We have been talking about the idea of free energy in science and in everyday life for over a hundred years. It is what the British inventors called “energy” because they had found it within the universe, and that the power of atoms, which are the fundamental building materials of all matter, was able to operate at any temperature. However, it is only recently, following the discovery of nuclear fission by Russian and American nuclear scientists in the mid-19th century, that physicists have realised that it is possible to harness the entire mass of matter and all its particles, such as electrons, photons, protons and neutrons, to generate free energy. This has led to a whole new field of research called quantum chemistry, or “quantum physics”.
In particular, free-energy physicists seek to measure the efficiency with which a single atom of hydrogen can be split at any point within the hydrogen atom’s nucleus. This may be an experimental result or a calculation made using mathematical calculations and computer simulations. The results need to be confirmed by testing the split energy in a laboratory device, such as a hydrogen atom bomb, rather than measuring with a spectrophotometer at the same point.
Does this imply that there is a universal limit to how cheap it might be to produce hydrogen? That no man can make a hydrogen bomb? That there are no practical ways of powering the world’s lights for example?
There is a general misconception that this idea will lead to nuclear war. This is not a practical issue, since we do not need more than one nuclear warhead to do this in order to destroy all human life on the planet. That is what happens even under ideal circumstances. Indeed, we have enough nuclear warheads for the whole of the world from the United States and the Russian Federation to the European Union. If we want to avoid a catastrophic nuclear war, we need not worry about such a thing.
Is it just a matter of “going green?” What could they be doing with them anyway?
First of all, even though I have been in a nuclear power plant for three decades, I have never heard a single person describe what they are burning in a nuclear reactor as a “green” product. The main reason for this is the very same general misconception: that in a nuclear power plant, all products (including fuel, chemicals and raw materials, which are not required if the reactor is made entirely of hydrogen) must be “green”, i.e., produced from non-renewable