made a lot of comments about all sorts of things on my Bessler wheel Internet site of http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/ including gravitons and the circa 1968 McKinley low friction demonstration which should be a highly repeatable type of demonstration.  Some of you might also be interested in some of my prior comments concerning highly excited ground states of He4 giving off energy and angular momentum as its decays rotationally to a normal ground state [without the presence of a "normal" nuclear signature, aside from the He4 ground state itself] found in my speculative paper in Fusion Technology, American Nuclear Society, Vol. 24, No. 3, November 1993, pp. 319-323.

Hot Fusion Researchers.  This email may be forwarded on to any controlled hot fusion researcher who may be open-minded/brave enough to consider at least unofficially changing to a different power production paradigm or a different containment paradigm for more rapid success than they have seen in the last decades.  The hot fusion researchers (for the magnetic confinement approach) have been struggling to reduce their leakage current problems (as they don't know where they are coming from) but have apparently ignored (as far as I am aware) (have apparently not even modeled) the concept of rotating nuclear-ground-states (with extra power coming from gravitons) as the likely source of their leakage problems.  The leakage currents in plasmas are likely due to rotating nuclear-ground-states of ionized positive nuclei which is like having many extra unmodeled possibly-growing nuclear-size magnets moving around so it should not be surprising at all that they have some extra ones somewhat aligned along magnetic field lines, changing/reducing the magnetic field properties, and allowing nuclei to escape from the magnetic bottles in an unaccounted fashion.  To remove the leakage current problems is almost akin to the idea of trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.  They should concentrate on producing power-producing very highly rotating nuclear-ground-states (rotating about individual horizontal axes going through the centers of their nuclei) instead of removing such anomalies.  If they want the adults, they need to allow the babies time to grow up and give the babies some space to grow up in.  They should certainly not throw the babies hard at each other.

McKinley Low Friction Demonstration.  I think that the circa 1968 McKinley low friction demonstration was actually a modern day Bessler-like wheel (though it was labeled as purely a low friction demonstration and so completely avoided all contention/prejudice/etc.).  Having such a wheel or a lower cost wheel should be a part of every undergraduate modern physics lab as it appears that it gets its energy out of nowhere (like in the solar corona) but it does get its energy from somewhere as I think it gets its energy from the gravitons.  The phenomena is unmasked by lowering friction sufficiently.  Such simple devices will soon come forth and will destroy some "pet physics theories" but what is more important, the "pet physics theories" or the truth?  If people paid more attention to such demonstrations as the circa 1968 McKinley low friction demonstration (myself included), then today we might be using much more power from gravity and many of our energy woes would be lessened today.  I was one of the hundreds of students who was an eye and ear witness of the circa 1968 McKinley demonstration.  One can read my account on my Internet site, http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/ (or possibly in Infinite Energy, assuming they decide to print the account I emailed to them on 17 Feb 2007).

Confidence from Repeatable Modern Bessler-like Wheels.  Probably the first thing to do is to quickly establish confidence that one is pursuing a valid new line of research is to see if there are any grad students who want to verify the repeatability of the McKinley low friction demonstration.  They could build wheels and bearings and then do various experiments which should qualitatively be highly repeatable.  Such experiments could include variations of the initial conditions (say initial angular velocity in the presence of particular magnetic fields, for particularly designed horizontal axis wheels), then record the results.  I suppose that the wheels could have horizontal axis bearings either of the Meissner-Ochsenfeld effect type (for magnetic fields excluded by superconductors) or of the air bearing type.  I could not find any such horizontal axis air bearings being sold out on the Internet.  I think that the results of such experiments would cause problems for variants of Einstein's theory of gravity.  If there is a simple electromagnetic explanation on a very local matter basis, then it would call into question Einstein's (1911) principle of the local equivalence between a "gravitational field" and an acceleration.  See p. 17 of Gravitation (1973) by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.  Also see pp 386 and 1060.  Anyway the experimenters should have great fun with the wheels and safely planned experiments, even if Einstein's theory of gravity doesn't go away immediately.  It would be a matter of safety to provide enough friction (say friction between the wheel and air as was done at McKinley) so as not to have run-away wheels.  Too much friction as with the usual everyday wheels (rotating about horizontal axes) masks the phenomena (so the phenomena is not at all obvious to the observer).

Funding.  I don't want to give up any of my money for funding such projects.  Sorry.  My pockets are not very deep.  The experimenters could go to the government (NSF, DOE, etc.) and see if they can obtain grants for making new progress in the science or helping to more quickly study new environmentally friendly methods of producing energy based on graviton power.  One can imagine that the funding (seed money) requests for the pragmatic lines of new research might do better if people can first demonstrate the underlying concepts using findings extended from repeating the hopefully highly repeatable variants of the McKinley demonstration.  I included the current Physics Department chairman at CU (whom I do not recall ever meeting) in my emailing so he would be aware of the potential new research/funding possibilities.

Response/History.  I do not expect any response to this email.  {Still if there is any response/need for discussion, one could make comments in an appropriate topic of the Bessler wheel discussion group so that all may see the comments (and if there isn't an appropriate subject to address a topic of concern, a new subject can be created or one could state where on the Internet the appropriate information may be found).}  The BEC and hot fusion communities need to carefully consider these things that I have discussed (or referred to) and to take action or not take action as they will.  This email was intended to provide a number of viewpoints that I think have not had a great amount of consideration by many physicists.  Some of these things go back almost three hundred years with a split in the European scientific community over the Bessler wheel.  Though John Collins' 1997 book provides many details, I could vastly over-simplify the situation by saying Newton was unofficially against the Bessler wheel and Leibniz was in favor of Bessler's wheel.  The Newton side seemingly won the "battle" scientifically (to the loss of science) but I think that the war is not over as the Bessler wheel is coming back in a large variety of modern forms.  I think that the Bessler wheel itself can be looked upon as a net power producing device once the low friction Orffyrean roller bearing is successfully redeveloped in modern times.  I think that the Orffyrean roller bearing will become a mainstay for industrial mechanics, electro-magnetic over-unity engines, etc. (so any mechanical engineers and electronics/electrical engineers should also follow that situation closely).  I think that the secret to Bessler's wheels was in his special very low friction roller bearings, though small which could bear up large loads and should not be lubricated.  Gravitons automatically do the rest of powering steady-state rotating-Bessler-wheels.  Bessler will eventually get the credit that he so deserves.  Sometimes it just takes centuries for the truth to come out but truth will eventually prevail.

Alden Park - Ridgecrest, California