Grid of the Gods Read online

  Some other energy source might therefore also have been in play in all these devices.

  But if so, what was it?

  A final and extremely important clue is afforded by careful study of the following table:

  Table of Post-Bravo Predicted Yields, Actual Yields, and Deviations from Original Predictions for the Castle Series of Nuclear Tests35

  Note first of all the Castle Bravo, Romeo, and Union tests. In each of these cases, the deviation from the original predicted yields at the minimum exceeds 73 percent and goes as high as a 175 percent deviation!

  But note also the significance of the “Castle Koon” test, the test of a device designed by Lawrence Livermore Laboratories under the direct supervision of Dr. Edward Teller.36 Its revised yield was a comfortable 1.5 megatons, but instead, the device “fizzled” and failed to achieve barely any fusion reactions at all, coming in at a mere 110 kilotons.

  We are told that of the fizzled yield, only 10 kilotons was accounted for by fusion reactions, or about 9 percent of the total yield. The other 91 percent of the yield was obtained from the fission reactions of the primary and secondary. The explanation for this “fizzle” (which nonetheless managed to carve out a crater 990 feet wide and 75 feet deep!) was “an unexpectedly long time delay between the primary firing and the secondary ignition. Reportedly this was due to a simple design flaw — the neutron flux from the primary had preheated the secondary leading to poor compression.”37

  Of course, in the thermonuclear kettle of these witches’ brews, the slightest change of just a few nano-millimeters of the thickness of any solid state item within the device, the slightest change of positioning of various components, can — within the split-seconds’ timing of the various stages of the reaction — alter its efficiency significantly, and either enhance, or impede, the overall reaction yield. So from one point of view, this explanation has merit.

  But from another point of view, do any of these explanations really make sense? Are we really to believe that Los Alamos National Laboratory knew absolutely nothing about lithium-7 reactions before the “Castle Bravo” test, that it rolled the thermonuclear dice having missed one whole component of nuclear chemistry? Are we really to believe that those reactions burned so efficiently so as to account — after the fact! — for a runaway bomb? And are we really to believe that Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, under Dr. Edward Teller, the “father of the hydrogen bomb” himself, could not successfully design the very bomb he is credited with inventing?

  And how, after all this, does the lithium-7 explanation really work in the final analysis, since it would account for none of the excess yield in the very first hydrogen bomb test, that of “Mike”?

  To answer these questions we have to journey to the Soviet Union, where a famous Russian astrophysicist was having similar difficulties with the sun, and from there, to Argentina, where a Nazi scientist knew about lithium-7 reactions before the Castle Bravo test…

  C. The Soviet Union Encounters a “Little Problem” Too: Astrophysicist Nikolai Kozyrev, the “Tsar Bomba,” and “a Little Problem” with the Sun

  1. Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev’s “Little Problem” with the Sun

  Russian astrophysicist Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev (1908–1983) was unquestionably one of the twentieth century’s unsung geniuses. But to appreciate why, one must understand his discovery of a problem within the conventional models of stellar thermonuclear fusion. Like America’s hydrogen bomb engineers and scientists, what Dr. Kozyrev was noticing was a similar anomalous “yield” in the energy streaming from the sun and other stars:

  In short, when he compared “the observed data about luminance, masses, and sizes of stars,” the observed luminance and radioactivity could not be adequately accounted for by the theory that stars are nothing but gigantic hydrogen bombs in a state of perpetual detonation; the theory of thermonuclear fusion alone was inadequate to account for the phenomenon of stars. Indeed, Kozyrev’s analysis “brought him to a conclusion that the processes of thermonuclear synthesis cannot serve as a main source of stellar energy.” In other words, the fusion-gravity geometry model of standard stellar processes — a geometric model inspired in large part by Einstein’s General Relativity and extrapolations from it performed by other scientists — was simply not able to account for the enormous energy pouring out of stars. Some other mechanism altogether was at work.38

  In other words, Kozyrev’s stars and America’s hydrogen bombs were doing the same thing: producing more energy than the standard models would allow. The only question was, why?

  Dr. Lavrenty Shikhobalov explains Kozyrev’s rather unorthodox answer in strikingly simple terms: Kozyrev “made a hypothesis that Time is a source of stellar energy.”39 As I concluded elsewhere, Kozyrev had hypothesized

  that the geometry of local celestial space is a determinant in the energy output of fusion reactions, and that the latter, depending on that geometry, will ‘gate’ now more, now less, energy into the reaction itself as a function of that geometry. Kozyrev had, in short, surmised why the Russians — who had no doubt encountered similar anomalous energy yields in their own hydrogen bomb tests — were getting such strange results, results that could not be explained on the standard theory and its methods of calculations of yields.40

  But what, precisely was being “gated” by the sun from these celestial geometries?

  2. His Explanation: Torsion

  Kozyrev’s answer forms one of the major themes of this book: torsion. If time was a source of stellar energy then, like all forms of energy, it had a definite shape or structure, a pattern as Kozryev put it, a pattern that was, moreover, spiral and rotating in nature.41 This is exactly what torsion does to the fabric of space-time. It may be simply illustrated by an analogy that I often use to describe it. Imagine taking an empty aluminum soda can, and wringing it in both hands like a dishrag. This counter-rotating motion will spiral and fold and pleat the can, drawing its ends closer together. In this illustration, the can represents space-time itself and the spiraling is what torsion does to it.

  The sun thus becomes, in Kozyrev’s model, a massive torsion machine, for in the rotation of its hot thermonuclear plasma, it functions as a gate, transducing the energies of the geometry of local space, the very geometries caused by the variations in planetary positions. Another analogy will help in understanding what Kozyrev is hypothesizing. If we imagine each planet as representing one of our empty soda cans, each spiraling, folding, and pleating space-time in its own unique way, and giving off “spiraling waves” of this energy, eventually, these waves will overlap in ever-changing patterns, like rocks thrown into the surface of a calm pond. The effect of so many torsion systems overlapping each other is called dynamic torsion, though there is one important difference between it and our example of rocks thrown into a calm pond, and that is that the motions of planets are entirely predictable, and therefore, at least theoretically, the mutual influences of dynamic torsion can be predicted, with experimental observation being conducted to formulate the laws that would allow such prediction.

  It was precisely such experimental observation that Kozyrev undertook in the 1950s in the former Soviet Union, work that in 1959 caused him to be publicly denounced in Pravda. But it was only revealed after the collapse of the Soviet Union that Kozyrev and his research had disappeared into the highest and most secret reaches of classification in the Communist state.

  One may reasonably and logically conclude, therefore, that the 1959 Pravda attack on Kozyrev was really a cover story to denounce his work, to de-legitimize it to anyone in the West who may have been paying attention to it, while Kozyrev, and his work, disappeared — as they did — into the highest reaches of classification within the Soviet Union, for his work provided the necessary key to understand why H-bombs were returning such anomalous yields, yields that, moreover, most likely varied with the time of their detonation. Kozyrev knew why: it was because the bomb itself became, for that brief brilliant nanosecond of the initial explosion, a di
mensional gateway, a sluice-gate, opening the spillway to a hyper-dimensional cascade of torsion into the reaction itself.42

  Just exactly how all that functioned will be revealed in a moment, but before considering those details, it is worth briefly mentioning what happened a mere two years after Kozryev’s denunciation in Pravda, and the disappearance of his work into the extreme secrecy Soviet black projects.

  3. The “Tsar Bomba”: Khrushchev’s Propaganda Triumph and Its Real

  Significance as an Engineering Breakthrough

  To demonstrate their newly-acquired thermonuclear engineering prowess, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev directed that the Red Air Force test the world’s largest deliverable hydrogen bomb on the island of Novaya Zemlya near the Arctic Circle on October 30, 1961. While yield estimates for this gargantuan monster vary, most place it at approximately 57 megatons — the explosive power of a gigantic 114,000,000,000 pounds of TNT! — with estimated low and high ends of the yield being 50 megatons and 67 megatons respectively.

  It is perhaps not surprising that this enormous weapon was developed and tested after Dr. Kozyrev’s disappearance into the bowels of the black projects empire of the Soviet Union a mere two years after being publicly denounced in Pravda. From the purely engineering point of view, the Tsar Bomba was a triumph, but its enormous yield does raise the specter that perhaps the Soviet Union had learned to apply Dr. Kozyrev’s results to its bomb-engineering, a point that we now more fully explore in connection with the little- known, and little-understood, work of a Nazi scientist working in a secret post-war project in Juan Perón’s Argentina.

  A Dramatic Comparison of Device Yields by Mushroom Clouds,

  Note the Tiny Specks in the bottom left of the diagram, blown up in the circle representing Hiroshima and the Trinity atom-bomb test in New Mexico of July, 1945.

  D. The Lithium-7 Mystery, a Nazi Scientist in Argentina, and a Curious Coincidence

  While Kozyrev may have been solving the yield-efficiency dilemma for the Soviets on the basis of torsion effects in rotating plasmas like the sun, a Nazi scientist in Argentina may have been giving the Americans specific clues about the lithium-7 reaction — and torsion effects in fusion reactions in rotating plasmas — discoveries he claimed to have made long before the Castle Bravo test, and here we are confronted with an even greater mystery.

  That Nazi physicist’s name was Dr. Ronald Richter, and he stunned the world when his ostensible boss, Argentine President Juan Domingo Perón, announced to the world that Argentina had successfully discovered the secret of the hydrogen bomb at a press conference on April 2, 1951. Perón went on to disclose that Argentina had achieved this feat after a mere nine months’ research!43 Perón then introduced Dr. Ronald Richter, the Nazi scientist heading the project, to the assembled journalists, and Richter proceeded to inform them that he knew how to control thermonuclear reactions precisely. These assertions, if true, were highly problematical, since America had not even detonated “Mike” yet, nor would it, until the next year on November 1, 1952! Richter, and Argentina, had beaten America to the thermonuclear punch by over a year! Or so, at least, Juan Perón said.

  Needless to say, the world press, and in particular, the American media, denounced the whole affair as a fraud and roundly condemned Richter for charlatanry, and for a very simple reason: as we have seen, it takes an atom bomb to create the heat and pressures necessary to set off a hydrogen bomb, and Argentina had tested no such bomb. Therefore Richter’s story — on the conventional analysis — had to be a case of pure fraud.

  Confronted by this media outcry and denunciation, Perón became justifiably suspicious of his Nazi physicist and the project that was consuming vast amounts of money, and he appointed a special commission of Argentine scientists to investigate it and report its findings directly back to him. Heading this commission was the young Argentine nuclear physicist, Dr. Jose Balseiro.

  It is when we consider Dr. Balseiro’s findings that the lithium-7 explanation of the Castle Bravo test takes on a very new, and very sinister, significance, for lithium-7 reactions were the precise reactions upon which Dr. Richter was basing his claims!

  Balseiro begins his report by observing that “the basis upon which Dr. Richter’s experiments rest are the two known nuclear reactions

  Li7 + H = 2He4 + Q3 Q=17.28 MeV

  H2+H2=H3+Q+n, Q= 3.18 Mev.”

  That is, in the first case, the fusion of a lithium-7 atom with a hydrogen atom will produce two helium atoms plus an enormous quantity of electromagnetic energy (in the form of an x-ray and gamma ray burst) of 17.28 million electron volts of energy. In the second case, the fusion of two deuterium atoms (atoms of hydrogen with an extra neutron in the nucleus) will produce an atom of tritium (an atom of hydrogen with two extra nuetrons in the nucleus) plus a free neutron plus a burst of electromagnetic energy of 3.18 million electron volts.44

  Before proceeding any further, it is important to pause here and note exactly what is being said, well in advance of the Castle Bravo test and the lithium-7 explanation used to explain its runaway results, for this reaction was clearly known and understood by an Argentine physicist, and a Nazi physicist, b e f o r e the test even took place. It is thus h i g h l y unlikely that we are being told the truth when we are told that our scientists and engineers did not even consider litrhium-7 reactions in their calculations of the Castle Bravo yield.

  Thus, the standard lithium-7 reactions were known, making it unlikely America’s thermonuclear “theurgists” were unaware of it. Some other reaction may therefore also have been involved, and once again, Dr. Richter in Argentina indicated that he knew what it was, for the standard physics models simply did not work. Indeed, for Dr. Balseiro, this was the whole problem posed by Dr. Richter. Richter was claiming to have achieved fusion reactions within a lithium-7 plasma at atmospheric pressures and under relatively “cool” conditions of pulsing it with electrical discharges. Dr. Balseiro puts the difficulty this way:

  For 1% of the nuclei to have enough energy to start the reaction, we need therefore, an initial temperature of at least 40 millions of degrees Kelvin. As a comparison, it is of relevance to recall that the temperature in the hottest zone of a voltaic discharge arc does not reach higher than 4,000 K and that the highest instantaneous temperatures reached in the laboratory by Kapitza are of the order of 100,000 K.45

  But this was not the only problem, and Dr. Balseiro was honest enough to record what the real problem with Dr. Richter was:

  The analysis made above, shows the impossibility, according to present knowledge, of achieving in the laboratory this type of nuclear reactions (sic). Dr. Richter, however, claims on this point to have discovered a set of phenomena that make invalid the type of reasoning exposed above. Furthermore, he insists these new phenomena discovered by him, constitute the basic secret of the process of thermonuclear reaction.

  It is not possible to foresee to what class of phenomena Dr. Richter refers to(sic), in particular because their existence cannot fail to contradict some of the basic knowledge which is accepted at present. In the first place, if the (Lithium-Hydrogen reaction) would occur at temperatures substantially below 20 (thousand electron volts) this would imply a fundamental change in our present knowledge of nuclear structure and quantum mechanics.46

  There it is: Richter claimed to have discovered a very different phenomenon, one allowing him to induce thermonuclear fusion reactions under conditions of stress and heat several orders of magnitude less extreme than that required by conventional theory.

  The only question is, what was it?

  Again, Dr. Balseiro is to be commended for his honest recording of Dr. Richter’s assertions, and here, they are quite revealing:

  Dr. Richter has stated that the control device of the themonuclear device is based on the resonance obtained between the Larmor precession frequency — which originates in the interaction of the magnetic field acting on the intrinsic magnetic moment of the (lithium-7) atom — and that of the oscillat
ing magnetic field produced by a radio frequency generator.47

  Let us pause and note carefully what we have by comparing Dr. Balseiro with Dr. Richter’s view.

  Balseiro assumes the standard model of fusion reactions is true. That is, he assumes:

  1) that fusion reactions can only occur under conditions of extreme heat and pressure, under temperatures in excess of 40 million degrees Kelvin; and that,

  2) nothing else is involved in the reaction; and that,

  3) Lithium-7, the very reaction allegedly overlooked by the American bomb engineers, was well known to the Argentine physicist who interviewed Richter fully two years before the Castle Bravo test.

  But Dr. Richter is assuming something entirely different and upon close examination, much more comprehensive:

  1) The mention of the Larmor precession simply means that Dr. Richter is thinking in terms of a rotating plasma, just as was Dr. Kozyrev;

  2) Moreover, he is also taking into account that an oscillating magnetic field inside of a static one will contribute additional factors of stress to the plasma, making fusion reactions possible under conditions of stress in the plasma very different from those assumed in standard engineering, under heat and pressures several orders of magnitude less than those assumed to be necessary in the standard model; Richter is thinking of the sun as a model, with its rotating plasma, and its magnetic field. He is thinking in almost exactly the same terms as Dr. Kozyrev, and moreover, doing so before Dr. Kozyrev. Richter is thinking in terms of torsion.