Gravitasi dan Anomali Termalnya: Apakah Eksperimen Reich-Einstein Bukti Energi Masuk dari Aether?
Infinite Energy baru-baru ini menarik perhatian pada anomali termal yang ditimbulkan oleh fenomena yang terkait dengan kotak logam [tertentu]. Apa yang disebut energi "orgone" dapat, tampaknya, dikonsentrasikan oleh kotak-kotak logam yang dirancang khusus, yang mengembangkan kenaikan suhu yang berkelanjutan di dalam kotak. Di sini penulis menarik perhatian pada fenomena yang muncul pada 1980-an berkaitan dengan aksi termal yang mempengaruhi pengukuran G, konstanta gravitasi, di mana gaya yang bekerja pada bola logam yang bertempat di dalam sangkar Faraday dipengaruhi oleh radiasi termal, seolah-olah muatan listrik diinduksi dan ditahan pada bola, bertentangan dengan pengajaran fisik yang mengisi logam dengan masuk dan terhubung ke selungkup logam hanya dapat ada pada permukaan selungkup. Pengalaman penulis sendiri mengkonfirmasi hal ini dan, mengingat bahwa muatan listrik yang tidak dinetralkan diatur pada dan dalam bentuk logam tiga dimensi, ini dianggap menyebabkan kondisi “putaran vakum” (“putaran eter”) yang menginduksi aliran masuk dari energi ether yang ditumpahkan sebagai panas berlebih.
Gravity and Its Thermal Anomaly: Was the Reich-Einstein Experiment Evidence of Energy Inflow from the Aether?
(Reprinted from Infinite Energy, 2002, 41:61)
Visiting Senior Research Fellow, Southampton University, England
Infinite Energy has recently drawn attention to the thermal anomaly posed by a phenomenon associated with [certain] metal boxes. What has been called “orgone” energy can, it seems, be concentrated by specially-designed metal-lined boxes, which develop a sustainable temperature rise inside the box. Here the author draws attention to a phenomenon which emerged in the 1980s pertaining to a thermal action which affected the measurement of G, the gravitation constant, where forces act-ing on a metal sphere housed within a Faraday cage are affected by thermal radiation, as if electric charge is induced and held on the sphere, contrary to the physical teaching that charge on metal with-in and connected to a metal enclosure can only exist on the enclosure surface. The author’s own experiments confirm this and, given that non-neutralized electric charge is set up on and within the three-dimensional metal form, this is deemed to induce a “vacuum spin” (“aether spin”) condition which induces an inflow of aether energy that is shed as excess heat.
One can but be fascinated by reading in Infinite Energy (Issue 37, 2001) first the article by Eugene Mallove (pp. 9-11) and then the detailed report on reproducing the thermal anomaly of theReich-Einstein experiment by Paulo and Alexandra Correa (pp. 12-21). As someone having a special interest in energy anomalies, and particularly anomalies which point the finger at a mystery energy source hidden in the vacuum of space itself, what I read in these two accounts stirred some memories of my own past research efforts. I admit I had first heard of so-called “orgone energy” about fifteen years ago, but it made little sense to me and I tended to classify it along with psychic phenomena as something not belonging to the world of physics as I understood it. However, after seeing the experimental evidence now presented by Paulo and Alexandra Correa, it cannot be denied that a real physical phenomenon is involved and, noting that it suggests heat production without an apparent source, the nature of that source must be explored.
Given that the phenomenon concerns an anomalous thermal effect of radiation above a metal box, one involving a quite small adjustment of temperature, one wonders why Reich sought advice on the matter from Albert Einstein. No doubt he thought that endorsement of the reality of the phenomenon by such an eminent scientist would stir a general interest in funding research to establish the phenomenon and then, perhaps, the exploitation of whatever of a practical nature might emerge. Einstein was interested initially but soon lost that interest, rejecting the phenomenon as merely being something connected with heat convection by air currents around the apparatus. Accordingly, by a few published records dating from the mid-twentieth century period, the “orgone” theme has passed into history, at least until now, with the valiant contribution of the Correas in producing what the Editor-in-Chief of Infinite Energy has termed “a landmark article.”
My contribution below is to draw attention to some references to publications concerning thermal anomalies affecting the measurements of G, the constant of gravity, anomalies which I feel sure might have reminded Einstein of Reich and would not have been ignored by him had he lived long enough to become aware of them. Also I shall outline the experiment which I performed in1984 at the University of Southampton in England to check how thermal radiation could affect the force between two metal spheres suspended within a Faraday cage. What I found has an interesting bearing on the “orgone” experiments reported by the Correas, given a little license in speculating about “free energy” input, but by argument consistent with interpretation of several other types of anomalous “excess energy” experiments. Besides that, as a preliminary, I think it appropriate to mention an experiment reported some thirty years ago on a curious effect by which a very slow rotation of what was, in effect, a Faraday-cage could tame the wild antics of an arc discharge and stabilize its path along the spin axis.
The Tornado Experiment and the Faraday Cage
One of the great mysteries concerning anomalous energy and anomalous angular momentum is that posed by the tornado. Somehow warm air rises to cause a radial inflow of air at near-to-ground level and somehow a tornado funnel forms with air spinning at very high speed around the axis of that funnel. Expert opinion on the source of energy is that of Vonnegut, who suggested in 1960 that the trigger for that energy inflow comes from the electrical discharges we associate with thunderstorms, owing to the intense and recurrent lightning discharges known to occur within the tornado funnel. He writes: “It is possible that the vortex is initiated directly by electrical energy... An understanding of ball lightning may very well be necessary if the tornado puzzle is to be solved.” Here, you see, we are dealing with energy on a grand scale, bearing in mind the destructive power ofa tornado, and here is an expert on the subject telling us that the source of that energy is a mystery, possibly connected with electrical phenomena of the kind involved in creating those mysterious spherical ionized objects that are occasionally seen to float around before vanishing suddenly, often with violent release of energy.
It was in a lecture I gave to physics students at the-University of Cardiff in Wales in 1977 onthe subject of “Space, Energy, and Creation” that I first drew attention to this subject, concluding with the words:
Finally, an interesting experiment has been performed by Ryan and Vonnegut They arranged for a cage to rotate around an electric arc discharge at quite low speed and found that this stabilized the arc. The task of stabilizing an electric arc is one of the major problems of thermonuclear fusion research. It seems therefore very difficult to believe that the wild antics of the arc discharge are tamed merely by the slow rotation of a column of air. Perhaps there is vacuum spin in this experiment and it is the influence of the induced vacuum fields which stabilize the arc. Here then is more scope for research. Can an arc be stabilized in a vacuum? It is research which the modern physicist will not undertake because there is a wide-spread belief that the vacuum is a non-entity devoid of any special properties. It is a belief encouraged by those who believe in the development of relativity and in my experience those who believe in relativity deny the existence of the aether. On the other hand, I was once reassured by a comment Professor Cull wick made about something I published. He quoted Einstein as saying: “The special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny the existence of the ether there is weighty evidence in favor of the ether hypothesis.”
My argument simply is that we should not be trapped into ignoring the power of the aether as a source of energy, merely because Einstein had ruled that space was a matter of geometry interwoven with the concept of time, a mathematical world that could be manipulated to fit certain observations concerning gravitation and its effect on the propagation of light. Here I was saying: “Look, there is experimental evidence that an electric arc discharge can be controlled and held in place along a straight axis merely by surrounding it by a Faraday cage and slowly turning that cage at one revolution every few seconds. Surely, if that is because of the air being dragged along inside that cage, then it is indeed incredible that such a minute influence can so affect that electrical discharge. Surely, therefore, someone should perform an experiment to reproduce the effect to see what happens when the air is extracted from the system, because if that same stabilizing effect occurs in a vacuum then here would be a major scientific discovery!”
What would that discovery be? Simply that something in the space medium itself having an electrical character has been caused to spin with that Faraday cage, something that produces in effect a radial electric field which can act on the ions in that discharge and so confine the ionization to the central region of the spin axis. Here then would be a pointer to something that not only could account for “orgone” energy anomalies but could open up the path of research on the grand energy trail and even account for why the solar system has an enormous amount of angular momentum with no counterpart to balance its origin.
In 1977 this interest was, for me, a mere hobby pursued on a theoretical basis, as I was in a senior management position in IBM as head of their European Patent Operations. It was in 1982,still in that corporate executive pursuit, that my paper entitled “Charge Induction by Thermal Radiation” was published in the Journal o f Electrostatics. Still confined by circumstance to theoretical activity, this paper could only draw attention to aspects of physical science that warranted deeper research. The paper suggested that thermal radiation could affect the measurement of the constant of gravitation where the test involved the measurement of force on a metal sphere carried by atorsional suspension within a Faraday cage.
In writing this I was speculating theoretically, having taken note of an experimental discovery by Frank Stacey and Gary Tuck of Queensland University in Australia. Hoping to arouse interest in my theory of proton creation and theoretical derivation of the proton/electron mass ratio as1836.152, the subject of another paper,I had attended a conference on precision measurement of fundamental constants held in June 1981 at the National Bureau of Standards in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The Stacey and Tuck paper claimed the discovery that G, the constant of gravitation, as measured deep down in mines, was as much as 0.5% to 1.5% higher than indicated by accepted Earth-surface laboratory determinations.
I was mindful that I had written books claiming to give a theoretical evaluation of the con-stant of gravitation and was convinced that G could not have such a variation. There had to be some influence at work to cause those G measurements to be misleading. I was equally mindful that a chapter in my 1972 book Modern Aether Science was devoted to a discussion of the true cause of the Earth’s atmospheric electric field, showing that it is thermal radiation from the upper to lower atmosphere that is absorbed by electrons in molecules of air to set up an electric field by their minute displacement relative to their atomic nuclei. I knew that this thermal radiation phenomenon could setup charge even on metal spheres housed within a Faraday cage and I knew from questioning Frank Stacey at that conference that Faraday cage-type enclosures were used in his G measurement to ensure that the interacting metal masses were uncharged electrically.
With this conviction I promptly wrote the Journal of Electrostatics paper. It was duly received by that journal on July 16, 1981. Its summary read:
It is argued that precision measurements which rely on the use of conductive housings for electrical screening may well be subject to spurious error owing to charge induction within the housing. If the momentum transfer processes associated with the absorption of thermal radiation act selectively upon electrons, a residual charge may be induced on surfaces internal to the housing and held in place by radiation pressure. The effects of such action upon the measurement of G is discussed in relation to anomalies reported in such measurements. The phenomenon is supported by the existence of the charge on the Earth’s surface. A method oftesting for the presence of induced charge and eliminating its effects is indicated.
The paper was duly published and, based on some feedback I received, it was on November 23, 1982 that I prepared the following note for distribution with the paper reprints:
Author’s note on paper entitled “Charge Induction by Thermal Radiation” (H. Aspden,Journal o f Electrostatics, 13, 71-80, 1982):H. Aspden. November 23, 1982
My attention has been drawn to the early measurements of the effect of temperature upon G, for example by L. Southerns, Proc. R. Soc. Lond., A78, 392-403 (1906) and P.E. Shaw and N. Davy, Proc. R. Soc. London, 102, 46-47 (1922). The measured effects are far less than might seem to be indicated by my paper.
The reason for this is that these experiments involve heating the apparatus by processes other than those involving incident radiation and then making the measurements with the gravitating body radiating energy at a higher temperature but absorbing incident radiation from an environment still at room temperature.
It is only the radiation absorbed by the layer of atoms at the surface that results in the charge induction predicted by the theory. If the body is heated there is transfer of heat to the surface atoms by conduction and any radiation from the layer of atoms at the surface is directed equally inwards and outwards and produces a balanced radiation reaction force on this surface layer and so induces no surface charge. Half the radiation goes inwards and asserts a radiation pressure on the atoms below the surface and so causes charge displacement but no residual surface charge induction.
Experiments of the kind suggested on page 78 (of that Journal o f Electrostatics article)aimed at verifying this phenomenon seem, therefore, warranted notwithstanding the early studies of temperature effects on G.
Charge Induction Within a Faraday Cage
It was not until 1986 that I saw in the science literature that two quite relevant and rather conflicting papers had been published. One was in the form of a news item in the Search and Discovery section of Physics Today, October 1986 (pp. 17-20) issue. Its author was Bertram Schwartzchild and it referred to Frank Stacey’s concerns about G having different values along with other earlier findings and claimed the anomalies observed were evidence of some rather curious prop-erties of different compositions of different kinds of particle according to their baryon number. Five-dimensional space and ten-dimensional superstring theories were included in the discussion. Thepaper was entitled: “Pre-analysis of Old Eötvos Data Suggests 5th Force...to Some.”
The other paper, also published in the same month, October 1986, appeared in Physical Review Letters under the title: “New Force or Thermal Gradient in Eötvos Experiment?”, its authors being S.Y. Chu and R.H. Dicke, neither of whom were mentioned in the references of the Physics Today paper, which suggests that they were published quite independently of each other. Here the conclusion was that “systematic effects due to thermal gradients can account for the experimental data.”
However, some 136 pages on in that same October 13, 1986 issue of Physical Review Letters there was a paper by Fischbach et al.,which was no doubt the preview basis for the Schwartzchild report. It was entitled: “Alternative Explanations of the Eötvos Results” and this did include a direct reference to the Chu and Dicke paper. There one reads that its authors supported the baryon number interpretation, qualified by the comment:
Although this correlation agrees with what one would expect from the presence of an inter-mediate range force whose source is baryon number of hypercharge, the possibility remains that the EPF (Eötvos, Pekar, and Fekete) results could be explained in terms of conventional physics. The only alternative model we know of at present which has a serious chance of explaining these results is the “thermal-gradient” model of Chu and Dicke, (CD) and for this reason the CD model deserves to be taken seriously. . . In summary, the CD model is very clever and sufficiently promising to warrant more detailed study, should ongoing experiments fail to confirm the original EPF results. The issues that it must address more fully are mechanisms for producing a temporally constant thermal gradient over a long period of time.
Not surprisingly, I found the latter contribution more in tune with my thinking but still saw that the key point about thermal radiation affecting the charged state of a supposedly uncharged metal sphere had been missed. My paper, which dealt directly with such a “mechanism,” was not mentioned and probably had laid unnoticed amongst the numerous papers in the numerous periodicals kept on university book shelves.
That 1982 paper refers to the experimental findings of Stacey and Tuck reported in 1981 in the journal Nature concerning the anomalous G measurements in mine experiments and it presents the formal analysis by which the electric field gradient induced by absorbing thermal radiation pressure at spherical surfaces is calculated. For ambient temperature conditions (288 degrees Kelvin)and based on the value of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant it was shown that the induced electric field gradient could be as high as 767 volts per meter, enough to explain the 300-500 V/m gradients observed in our local atmosphere.
That applies for surfaces of high emissivity factor (always less than one) and, as pointed out in my paper, for a polished lead sphere the emissivity factor at room temperature is 0.04, whereas for polished gold it is 0.03, and that led to my statement on the sixth page of my paper:
It follows, therefore, that potential gradients of the order of 20 to 30 volts per metre may be induced by the radiation mechanism proposed and where polished metal spheres are enclosed in housings having highly reflective metal surfaces.
In discussing the effect of this on standard laboratory G measurements, comparing the electrostatic repulsion as between two like polarity induced charges on metal spheres, albeit housed in a Faraday cage, and not unaware that charge on metal spheres that are close together has a tendency to induce a displacement charge of opposite polarity on the facing surfaces, this giving an attraction force as partial off-set, I then stated:
Thus, we are still left with the expectation that errors of the order of 1 or 2% could creep into the measurement of G by techniques using metal spheres of the dimensions indicated.
The point here was that if the apparatus was compact and used spheres of small radius the errors attributable to charge induction by thermal radiation would be greater than for the case where spheres of larger radius are used.
That 1982 paper does warrant attention by those interested in G measurement, and especially given the fact that it predates the above-mentioned research reported in 1986 by the several researchers who expressed concern about these gravity-measurement anomalies.
It was between these events in 1982 and 1986 that I, having become installed at the University of Southampton in England as a Visiting Senior Research Fellow, following my early retirement from IBM in 1983, embarked upon a series of experiments, one of which, pursued during the early half of 1984, was inspired by the subject here under discussion. I did in fact write a detailed paper reporting my findings and it was submitted some three years later to the Institute of Physics in the UK for presentation at the Seventh Conference on Electrostatics (Oxford, April 8-10, 1987). I was accepted only for a Poster Session and duly presented in that form. It caused no stir, being presented to a forum of physicists concerned essentially with the hazards of static electricity arising, for example, from electric charge induction and its potential as a fire risk in oil tankers. Even though my case was supported by experimental data, it was not that welcome a suggestion to propose that electric charge induction can occur in a connected all-metal system housed within a Faraday cage. After all, such a thought goes contrary to the teachings which date from the time of Michael Faraday!
I have only now, in view of the interest developing on this “orgone” energy topic, dug deep into my research records to find that paper and, coupled with writing this report, I have posted its full text onto my website at www.energyscience.co.uk/papers/1984g.htm.
Reference to that paper will show that, even though the electrostatic forces between two metal spheres suspended on wire filaments within a Faraday cage are minute in relation to the gravitation-al interaction forces and even though the latter are so weak as to be not easily measured, I was able to devise a technique which overcame the difficulties. Unlike the situation for gravity, where gravity is not something one can control, I could enhance the measurement sensitivity by adding a positive charge potential to both spheres as the torsional suspension swung one way and an exactly equal negative charge potential as the suspension swung back the other way. With no intrinsic thermally-induced charge bias present, the mutual repulsive force action at any given separation distance arising from this extraneous charge condition is the same and so, for a given well regulated high applied voltage, switching between the two polarities, the separation distance of the metal spheres should hold reasonably stable. However, even a small bias charge on the spheres would mean that the progression of charge polarity reversals over time would cause the displacement to drift one way or the other, according to the polarity of that bias. The tests were rather prolonged because the natural period of the swing was 210 seconds.
The tests were performed (a) using brass spheres which had a smooth but dull appearance having been stored for years and left unpolished and (b) using brass spheres that were highly polished. The experimental finding was that under normal laboratory temperature conditions the dull spheres had an induced charge that was negative and amounted to a voltage on the spheres of 1.08V relativeto the Earth connection of the Faraday cage. The corresponding induced charge on the polished spheres, also of negative potential, was 0.47V.
The title of my paper is that of the heading of this section, “Charge Induction within a Faraday Cage.” It was one of my contributions to my long-lasting efforts to fathom the mysteries of gravitation. I had a theory for determining G in terms of the fundamental constants that feature in particle physics. I had written extensively on that subject and it was important for me to satisfy myself that claims that G could actually vary and not be a true fundamental constant could not stand up. There just had to be something wrong with the experimental techniques used. Now, in the event of the interest aroused by the “orgone” energy theme, with the claim that something of an anomalous energy nature is occurring where metal boxes are exposed to thermal radiation, I have begun to wonder if electric charge induction has a role to play. Accordingly, I will now conclude this account by a little speculation.
Vacuum Spin: The Aether’s Free Energy Inflow Mechanism
I have mentioned “vacuum spin” above by reference to that 1977 lecture I was invited to give to the physics students at Cardiff University in Wales. It features many of my published contributions. A quite readable summary account is of record in Electrostatics 1983, UK Institute of Physics Conference Series Publication No. 66, my paper there being entitled: “The Thunder ball: An Electrostatic Phenomenon.”
Simply put, my argument is that if you can contrive to set up a unipolarity charge condition on a disc or within a sphere, especially one that is electrically conductive, then the vacuum medium within that object will react by displacing its intrinsic electric charge radially to set up a reacting field. Although this is the same action as one has with Clerk Maxwell’s electric displacement fields set up as between parallel metal plates, even where the intervening dielectric is a mere vacuum, the key difference is that the “radial” field action causes the vacuum medium to match the charge reaction by a state of spin about the axis from which that field radiates.
Accordingly, once you have set up that unipolarity charge condition, as in an ionized air formed by a lightning discharge, there can be a vacuum spin reaction by which a sphere of aether spins to set up a compensating electric field which can hold the charge and its energy stable for a while before lapsing into decay. My theory told me that the electric energy component would be that deployed from the initiating source, but that the spin developed would bring in an inflow of energy related to angular momentum and drawing on the quantum energy of the so-called “zero-point” field of the vacuum underworld. One unit of electric energy in implies one additional unit of free energy, a two-to-one gain, but as a one-off action. Only by cyclic repetition of the process can one hope to achieve a steady inflow of surplus or “free” energy and to build the gain ratio one must devise a way of recycling that electric energy.
Vacuum spin is the key to any success reported in the homo polar generators we hear about and even, I believe, in the pulsed discharge devices developed by Paulo and Alexandra Correa. In one case you have a conductive disc spinning in an axial magnetic field, which implies radial electric field induction within the disc and in the other one has a contained ion discharge, with the usual and well-recognized anomalous positive glow features. The latter succeeds in sustaining excess energy generation because it is pulsed continuously, whereas the former exhibits anomaly transiently, as on start up, and is not easily cycled in the electrical sense.
Now, with that as background, consider the uni-polar electric charge sitting on a metal sphere within a Faraday cage and held there by thermal radiation. Here the radial field exists outside the sphere. It too will induce a vacuum spin effect. The aether is caused to spin, albeit with little energy involved, but spin around that sphere. It is subjected to the Earth’s magnetic field and aether in spin happens to have its own induced magnetic moment. This means that, to the extent that the Earth’s magnetic field is not aligned with the aether spin axis, it will tend to precess, as does a gyroscope, owing toa turning couple exerted by the Earth’s field. [One of the fascinating problems of physics is that posed by the precession of the geomagnetic N-S field axis about the Earth’s N-S spin axis. The Earth has a26,000 year or so rate of precession about an axis in space parallel with a fixed axis in space as duly explained by gravitational forces. The geomagnetic axis processes at a rate of the order of one revolution every 1,000 years owing to a magnetic couple set up by the interaction of two electrical charge systems in spin, one being charge within body Earth and one being a neutralizing charge within coextensive aether.] This will surely break up the aether spin, causing the formation of vortices, etc. This means that the vacuum spin becomes a regenerative process as these vortices decay to shed energy as heat and a succession of reacting aether regions in spin make their contribution. What this amounts to is a state where a metal object shaped in a way which approximates a cube or a sphere, so as to have a center about which induced electric displacement has a radial form, will encourage inflow of energy from the enveloping aether which energy is shed by warming the air around the object and by convection [inside the cage], revealing a slightly higher temperature than ambient just above that object.
As I understand the description of the experiments outlined by Paulo and Alexandra Correa in their paper in Infinite Energy,this argument in terms of vacuum spin or, rather, “aether spin” is relevant. One must find the true explanation for that “orgone” energy mystery and here is an explanation that has much to offer in our search for a new energy source. The energy gain indicated is minute in commercial terms but its existence tells us that accepted physical teaching is lacking on this anomalous energy pursuit and, if only that fact can register in the minds of physicists in general, one can hope that they will be open to new ideas and will muster their forces in strength to broaden the field of battle and embark on a concerted crusade to break down the barriers which currently deny us access to the field of “infinite energy” which surrounds us.
- Mallove, E.F. 2001. "The Mysteries and Myths of Heat," Infinite Energy, 7, 37, 9-11.
- Correa, P.N. and Correa, A.N. "The Reproducible Thermal Anomaly of the Reich-Einstein Experiment Under Limit Conditions," Infinite Energy, 7, 37, 12-21.
- Vonnegut, B. 1960. "Electrical Theory of Tornadoes," Journal of Geophysical Research,65, 203-212.
- Ryan, R.T. and Vonnegut, B. 1971. "Formation of a Vortex by an Elevated Electrical Heat Source," Nature Physical Science, 233, 142-143.
- Cullwick, E.G. 1976. "Relativity and the Ether," Electronics & Power, 22, 40.
- Aspden, H. 1982. "Charge Induction by Thermal Radiation," Journal of Electrostatics,13, 71-80.
- Aspden, H. and Eagles, D.M. 1975. "Calculation of the Proton Mass in a Lattice Model for the Aether," Il Nuovo Cimento, 30A, 235-238.
- Stacey, F.D. and Tuck, G.J. 1984. "Non-Newtonian Gravity: Geophysical Evidence, "Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants II, Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) Spec. Publ. 617,pp. 597-600.
- Schwartzschild, B. 1986. "Reanalysis of Old Eötvos Data suggests Fifth Force," Physics Today, October, 17-20.
- Chu, S.Y. and Dicke, R.H. 1986. "New Force or Thermal Gradient in Eötvos Experiment," Physical Review Letters, 57, 1823-1824.
- Fischbach, E. et al. 1986. "Alternative Explanations for the Eötvos Results," Physical Review Letters, 57, 1959.
- Stacey, F.D. and Tuck, G.J. 1981. "Geophysical Evidence for Non-Newtonian Gravity, "Nature, 292, 230-232.
- Aspden, H. 1977. "Space, Energy and Creation," Lecture at Cardiff University, fullpaper of record at www.energyscience.co.uk/bib/1977d.htm.
- Aspden, H. 1983. "The Thunderball: An Electrostatic Phenomenon," Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser. No. 66, Electrostatics 1983, Oxford, 179-184.
- Correa, P.N. and Correa, A.N. 1995. "Energy Conversion System," U.S. Patent No.5,449,989, September 12