Palm Harbor, Florida, November 2, 2000
Dr. DAVID HAMILTON
Department of Energy
EE-32, 5G-046 Forestal Building
1000 Independence Avenue
WASHINGTON, DC 20585
RE: BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY PHYSICS RESEARCH (BEPR) PROGRAM
Dear Dr. Hamilton,
I am writing this letter following your request to express my most emphatic support toward the approval by DOE of the proposed BEPR Program. I have dedicated my life to the search for new clean energies and fuels. I am taking the liberty of outlining the results of my research which I initiated in 1978 when I was at Harvard University under DOE contracts ER-78-S-02-47420.A000, AS02-78ER04742, then continued at the Institute for Basic Research under DOE contracts DE-ACO2-80ER10651, DE-ACO2-80ER-10651.A001, and DE-ACO2-80ER10651.A002 of which contracts I still keep a detailed documentation (including all original canceled checks). In this letter I summarize the main aspects, outline the theoretical, experimental and industrial evidence, enclose a copy of web site , enclose a copy of all quoted papers published in refereed mathematics and physics journals (other than the five journals in which I am an editor), and include material pertaining to my qualifications.
THE CURRENT PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR COUNTRY. According to a rather vast consensus, they are:
1) Achievement of independence from Arab oil. This requires the difficult task of developing a new technology capable of producing a new fuel in unlimited amounts and at a cost competitive over that of fossil fuels. These requirements exclude any fuel technology available today, thus mandating the search for a really new technology.
2) Identification of fuels resolving the alarming environmental problems caused by fossil fuels. The current use of 74 million barrels of crude oil per day has caused the following main environmental problems: i) A disproportionate emission of carcinogenic and other toxic substances in out environment estimated to be of the order of five million tons per day; ii) Disproportionate emission of 10 million tons of carbon dioxide per day; and iii) Disproportionate depletion of breathable oxygen from our atmosphere (as established by the very existence of the green house effect) estimated to consists of the depletion of 3 million tons of oxygen per day. These alarming problems are not solved by available fuels, such as: hydrogen, whether as a direct fuel or for fuel cells (because combustion of hydrogen implies such an oxygen depletion to be potentially lethal for the human race if used in very large quantities and not originating from the separation of water); natural gas (because it emits about 40% more CO2 then gasoline for the same performance); battery-operated electric cars (which are very polluting vehicles since the primary energy for the production of electricity is dramatically more polluting than gasoline); and other fuels (see the enclosed note on oxygen depletion from ).
3) Identification of basically new, nonpolluting, primary sources of energy for an environmentally acceptable production of electricity. This need is established by the notorious insufficiency of renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind energies, and requires a reinspection of and basic advances at the ultimate foundations of our scientific knowledge at all its levels, including basic advances in particle physics, nuclear physics, molecular physics, superconductivity, astrophysics, gravitation and cosmology.
NECESSARY PRE-REQUISITES FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE PRIMARY NATIONAL NEEDS. It was scientifically established in the 1970’s, and industrially confirmed more recently, that it is impossible to serve the primary interests of our Country if the research is restricted to be compatible with Einstein’s doctrines, quantum mechanics and quantum chemistry. At any rate, the new relativity, mechanics and chemistry developed out of the indicated DOE contracts have already provided serious contributions toward our primary needs.
Physics is a discipline proved by history never to admit final theories. Debates on the appropriate selection of broader theories are scientific valuable. However, the assumption in DOE and NSF programs of Einsteinian doctrines, quantum mechanics and chemistry as being of final character creates serious problems of scientific ethics and accountability in the use of public funds, due to the a priori need of unrestricted research vis a vis huge national needs. To put it bluntly, all academicians or governmental officers supporting the unlimited validity of Einsteinian doctrines, quantum mechanics and chemistry are now openly dubbed “friends of the Arabs” irrespective of whether Jewish or not, because, as outlined in this letter, Einsteinian doctrines, quantum mechanics and chemistry are known to prohibit the achievement of fuel independence by our Country and our allies.
INDUSTRIAL EVIDENCE PERMITTING FUEL INDEPENDENCE. As stated in the original literature dating back to 1978, my DOE contracts were aimed precisely at the laborious search of new clean energies at the particle, nuclear and molecular levels. Upon achievement of the necessary maturity in the new theories, among a number of predicted new energies outlined below, I gave priority to new clean energies at the molecular level precisely in view of the indicated national need of fuel independence, with the evident intent of studying additional new energies at the nuclear and particle level at a subsequent time.
I am pleased to report the availability now of basically new reactors I have called hadronic reactors producing two different energies: a new fuel called magnegas plus heat. These energies are produced from the recycling via submerged arcs of contaminated liquids, such as antifreeze and oil waste, industrial and agricultural waste, etc. (see enclosures from 1]).
Recent extensive measurements conducted at an EPA certified automotive laboratory in Long Island (see enclosures from ) have established that magnegas exhaust surpasses all EPA emission requirements without catalytic converter, while emitting in the exhaust 12% to 14% of breathable oxygen, and reducing carbon dioxide emission by about 40% over that due to gasoline (see the enclosures from ). Therefore, a fully American (actually, Floridian) fuel available now can indeed provide a serious contribution toward the resolution of the alarming environmental problems caused by fossil fuels.
Since one of the best liquids for hadronic reactors is sewage (which is continuously available in large amounts everywhere), the new technology can indeed seriously contribute to the achievement of fuel independence by America and our allies. As you can see in the enclosed pictures from , a hadronic reactor of the size of a desk, completed by a conventional compressor, can turn current gasoline “distributors” into fuel “producers.” If high pressure bottled are added, refilling a pressure tank with magnegas is faster and safer than filling up a gasoline tank.
Since the new fuel is produced as a byproduct of recycling liquid waste, it can indeed be cost competitive with respect to gasoline, evidently when produced in comparative volumes. As an illustrations, current costs for the processing of sewage are expected to cover the operating costs of hadronic reactors, thus yielding a combustible gas whose cost is essentially reduced to that of compression, storage and delivery (see again the enclosures from ).
It should be mentioned that an excellent liquid for the new hadronic reactors is crude oil. Therefore, contrary to a possible first impression, the new technology can be one of the best friends of oil interests since it can process crude oil into a new fuel which is dramatically cleaner than gasoline at a price which is lower than the processing via refineries.
With the understanding that the scientific energy balance is always smaller than 1, a main feature of the hadronic reactors is that of having a large “commercial over-unity” (i.e., the ratio between the sum of the two energies produced divided by the electric energy used for their production) beginning from the very first prototype operating at atmospheric pressure and 12 kWh, as certified by the independent laboratories Motorfuelers, Inc. (see the enclosures from, ). The missing energy evidently originates from the liquid recycled which is not included in the commercial energy balance since it brings an income, rather than costing money. Therefore, hadronic reactors were conceived to tap energy within liquid molecules in essentially the same way as Fermi’s reactors were conceived to tap energy within liquids. Much bigger commercial over-unities are being measured with the new generations of reactors at bigger pressure and and/or kWh under construction in the U.S.A., Europe and Asia.
I should report that, immediately following the measurement of the indicated commercial over-unity, I requested systematic measurements of possible radiations. I am pleased to report that the hadronic reactors where certified by the Radiation Detection Associates of Florida as being completely free of any harmful radiation or waste. It is therefore evident that, once subjected to systematic research, hadronic reactors and their commercial over-unity can indeed significantly contribute toward the achievement of a clean, primary source of energy.
Following the achievement of operational maturity in the new covering theories, I first developed the new technology in 1998-1999 at Toups Technology Licensing, a public company in Largo, Florida, with Mr. Leon Toups as President. The company is now called EarthFirst Technologies, Inc (EFTI) with Mr. John Stanton as President. The technology is now being developed by: UsMagnegas, Inc. (13100 Belcher Road, Largo, FL 33773, Tel. 727-597 9520, fax 727-507 8261, e-address email@example.com) with exclusive rights for the American continent; EuroMagnegas, Ltd in London, with exclusive rights for Europe, Africa and the Middle East; and AsiaMagnegas, Limited in Hong Kong with exclusive rights for Asia.
I should stress that, by no means, the magnegas technology is unique, since American ingenuity has no limits when properly supported by governmental agencies with a vision and a real commitment to serve our Country.
EVIDENCE MANDATING THE SURPASSING OF OLD THEORIES. A main objective of this letter is to indicate that the new hadronic reactors are not permitted by Einsteinian doctrines, quantum mechanics and quantum chemistry. This is so for a variety of reasons. First, there is the impossibility to conceive the large commercial over-unity of the new reactors via the doctrines of the past millennium. Assuming that somebody could manage to derive the new reactors via Einsteinian doctrines, the deviations between the predictions of old theories and the experimental data are so big to disqualify any attempt. Even assuming that extremely esoteric manipulations of evidence to preserve old theories manage to represent experimental data on hadronic reactors, old theories collapse because of the evidence established at numerous laboratories (including the MacClullan Air Force Base in Sacramento, California) that the chemical composition of magnegas is completely untreatable by quantum chemistry and its current methods of detection, a features which has permitted the identification of a new chemical species, the first following the discovery of the valence in the 18-th century, I have called magnecules (see the enclosures from ).
There comes a point in the life of all scientists, including DOE and NSF officers, in which desperate attempts to maintain beloved theories become disqualifying and can, at the extreme, imply the crossing of the boundaries of our Codes of Laws particularly in face of primary national needs, because the existence of hadronic reactors is a concrete evidence available now of the limitations of old doctrines and their impossibility to permit the achievement of fuel independence by our Country.
LACK OF FINAL CHARACTER OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY, QUANTUM MECHANICS, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND CHEMISTRY. Special relativity has a majestic beauty and validity for the conditions of its original conception (electromagnetic waves or point particles moving in vacuum under action-at-a-distance interactions) which validity is verified every day, e.g., in particle accelerators.
The mere observation (and admission) of experimental evidence in our environment establishes the inapplicability (and not the “violation”) of special relativity under conditions for which it was not proposed, interior problems of light and extended particles moving within physical media.
My entire research life has established that the inapplicability of Einsteinian doctrines within the hyperdense medium in the interior of hadrons, nuclei and valence bonds has a fundamental relevance for our national needs. In fact, the new effects beyond Einstein occurring within said media directly permit the conception and industrial development of new clean energies and fuels, as already proved by the hadronic reactors which are based precisely on said non-Einsteinian effects. The same situation occurs for numerous others topics of innovative research contained in the proposed BEPR Program.
DOE and NSF officers are, therefore, made aware with this letter that, as outlined below and technical treated in the enclosed papers, lack of support for research on the inapplicability of Einsteinian doctrines for interior problems or lack of support for the other innovative research contained in the proposed BEPR Program constitutes direct opposition to the indicated primary needs of America and its allies.
There is no need to conduct new experiments to see the inapplicability of Einsteinian doctrines within interior media, because it is established by the mere observation, and above all admission, of physical evidence in our environment.
Consider the propagation of light in our environment. When propagating in our atmosphere, it travels at a speed v < c, to acquire a different speed v’ < c when traveling in water, and then to acquire a yet different speed v’’< c when traveling through our glasses, yet another different speed v’’’’ < c when traveling through oil, etc.. The very existence of a light spectrum from a prism is evidence of different speeds within the same medium for different frequencies. This establishes that, contrary to the political-nonscientific academic preaching o “the universal constancy of the speed of light”, in the physical reality the speed of light is a local variable depending on the characteristics of the medium in which it propagates as well as its frequency. When facing this evidence, orthodox physicists come out with the conjecture that different speeds of light in interior conditions are due to the scattering of photons through the atoms of different substances, so that each photon travels in vacuum at the speed c. This posture has been known since Lorentz (who was the first to study speeds different than c) to be complete nonsense, e.g., for radiowaves traveling in out atmosphere with one meter in wavelength. The same posture has been crushed by the recent evidence of speeds v > c for which the reduction of light to photons traveling in vacuum becomes pure nonscientific nontechnical nonsense.
Thus, any belief that a theory conceived for light moving in vacuum with constant speed c can equally apply to locally varying speeds within physical media, is sheer scientific corruption (the use of weaker terms are discouraged here because they may imply complicity in serious lack of scientific accountability in the use of public money).
Independently from the above well known evidence, the inapplicability (and, again, not the “violation”) of special relativity in interior conditions is established by a variety of additional already existing evidence. Another case is the Cerenkov light in the water pool of nuclear reactors. As it is well known, the evidence in this case establishes that ordinary electrons travel faster than the local speed of light. Orthodox physicists claim that the speed of light in vacuum remains the maximal causal speed in water, a posture crushed by the fact that the relativistic sum of two speeds of light in water does not yield the speed of light in water, with consequential collapse of the axiomatic foundations of Einsteinian doctrines. After being cornered by this evidence, the same “scientists” venture the conjecture that the maximal causal speed in water is the local speed of light, a posture, posture which is crushed by the consequential violation of causality or the fact that fully conventional electrons are turned into hypothetical tachyons, thus exiting any boundary of science.
The sole reality which can be admitted under serious scientific accountability is that special relativity is inapplicable for all interior problems, thus including the Cerenkov light. Technical evidence on the impossibility for special relativity to be exactly valid within hyperdense hadronic matter is simply overwhelming, of course, when considered within a scientific-nonpolitical environment (see, for brevity the enclosed paper by Arestov et al ), the approximate validity of beloved doctrines being evident.
The above inapplicability of special relativity identifies THE central problem of the research initiated under the indicated DOE contracts: the construction of a covering relativity applicable within physical media under the condition of admitting special relativity identically when motion returns to be in vacuum (see an outline of the results below).
In view of the sizable national interests here at stake, DOE and NSF are strongly recommended to acknowledge the limitations of quantum mechanics identified throughout the 20-th century, such as: progressively increasing deviations from spectroscopic experimental data for all atoms other than the hydrogen (due to nonlocal effects from the wave overlapping of electrons from the helium on); inability to represent quantitatively the evidence that the two electrons in the helium are not isolated, but orbit in a bonded form most of the time as experimentally proved by photodisintegrations; deviations in neutron interferometric data whenever thermal neutrons travel within matter; and several other insufficiencies identified in the literature, although generally kept as “the best secret of the trade.”
To avoid evident problems of scientific accountability, DOE and NSF programs should assume a theory as being “exactly” valid only when it represents the totality of the experimental data in an exact form directly from first principles without ad hoc adulterations to fit the data. In particular, the claim that quantum mechanics is exactly valid following the introduction and fit of unknown parameters, as it is routinely done in the Bose-Einstein correlations and condensation to mention only two cases among many, such an introduction of unknown parameters is scientific corruption because the unknown parameters are in reality a direct measure of the deviations of the theory from first principles (e.g., a representation of experimental data on the Bose-Einstein correlation requires off-diagonal elements in the vacuum expectation values which are prohibited by the axioms of quantum mechanics).
At any rate, if Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen and other famous physicists of the first part of the 20-th century could repeatedly state that quantum mechanics is “incomplete,” any contemporary claim of final character of quantum mechanics is sheer scientific corruption, if not a violation of the Codes of Laws.
There is no doubt that nuclear physics has achieved outstanding results in the 20-th century. However, on strict scientific grounds, contemporary nuclear physics provides only a first approximation of nuclei because too many nuclear data have not been represented in with the needed accuracy or in a meaningful way. As an example, after about one century of research and a river of public money, nuclear physics has been unable to reach a credible representation of total nuclear magnetic moments (after all possible relativistic corrections, nuclear physics still misses 1% of the magnetic moment of the deuteron, with embarrassing large percentages missing for heavier nuclei). There exist a number of manipulations representing nuclear magnetic moments via a combination of states, which are also example of scientific corruption since the experimental data on nuclear magnetic moments are known to have been measured strictly for the ground state, besides, a mixture of states violates the very basic quantum principle of transitions between states requiring the emission or the absorption of quanta which exists solely in the imagination of corrupt physicists; nuclear physics has been unable to explain why the deuteron has spin 1, since this value is against all basic principles of quantum mechanics requiring spin zero for the ground state of two-body systems; studies on the nuclear force have now reached truly embarrassing conditions because of the addition of dozens and dozen of potentials without any resolution of the problems, none of which has true physical foundations (since you need action at a distance to admit potentials, while nuclear structures are known to admit nonpotential internal forces); shall I keep going?
Enrich Fermi clearly expressed in his Lecture Noted “doubts as to whether conventional geometries are valid in the small regions of space within a nuclear constituent.” In so doing, Fermi confirmed to be a real scientist. By comparison, contemporary academicians or governmental officers supporting the terminal validity of nuclear physics in its current form commit acts of scientific corruption in direct conflict with primary national interests.
The limitations, insufficiencies or sheer inconsistencies of quantum chemistry are so huge to be truly incredible, e.g.: 1) The forces used in molecular bonds have a null average thus leaving current molecular models without a real bond; 2) I had one of my first year graduate students prove that, under the currently assumed molecular forces (exchange, van der Waals and other forces), the hydrogen molecule can be H5, H7, H32, you pick the number of constituents, because the forces of current use were conceived in nuclear physics under the condition to have an arbitrary number of constituents; 3) I had another graduate student in physics prove with a theorem that current molecular models necessarily imply that all molecules are ferromagnetic in dramatic disagreement with experimental evidence, because in current models atoms preserve their independence, in which case quantum electrodynamics mandates the achievement of the same magnetic polarization for all atoms in all molecules under an external magnetic field.
A real scientific disgrace for American science, because of the predictable condemnation by posterity, occurs in the current manipulations to represent experimental data on molecules. As it is well known, under the strict application of its axioms, quantum chemistry misses about 2% of molecular binding energy. To get the missing balance, orthodox chemists use “shielded Coulomb interactions” and then claim for evident political gains to still have a quantum theory in full knowledge that shielded Coulomb potential do not permit quanta of energy, or that they can only be obtained from the Coulomb potential via nonunitary transforms, thus existing the classes of equivalence of quantum chemistry!
Yet additional claims exist in the official chemistry literature under DOE and NSF support with the statement that quantum chemistry is exactly verified by the experimental fit of variational methods with a plethora off unknown parameters, in full knowledge that their solutions can be easily proved not to be the solution of the unadulterated Schroedinger equation. As an example among too many for comfort, the Schroedinger equation for the H2+ ion notoriously miss 2% of the binding energy, while variational method with a plethora of unknown parameters does indeed achieve its exact representation. But then a graduate student can prove that the wavefunctions of the two approaches are structurally inequivalent.
Above all, the missing 2% of binding energies corresponds to 950 kcal/mole while the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen into water produces 57 kcal/mole. Therefore, any thermochemical calculations based on quantum chemistry implies the incredible error of twenty times the value to be studied!
Therefore, the scientific reality outside politics for personal gains establishes that the exact fit achieved via nonunitary maps of the Coulomb potential or variational methods with a plethora of unknown parameters, and the like, constitute concrete evidence of the limitations of quantum axioms and the need to construct a covering chemistry admitting the indicated exact representations from first principles without any adulteration, a task which has already been accomplished (see the outline below).
Quantum superconductivity is completely unable to provide a quantitative representation of the very essence of its discipline, the structure of ONE Cooper pair (identical electrons bonded in singlet coupling so strongly that they even tunnel in a bonded fashion through a potential barrier). This is due to the Coulomb repulsion between the identical electrons which diverges at small distances and several other reasons. Any claim of representation of the Cooper pair constitute sheer scientific corruption because, as well known, quantum superconductivity can only represent an ENSEMBLE of Cooper pair assumed as STRUCTURELESS POINTS. Lack the representation of the very hearth of superconductivity renders any belief on the terminal character of quantum mechanics in superconductivity an additional case of sheer scientific corruption for personal gains.
Shall I keep going in listing the inconsistencies of old doctrines?
HADRONIC MECHANICS, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND CHEMISTRY. The conception of hadronic reactors first required the laborious construction of a structural lifting of the Minkowskian geometry [3a], the rotation-Lorentz-Poincare’ symmetry [3b] and special relativity [3c] for interior conditions, while admitting special relativity as a particular case when motion returns to be in vacuum. This body of knowledge is today known in nonpolitical scientific circles as “Santilli’s isospecial relativity,” from which all other covering theories and related new energies follows via compatibility arguments.
The new reactors also required the generalization of quantum mechanics I proposed in 1978 under the indicated DOE contract under the name of hadronic mechanics, for the operator treatment of extended, deformable and nonspherical particles moving within physical media, under the condition of admitting quantum mechanics identically for sufficiently large distances (see the latest accounts ).
Upon the achievement of sufficient maturity in the latter theory in the mid 1990s thanks to contributions from numerous mathematicians, theoreticians and experimentalists, hadronic reactors required the construction and verification of hadronic superconductivity which was achieved in the mid 1990’s .
Upon the achievement of the latter broader theories, hadronic reactors required the additional construction of a structural generalization of quantum chemistry under the name of hadronic chemistry which only applies at the small distances of valence bonds, while admitting conventional quantum chemistry everywhere else .
This laborious scientific iterim illustrates the reason why the construction of a first reactor predicted by hadronic mechanics could only be done at Toups Technology Licensing, Inc., only twenty years following the initial DOE grant of 1978.
It should be noted that all these theories have been constructed along the teaching by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen on the “lack of completion of quantum mechanics.” In fact, the new hadronic theories essentially “complete” conventional relativities, mechanics and chemistry via missing terms at short distances of nonlinear, nonlocal, and nonpotential type due to deep wave-overlappings of particles. the “completion” is done in such a way to yield a concrete and explicit realization of “hidden variables”, and implies a lifting of Bell’s inequality which,. contrary to popular belief, does indeed admit a classical counterpart (see  for technical details).
I learned from my undergraduate studies in physics that there cannot be a really new physical theory without a really new mathematics, and there cannot be a really new mathematics without really new numbers. For this reason, I dedicated, by far, the majority of my time to the search of new numbers and new mathematical structures, on which to construct subsequently new physical theories.
Such a research line was mandatory for my DOE grants because one of their primary objective was a study of the historical legacy on the nonlocality of the strong and other short range interactions. In turn, nonlocality implies the inapplicability of the very foundations of special relativity, quantum mechanics and chemistry, let alone their physical axioms, because of the collapse of the basic topology and all related mathematical constructions.
Following a laborious process of trial and error, I identified three types of new numbers, today called “Santilli’s iso-, geno- and hyper-numbers” for the study of matters, with additional classes of new numbers for the study of antimatter known as “Santilli’s isodual numbers” characterized by generalized units which are respectively: positive-definite, nonsymmetric, multivalued and negative-definite. On these generalized numbers I then constructed corresponding new spaces, topologies, algebras, geometries, differential calculus, etc. resulting ion what are today known as iso-, geno-, hyper-mathematics and their isoduals (see the special issue of a mathematical journal .
Thanks to the new mathematics, I then constructed progressive generalizations of special relativity, quantum mechanics, superconductivity and chemistry also of isotopic, genotopic, and hyperstructural type for the representation of particles in conditions of progressive complexity (reversible, irreversible and multivalued interactions of nonlinear, nonlocal and nonpotential type) , plus corresponding isodual theories for the study of antiparticles beginning at the classical level, and then continuing all the way to second quantization (where isodual theories become equivalent to charge conjugation) [9b].
It should be note that the isodual theory of antimatter resolve one of the biggest unbalance of the physics of the 20-th century, that is, the treatment of matter at all possible levels from Newton to second quantization, while antimatter was solely treated at the final level of second quantization. The isodual theory predicts the existence of antigravity for antimatter in the field of matter (or vice-versa) and in a form which bypasses all existing objections (trivially, because they do not apply to a theory whose basic unit is negative) [9a].
The fundamental prediction of antigravity is indeed testable with current technology by injecting a very low energy beam of electron and another of positrons in a collimated horizontal vacuum tube of 100 m in length and 1 m in diameter , in which case the displacement due to gravity on a scintillator at the end of the tunnel, whether up or down, is visible by the naked eye, thus being resolutory. This test is strongly recommended to our governmental agencies because the possible discovery of antigravity would imply advances beyond our imagination, such as a new form of “geometric propulsion” (motion of objects via changes in the local geometry without any visible external force), a causal space-time machine (although restricted to isoselfdual states), and other far reaching advances.
The isodual theory of antimatter moreover predicts a new photon, I have called isodual photon [9b], which is different than that emitted by matter. If verified experimentally, isodual photons will one day permit scientific studies whether a far away galaxy is made up of matter or of antimatter. This feature is structurally impossible for Einstein’s gravitation where any treatment of antimatter is afflicted by catastrophic inconsistencies, such as the impossibility to reach antis articles following quantization (inconsistencies resolved by the isodual theory via the new isodual-antiisomorphic quantization precisely into antiparticles).
My studies have then culminated with the achievement of a grand-unification incorporating all existing interactions, in which gravity is embedded in the unity of conventional unified gauge theories of electroweak interactions . This appears to be my most important contributions which includes all preceding results and predictions, including the new hadronic energy, as a particular case.
I should finally mention that the representation of nonhamiltonian forces via generalized unit is the only known which is invariant (that is, predicts the same numbers for the same quantity under the same conditions at different times), evidently because, whether generalized or not, the unit is the basic invariant of all theories.
Practical applications of all the above new theories can today be easily constructed via simple noncanonical transforms at the classical level and nonunitary transforms at the operator level, e.g., 1 ä I?[t, r, v, ¥, ^¥, ...] = U?I?UÊ = 1_T?, where U?UÊ is everywhere 1 except at short distances [(o recover quantum mechanics at large distances); A?B ä A??B = U?[A?B]?UÊ = A??T??A?, A? = U?A?UÊ; H?|¥> = E?|¥> ä U?[H?|¥>] = U?[E?|¥>] = H???|¥?> = EŸ?|¥?>, |¥?> = U?|¥?>; etc. where the nonunitary transform can be positive-definite (isotopy), nonsymmetric (genotopies), multivalued (hypertheories) or negative-definite (isodual theories).
Similarly, arbitrary local speeds of light are easily obtained via the nonunitary transform of the Minkowskian line element m = diag. [1, 1, 1, -c2] ä m? = U?m??UÊ = diag. [1, 1, 1, -c2_n2]. However, to have a meaningful theory, the unit my be jointly lifted by the inverse form I = diag. [1, 1, 1, 1] ä I? = [1, 1, 1, n2] as a necessary condition for invariance (see the quoted literature).
MAIN IMPLICATIONS OF HADRONIC THEORIES FOR NEW ENERGIES. A feature of hadronic mechanics which is important for new clean energies is that nonpotential interactions due to deep wave-overlappings of particles in singlet coupling (represented via the indicated nonunitary maps) have resulted to be so "strongly" attractive to overcome possible repulsive Coulomb forces.
This feature has permitted new structure models of hadrons, nuclei and molecules in which their binding are only partially due to potential energies because interior problems within hyperdense media imply the presence of nonpotential forces of contact type (similar to those experienced by the space shuttle during re-entry in atmosphere). In particular, the new interactions have zero range by conception, thus being beyond quantum mechanics, trivially, because the latter is strictly Hamiltonian, thus solely representing action-at-a-distance interactions. By comparison, hadronic mechanics does permit quantitative studies of contact, zero-range, nonpotential interactions via their representation with generalized units which assure invariance of the treatment.
An important illustration of the new forces is given by Pauli’s exclusion principle which is strictly assumed by quantum mechanics without any explanation whatever. In fact, any attempt at explaining Pauli’s principle with quantum mechanics can only be done by adding a potential to the Hamiltonian, resulting in dramatic divergences from experimental data, e.g., in spectral emission. These departures confirm that the interactions underlying Pauli’s principle cannot be represented with any potential. Hadronic mechanics has instead provided a quantitative and numerical representation of Pauli’s exclusion principle in particle physics, nuclear, physics and molecular structures.
The treatment via hadronic mechanics of contact, zero-range, nonpotential contributions in bound states has permitted the identification of “triggers” capable of the most efficient possible disintegration or creation of bound states, in ways compatible with all usual total conservation laws. The combination of all research done in two decades has lead to the identification of the following classes of new clean energies (see the memoir RMS, J. New Energy, 4, # 1, 7-318, 1998):
Hadronic energies of Class I (those at the particle level) . A representative case is given by the possibility of utilizing the energy in the structure of the neutron. This energy is evidently unlimited, it is very large (a neutron emit electrons with energy about 100,000 that of the electrons hitting a computer screen), and it is very clean because the neutron’s decay emits an electron, which can be easily stopped with a thin metal shield, and the innocuous neutrinos. Moreover, neutrons are not stable, have a variable meanlife depending on the nuclear conditions considered (varying from nanosecond in certain nuclei to infinite stability in others), and decay spontaneously. Hadronic mechanics has identified “triggers” for the Stimulated Neutron Decay (SND) one of which is given by a hard photon with energy of 1.294 MeV.
By no means all nuclei permit the stimulated decay of their peripheral neutrons. Hoverer hadronic mechanics has identified a class of light, natural, stable isotopes, called “hadronic fuel” which do admit the SNT in conformity with all known total conservation laws, such as Zn(30, 70), Mo (42, 100) and many more which are called “hadronic fuel.” Under the indicated “trigger”, all hadronic fuels admit a double beta decay, the first stimulated and the second spontaneous, e.g. of the type ©? + 42Mo100 ä 43Tc100 + *-, 43Tc100 ä 44Ru100 + *- with the release of several MeV of energy, thus resulting in a transparent energy yield.
Note the prediction of the stimulated transition from a light, natural, stable element to another element which is also light, natural and stable, although with lower energy. The resulting hadronic energy is clean because of the lack of harmful radiations, as well as the lack of harmful residues. The energy produced is twofold, the first being the possible creation of difference of electric potential between the hadronic fuel ad the metal shield (the “hadronic battery”), and the second being heat acquired by the shield itself.
The above hadronic energy has been subjected to a first preliminary experimental verification at the nuclear physic laboratory in Xhanti, Greece. The test was conducted via the use of a Europa isotope as a source of the needed photons with 1.3 MeV, which source was placed next to a Mo-disk. The emitted electrons were measured via a conventional oscilloscope. Comparison of several tests for the background, the Europa source alone, and the Europa source combined with the molybdenum target show in the latter case the clear appearance of electrons with energy over 2 MeV which can only be interpreted as originating from the stimulated beta transition of the molybdenum (since the upper energy limit of atomic electrons from Compton scattering is 1 MeV).
It should be indicated that the experimenters in Xhanti used a commercially available molybdenum which contains the isotope Mo(42, 100) only as 0.6%, while all other isotopes can be easily proved not to admit the SNT because of the violation of one or another law. Despite the low percentage of the only acceptable isotope, it was remarkable that electrons of nuclear origin were indeed systematically detected.
It is evident that the above tests need independent confirmation. One of the best can be conducted at ORNL’s synchrotron which is capable of producing the sharp resonating frequency of 1.294 MeV, as well as produce the needed “hadronic fuel.”
It should be indicated that the above hadronic energy is impossible for Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics. This is so for various reasons, e.g., the symmetries underlying special relativity do not permit the alteration of the intrinsic characteristics of particles such as the neutron’s meanlife; quantum mechanics predicts that the cross section between photons and neutrons is so small to have no practical significance; quarks cannot be excited with the indicated “trigger”; and so on.
All these objections are readily resolved by isospecial relativity (which has been built precisely to represent the ”mutation” of the intrinsic characteristics of particles when in interior conditions), by hadronic mechanics (whose isoscattering theory recovers the very low value of the ©-n cross section with the exception of a sharp peak at 1.294 Mev); by the new structure model of hadrons (in which quarks are composites of conventional massive particles, only in mutated conditions obeying hadronic mechanics due to the hyperdense medium in the interior of all hadrons); and so on.
The central scientific issue here is the following: if Einstein’s special relativity is manifestly inapplicable for interior physical conditions as simple as those in our atmosphere, the insistence that the same relativity is exactly valid in the interior of the hyperdense hadrons is sheer scientific corruption, this time in direct conflict with primary needs of America for new clean energies. At any rate, independently from the Xhanti experiment on hadronic energy, there exist a rather massive volume of experimental evidence for which special relativity cannot be exactly valid in the interior of hadrons (see the paper by Arestov et al.). Therefore, any continuation of the documented suppression of due scientific process on the inapplicability of Einsteinian doctrines within hadrons, which has been perpetrated by academia for about half a century in total impunity, constitutes a clear lack of scientific accountability, let alone ethics, in the use of public money.
Hadronic energies of Class II (those at the nuclear level with contributions of new energies of Class I) . Contemporary nuclear physics does not predict Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations (LENT) for a variety of reasons, the most important being the Coulomb repulsion between nuclei at low energy. Hadronic mechanics has long resolved all these objections, by yielding the most rigorous, axiomatically consistent and invariant theory of LENT available today, which include the identification of their physical laws, geometries, and optimal embodiments. Intriguingly, the virtual entirety of the SNT permitted by hadronic mechanics are possible if and only if there is no secondary emission of neutrons or other harmful radiations.
These studies have permitted the prediction of a variety of hadronic energies of Class II. The most significant examples are those which can be identified by simply observing (and admitting) physical evidence. Regrettably, the topic is too technical to be effectively outlined in a letter (see RMS, J. New Energy 4, # 1, 1998). Those I can outline conceptually are the following.
A first group of hadronic energies of Class II can be conceived from the evidence that neutrons are synthesized in nature from protons and electrons, as originally conceived by Rutherford via “compressed hydrogen atoms” in the interior of stars. A number of hadronic energies of Class II can then be predicted via the use of the inverse of the stimulated decay of the neutron considered above, namely, the synthesis of the neutron from peripheral nuclear protons, electrons, as well as the necessary “trigger.” For technical reasons, these processes are also sharp, in the sense that they are generally impossible, except when the electrons have exactly the needed threshold energy, and this explains why they have not been detected so far. Again, hadronic mechanics recovers the prediction of quantum mechanics that these SNT are impossible for all electron energies except for the sharp threshold energy.
A second group of new, clean, hadronic energies of Class II can be predicted by observing our Earth which, due to the known large rate of dissipation of heat in space, should have been completely frozen in its core hundred of millions of years ago. Once academic interests for personal gains are put aside, the only plausible explanation of the immense internal volcanic activity of hearth (including apparent geophysical evidence that Earth is expanding), is that the internal heat in our planet is due to low energy nuclear transmutations. The magnetic character of its core then permit the conception of a variety of new energies of Class II. One of them is a study of the energy release of hydrogen on palladium via electrolytical means as experimentally measured since the early 1930’s. These studies are not conducted according to the research popularly known as “cold fusion,” but rather according to systematic and in depth research conducted via hadronic mechanics.
Recall that the palladium in its natural state includes a large number of isotopes. Hadronic mechanics has proved that most of them cannot admit any SNT, while certain isotopes (Pd(46, 105), Pd(46, 106) and Pd(46, 108) only) do admit them. The use of palladium in its natural state in the ongoing research in the field can explain, alone, the very low energy output. Once the admissible palladium isotopes have bene identified, the appropriate use of magnetic fields permits the verification of all needed conservation laws, particularly those for conservation of spin-parity. Since the latter are not taken into account in current experiments, this provides a second reason for the low energy yield. The new energies of Class II are finally completed by the identification of the appropriate use of magnetic fields and “triggers” permitting protons or deuteron to enter into the “hadronic horizon” around the palladium nuclei (that in which hadronic mechanics and related forces take over quantum mechanics).
A third group of hadronic energies of Class II can be derived from the historical evidence on the increase of nitrogen percentage in our atmosphere. The study of bubbles of atmosphere contained in amber has shown its nitrogen content to be one hundred million years about 50% of the current value. These measures have established the existence of a mechanism in our planet which synthesizes nitrogen. In fact, the astrophysical origin in the increase of nitrogen must be excluded since the increase has been progressive (besides, “nitrogen comets” do not exist) and the volcanic origin can also be excluded because of insufficient emission of nitrogen. Again, when academic postures for personal gains are set aside, the most plausible mechanism for the synthesis of nitrogen in our atmosphere is lighting, which can synthesize N(7, 14) from C(6, 12) and H(1, 2) plus the “trigger”, also under the necessary condition that the SNT implies no secondary radiation.The low percentage of H(1, 2) in water explains the low rate of the synthesis of nitrogen.
Besides the historical evidence on the increase of nitrogen in our planet, the best plausibility for the hadronic nitrogen reactor is given by thunder, which can be easily proved not to be explainable via ordinary processes, because of the need of a large amount of energy in an extremely small volume and time. A scientific (that is numerical) explanation of thunder can only be reached by admitting SNTs. The synthesis of nitrogen is then the best candidate, with the understanding that there are also others (see loc. cit.).
Hadronic mechanics has identified all the necessary conditions for the above synthesis of the nitrogen, as well as all the necessary geometries, and the possible “trigger,” resulting in the proposal of a “hadronic nitrogen reactor” whose test is strongly recommended to the DOE because it can indeed contribute to the achievement of new clean source of primary energy for the production of electricity. In fact, as it is the case for all hadronic energies of Class II, the energy output is large indeed. For instance, assuming the efficiency of one reaction per 1010 molecules, a reactor of the size of a suitcase can produce 106 joules/minute. Suppress such a possibility just to serve equivocal organized interests in academia would be profoundly anti-American!
Hadronic Energies of Class III (those at the molecular level with possible contributions of new energies of Classes II and I) . These later energies are, by far, the most complex because they require the entirety of the scientific knowledge herein referred to, including particle physics, nuclear physics, chemistry, superconductivity and other disciplines. Yet, the hadronic reactors for the production of magnegas are no dream. They exist indeed, and are available now.
No technical outline is possible in this letter due to the excessive number of aspects. An indication of a few aspects may however be useful to illustrate the central motivation of this letter, that the proposed BEPR Program, if properly funded and supported, can indeed promote large technological advances beyond the doctrines of the past millennium.
Experimental evidence indicates that the electric energy needed for the separation of water via an electric arc is a fraction of that predicted by quantum mechanics and chemistry (the predicted value is about 1/3 of the experimental value). This divergence is readily understood by hadronic superconductivity. In normal conditions water is an excellent insulator, however, under the electric arc water becomes the best superconductor I know, with resistance dropping to fractional Ohms, under the condition that the arc is mostly formed by electron pairs bonded in singlet, as requested by the Santilli-Shillady isochemical model of the water molecule. If properly supported, these studies can lead to a new conception of electric current, that which isd made up mostly of bonded electron pairs, rather than individual electrons. The gain in superconductivity si then obvious and due to the lack of appreciable magnetic moment of the singlet electron pairs.
A second experimental evidence is that the heat produced by the magnegas reactors is about 1/3 of that predicted by quantum mechanics and chemistry. This can only be explained by the fact that only same of the predicted chemical reactions occur in the reactor. In turn, this is evidence that magnegas is composed also of isolated atoms, besides ordinary molecules, as predicted by the new chemical species of magnecules and independently verified via GC-MS/IRD tests. It is evident that systematic studies of this occurrence can lead to basically new chemical compounds with features beyond our predictive capacity at this time, some of which are already under tests.
Additional experimental evidence establishes that the energy content of magnegas produced from crude oil is at least three times the value predicted by quantum mechanics and chemistry. This is due to the novel capability of magnegas to store energy at three different levels: clusters of atoms and molecules into magnecules; conventional chemical reactions; and new means of storing energy in the interior of conventional molecules via new non-valence bonds. It is evident that studies dealing with basically novel, large increase of energy storage in fuels have direct relevance for our Country, beginning with military relevance.
All other topics treated in the proposed BEPR Program have equal, far reaching implications of truly momentous advances in our technology and basic knowledge.
CONCLUDING REMARKS. When working within an academic environment everything goes because of the guaranteed impunity enjoyed for over half a century on possible misuses of public funds. Well documented cases are the thousands of papers published in the deformations AB- qBA without any quotation of my origination as part of my Ph.D. studies in 1967 of the broader class pAB-qBA  as well as without the quotation of the American mathematician A. A. Albert in regard to the underlying Lie-admissible structure. Since these omissions are intentional and done in full documented knowledge of the editors and most authors, they constitute a violation of the Statutes on Copyrights, Tort, etc. of our Civil Code. Another well documented case is the widespread publication of physics papers on nonunitary theories treated with conventional mathematics in documented knowledge by all editors and most authors of their catastrophic inconsistencies , thus perpetrating, this time, a violation of the Criminal Code (because consisting of an intentional organized deception in publications released to the American public). Another well documented case perpetrated throughout the entire 20-th century is the continued publication of papers on Einstein gravitation without any resolution or even quotation of its plethora of inconsistencies published in refereed technical journal, which constitutes without doubt the biggest disgrace of America’s science of the 20-th century (Einstein’s gravity has a noncanonical structure at the classical level and a nonunitary structure at the operator level thus lacking invariant units of measurements, observable and other foundations to qualify as a physical theory , to mention only a few out of a river of inconsistencies).
However, when working in an industrial environment, as I do, a physicist becomes personally accountable for the money receive from the stockholders. In the latter case the conduction of research on really new energies via the use of quantum mechanics superconductivity and chemistry becomes a potential violation of the Criminal Code, e.g., when throwing calculations on thermochemical processes via quantum chemistry in which the error is twenty time the value to study.
For the U. S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundations to really serve the interest of our Country it is essential that they set corporate, and not academic standards.
Another well known occurrence is that the US Military were forced to cut all ties with academic research back in the early 1970s because the security of our Country could not be put hostage to pet theories preferred by the professor at Harvard, MIT, Princeton and similar places. Any person with a minimum of dignity admits that the research now going on in the military, e.g., at Sandia Laboratories, are immensely more advanced than those going on at Harvard, MIT, Princeton and similar places, trivially, because the former were unobstructed by scientific politics, while the latter have been severely constrained.
To really serve the interests America it is now the time for the DOE and NSF to do what the US Military did three decades ago: cut out of the decision process corrupt academicians which constitute a threat to basic national interests.
The episode of the “cold fusion” should be remembered here to prevent its repetition. As it is well known, Pons and Fleishmann announcement of apparent low energy nuclear transmutations were attacked by academia as fraud. As an example, Herman Feshbach from MIT volunteered to appear at CNN and denounce cold fusion as a fraud. The point is that the research by Pons and Fleishmann were primarily funded, scholarly presented and remain plausible to this day. By comparison, Herman Feshbach was supporting the appropriation by MIT of huge public funds for the “hot fusion”, namely, for a process which had been rigorously proved to be impossible decades ago. Everybody can then judge where the fraud lies.
The damage suffered by America because of this type of academic corruption are today known to all. Pons is the only American I know who renounced his U. S. Citizenship; governmental officers conducted a crusade at the US Patent Office to prevent the issuance of new patents to prevent damage to academic friends; several new potential industrial developments were in this way suffocated at birth; and, as a bottom line, the basic needs for new clean energies remained totally unsolved.
Our beautiful Country is heading toward potentially catastrophic environmental problems, very serious foreign political problems, and an economy which could potentially collapse in the events of lack of containment of these problems. The very survival of America depends on the capability of all governmental officers to really serve the interests of our Country, rather than serving equivocal academic interests.
Let us not not forget the teaching by history: the Roman empire initiate its collapse at the very peak of its power precisely because the people in governmental suppressed ethical, political, and economic accountability for their personal gains.
If there is any thing I can do to assist DOE or NSF in implementing new programs in the real interest of science, as well as of America and its allies, you can count on my unconditional support.
Ruggero Maria Santilli
The Institute for Basic Research
Copy to Dr. Peter Rosen, Director, DOE High Energy Physics Research, as representative of academia which has supported until now the preservation of old theories.
 Web site of USMagnegas http://www.santillimagnegas.com
 Yu. Arestov et al., Found. Phys. Letters 11, 482, 1998
 R. M. Santilli, Nuovo Cimento Lettere 37, 545, 1983 [3a]; J/ Moscow Phys. Soc. 3, 255, 199 [3b] ; and Intern. J. Modern Phys. D 7, 351, 1998 [3c].
 R. M. Santilli, Found. Phys. 27, 625, 1997 [4a]; and 27, 1159 1997 [4b].
 A. O. Animalu and R. M. Santilli, Intern. J. Quantum Chemistry 29, 175, 1995.
 R. M. Santilli and D. D. Shillady, Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy 24, 943, 1999 [6a]; and 25, 173, 2000 [6b].
 R. M. Santilli, Acta Appl. Math. 50, 177, 1998.
 P. Vetro, Editor, Rendiconti Circolo Matematico Palermo, Suppl. Vol. 42, 1996.
 R. M. Santilli, Intern. J. Modern Phys. A 14, 2205, 1999 [9a] and Hyperfine Inter. 109, 63, 1997 [9b].
 R. M. Santilli, Found. Phys. Letters 10, 307, 1997, and Proceedings of the VIII M. Grossmann Meeting on Gravitation and Cosmology, Jerusalem, 1997.
 R. M. Santilli, J. New Energy 4, issue no. 1, 1999.
 R. M. Santilli, Nuovo Cimento 51, 570, 1967.
 R. M. Santilli, Intern. J. Modern Phys. A 14, 3157, 1999.