July 16, 2004


Organized Scientific Corruption at
the American Chemical Society and at
the U. S. National Academy of Sciences?
You decide.

William F. Pound
International Committee on Scientific Ethics

Under Editorial Control


Chemistry has been dominated by the chemical species of molecules, consisting of stable clusters of atoms characterized by one of the various types of valence bonds.

Various analytic methods and equipment are today available for the precise identification of molecules. For instance, molecules can be readily identified via peaks in Gas (or Liquid) Chromatographer Mass Spectrometers (GC-MS or LC-MS), depending of whether treating substances in their gaseous (or liquid) state.

However, a scientific claim of serious identification of a given molecular species requires at least a second independent detection, the best being given by InfraRed (or UltraViolet) Detectors (IRD or UVD) for the gaseous (liquid) state. In fact, a scientifically distinct peculiarity of molecules is that, with very few exceptions such as the hydrogen, molecules are not spherically symmetric, thus having a number of well defined IR (or UV) signatures permitting a clear and unambiguous identification of the considered molecule.

In May 20, 2001, the Russian-American scientist Prof. J. V. Kadeisvili submitted to the Journal of Physical Chemistry of the American Chemical Society under the editorship of Dr. M. A. El-Sayed a paper reproduced in its entirety below entitled

In essence, Prof. Kadeisvili (a physicist) presented to the chemical audience a rather considerable volume of experimental measurements conducted by reputable independent U. S. analytic laboratories, all results released under the signature of their directors, said measurements having been repeated several times establishing the existence of a new chemical species of hydrogen with specific weight about seven times that of conventional hydrogen while the species result to be composed of over 98% ordinary hydrogen.

The primary importance of this new species of "heavy hydrogen" is evidently for the environment, as clearly stated in Prof. Kadeisvili's paper. In fact, thanks to Prof. Santilli new technology for the production of new very clean fuels with magnecular structure http://www.magnegas.com> the new species of "heavy hydrogen": offer a serious possibility for long ranges at the compressed gaseous state by eliminates the currently used, extremely expensive cryogenic liquefaction, also very dangerous because of possible changes of states due to mechanical malfunctions; eliminates the seepage problem of conventional hydrogen; the production of this particular type of "heavy hydrogen" comes with the release in the atmosphere of oxygen to avoid the very serious "oxygen depletion" caused by hydrogen; the production cost is considerably reduced; etc.

For unspoken yet very serious environmental problems caused by large use of hydrogen as a fuel, problems resolved by this species of "heavy hydrogen", one may consult http://www.magnegas.com/hydrogen-problems-index.htm>.

Since hydrogen has only one valence electron, pre-established chemistry has no possibility at all of explaining the new stable clusters composing the new species of hydrogen. Therefore, the experimental data presented by Prof. kadeisvili provide additional rather crushing experimental evidence on the existence of the new chemical species of magnecules discovered by the Italian-American physicist Prof. Ruggero maria Santilli> (formerly from Harvard University, current nominated for the Nobel Prize in physics and, separately, for chemistry by numerous scientists the world over, CV at http://www.i-b-r.org/santilli.htm>).

The new species of Santilli magnecules essentially consist of atoms (such as H, C, O, etc.), dimers (such as OH, CH, etc.) and ordinary molecules (such as H2, O2, H2O, etc.) bonded together by the attractive force between opposing magnetic polarities of toroidal polarizations of the orbitals of at least some of the peripheral electrons (see Prof. Kadeisvili's paper below and original references quoted therein).

Santilli's magnecules appear in the GC-MS or LC-MS as clusters exactly like ordinary molecules. Therefore, their identification requires at least one additional independent test. In fact, magnecules have the distinct scientific feature of having no infrared signature for gases and no ultraviolet signature for liquids, evidently due to the fact that the magnecular bond is weaker than the molecular one, the absence of IR or UV signature occurring for clusters all the way to 1,000 atomic mass units (amu). It then follows that a large cluster identified in the GC-MS or LC-MS that has no IR or UV signature absolutely-positively cannot be a molecule, thus signaling the end of the complete dominance of chemistry by the old species of molecules.

Since the large clusters beyond the value of 2 amu creating the new species of "heavy hydrogen" tested by Prof. Kadeisvili has no IR signature despite, said clusters cannot possibly be molecules, that is, the bond of H-atoms responsible for the heavy species absolutely cannot be a valence bond. The interpretation via Santilli's magnecules is the most plausible at this time due to the method of creation of the "heavy hydrogen" (via exposure to an electric DC arc). No other quantitative interpretation exists in any case.

Santilli magnecules also have numerous additional very special and distinct scientific characteristics, all verified by repeated independent measurements, and all simply inconceivable for molecules, such as the fact that MS peaks of magnecules change in time, (an absolute novelty today known as "Santilli cluster mutation").

Also, all blanks on GC-MS and other detectors following scans with a gas with magnecular structure and its routine flushing, preserve the original peaks prior to flushing (a feature so distinct that can only be interpret in a credible way as adhesion to internal walls due to magnetic polarization, thus confirming the magnetic polarization in the new species).

Similarly, micrometric feeding lines for GC-MS and other equipment that work well for any molecular gas are occluded by a magnecular gas to such an extent of shutting down the instrument due to lack of injection (another occurrence solely explainable in a credible way via anomalous adhesion of the gas to the internal walls of the feeding lines, which adhesion can only be interpreted in a credible way as due to magnetic induction since there is no “glue” permitting the preservation of molecules), and other distinct scientific characteristics solely possible for a non-molecular species.

It should be stressed that, while the measurements are beyond any possible scientific doubt, their magnecular interpretation is conjectural at this moment and it is presented in Prof. Kadeisvili's work as a mere working hypothesis.

In conclusion, crushing experimental evidence on the "heavy hydrogen" has the clear historical value of signaling the end of the era of sole valence bonds in favor of new fundamental novelties in the way atoms bond to each others.


About one year following the original submission on May 20, 2001, Prof. Kadeisvili received a letter of rejection from Dr. Mostafa A. El-Sayed of the American Chemical Society on grounds that "magnecules" violate quantum electrodynamics.

This "review" was evidently false because, as clearly stated in the paper submitted and in the vast related references, the very existence of Santilli magnecules depends on the validity of quantum electrodynamics, since the magnecular bond is created via the control of orbitals under an external magnetic fields precisely along quantum alectrodynamical laws.

Being of a foreign origin not accustomed to this type of nonscientific review without any meaningful technical content at all, Prof. Kadeisvili wanted to withdraw the paper. Due to pressures from his colleagues outside the USA, Prof. Kadeisvili resubmitted the paper a second time on arch 15, 2003 with repetitious statements on the validity of quantum electrodynamics to prevent possible intentional misreporesenitations.

Some six months later or so, Dr. Mostafa A. El-Sayed produced a second rejection that is so mumbo-jambo, ku-ku-ku-la-la-la to suggest its lack of review here in order to prevent excessive damage to the American Chemical Society by the world scientific community inspecting this denunciation. In any case, if the review is indicated here, it is so crazy that it would not be believed.

Disgusted by this strictly anti-scientific behavior, Prof. Kadeisvili wanted to withdraw the paper. At this point our International Committee on Scientific Ethics was called in to monitor the case. Under our pressures, Prof. kadeisvili submitted the paper a third time on August 10, 2003 again with totally irrelevant revisions, due to the lack of scientific content of the preceding reviews that could even marginally help in improving the paper.

The incredible "review" from the American Chemical Society arrived several months later, the hand of its editor Dr. Mostafa A. El-Sayed rejecting the paper, this time on grounds that "additional evidence on the new species with IR signatures had to be provided prior to printing."

Just incredible! Just incredible! The ABSENCE of IR signature is a distinct scientific feature of Santilli magnecules! How could Prof. Kadeisvili provide additional experimental evidence on something that does not exist! How can the American Chemical Society drop such statements and then dream of preserving any credibility?

Under increased pressure by the International Committee for Scientific Ethics, pressures originating from informed segments of the European community alarmed by the implications for society of a clear decay of scientific ethics in the United States of America (of which this is only one of too too many unreassuring episodes), Prof. Kadeisvili submitted the paper the forth and final time on May 8, 2004. The final rejection is reproduced below in its entirety:


Subject: Manuscript Number JP030455L
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:10:08 -0400
From: Mostafa A. El-Sayed
To: J. V. Kadeisvili ibr@gte.net

Dear Dr. Kadeisvili:

Attached is the final reviewer's comment on your paper. He is a member of the US National Academy of Science, he is in the field of Spectroscopy (both IR and Mass. Spectroscopy) and he is well known in Molecular Clusters. I will not find a better-qualified reviewer than him.

I am sorry that we could not get the kind of review that would help publish this work in JPC.

Yours truly,

Mostafa A. El-Sayed
Journal of Physical Chemistry

Reviewer 65 MS JP030455L

"Experimental Evidence on a New Heavy Species of Hydrogen with Santilli Magnecular Structure"

A major prerequisite for a paper to be considered worthy of publication in any scientific journal, and JPC in particular, is that the work fulfill the following requirements;

1. be original and contain substantial unpublished material;

2. be presented in a manner and giving sufficient detail such that the findings can be duplicated by other competent researchers;

3. reporting of the findings must await until presenting details is not impeded by secrecy requirements due to patent or other corporate considerations.

While the authors have mentioned the surprising findings that the "magnecules" are not amenable to study by i.r. spectroscopy, the above 3 issues have not been satisfactory addressed. Regarding #2, for example, how was the temperature of the arc characterized: the length of an experiment; how the fields were applied; the characterization of the starting materials, etc.?

I do not believe that this paper should be published in its present form.


The lack of technical content or usefulness of this final "review" is evident even to a high school student. Its content is quire unreassuring because:

1. The originality and novelty of the paper are history making.

2. The duplicability of the findings is stressed in the paper, by providing web sites where the equipment is under industrial production (www.magnegas.com), and by even by offering samples of the gas for independent re-run of the measurements, as the reader is requested to verify in the paper below due to the incredible nature of the claims by this ACS "reviewer." 3. What secrecy? Perhaps the secrecy of this anonimous "scientist" of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences? The paper presents the totality of the material available in the subject without any secrecy at all. Where are the grounds for secrecy? What;'s the basis for such an incredible ground for rejection?

The American Chemical Society has violated all basic rules of proper scientific conduct in the "editorial" handling of Prof. kadeisvili's paper, because: A) To qualify as "reviewers" in a serious scientific journals, scientists must be "expert, specifically, in the field of the paper, that is, have a record of publications specifically in said field. Anybody who has the audacity of claiming that the four "reviewers" selected by the AMC were qualified is an ennemy of science. It is evident that the "reviewers" were politically and not scientifically selected, for there is a limit of academic hypocrisy beyond which there is a price to pay.

B) After being scientifically selected, the reviewers have the duty of studying the paper seriously. From the incredible statements in the report, contrary to the content of the paper (violation of quantum electrodynamics while the paper assumes that discipline at its foundation, lack of experimental evidence while that available is massive and signed by reputable directors of reputable independent laboratories, need for additional evidence with IR signature while its absence is a scientific distinction of the new species of Santilli ,magnecules, etc.) from all these statements is evident that the "reviewers" selected by the American C chemical Society did not even bothered to read the paper. They were just ordered rejection and they dropped down some mumbo-jambo ku-ku-ku la-la-la words without any scientific content or value, just to obey orders. From where? That is the question the American Chemical Society must answer publicly in the event it cares to preserve a minimum of credibility.

C) As clearly stated, the central scope of the paper is to present experimental measurements done and repeated several times. All possible information was provided for the independent re-run of the measurements, including the availability of the magnegas fuel from which the new species of "heavy hydrogen" is separated via zeolites and other PSA techniques. The interpretation via Santilli magnecules is presented as a working hypothesis while the author, in proper scientific behavior, solicited colleagues to repeat the measurements and to identify other interpretations of the data.

One of the fundamental rules of real science is that novel experimental data must be first published and then discussed via publications in refereed journals. The American Chemical Society has intentionally suppressed the availability of the experimental data on the new chemical species of "heavy hydrogen" in a fully premeditated, calculated and protracted way to serve organized academic interest in old theories and the large research funds they carry.

D) Since the new species is available, can be reproduced with available technologies, and laboratories are available in academia, the American Chemical Society had the ethical duty to reject the paper only following the "disproof" of the measurements via counter-measurements rather than throwing mumbo-jambo non scientific nonsense without meaning.

E) Finally, before dismissing Prof. Santilli's historical discovery of the news chemical species of magnecule as nonexistence, the American Chemical Society had to prove that a sufficiently strong magnetic fields cannot polarize the orbitals of peripheral electrons into toroids, with consequential creation of a magnetic field numerically identified to be 1,415 times stronger than the nuclear magnetic field, which task is manifestly impossible since the existence of said toroidal polarization is established by quantum electrodynamics.

To have a serious perspective of the case, one should compare the above equivocal conduct by the American Chemical Society with the conduct of corresponding scientific conduits in Europe and in the rest of the world, where, as one can see from the references at the end of Prof. Kadeisvili's paper, the non-US scientific community has embraced the new chemical species of Santilli magnecules as one of the several new frontiers under study in chemistry, one of the most prestigious scientific publisher in Europe has published a monograph by Prof. santilli on his historical discovery (thus disqualifying any claim on lack of academic acceptance), a new center of research is being organized on "new fuels with magnecular structures" (because the elimination of the molecular structure in favor of a weaker bond is mandatory to avoid the extreme pollution of fossil fuels with molecular structure), etc. What a difference of scientific conduct between Europe and the U.S.A. What a difference!

A couple of months ago, Wallace at 60 Minutes compared the current status of the United States of America to the Roman Empire at the beginning of the second Century. Romans did not understand that their empire was gone at its very peak of power because of ethical decay. In fact, two generations later, the Romans did not even fix their aqueducts and that's the reason why Roman ruins in Rome are under meters of swamp soil. Unfortunately for themselves and for mankind, Americans did not appear to care a bit of Wallace's outcry (with the due exceptions, of course), despite its vast exposure to the public. The problem is that there are increasingly credible data according to which the Southern part of the United States of America will become uninhabitable within the next two generations because of cataclysmic climactic events caused by the currently uncontrolled pollution, exactly as it happened to the end of the Roman Empire, although for different reasons.

Wallace is not aware of the alarming ethical decay in the U. S. science at large, because political events are somewhat inspected by the newsmedia to be reported in the usual half-truth way. Unfortunately, the U. S. science has no monitoring of scientific ethics of any credible type at all, not even minute, indirect or tangential. As a result, everything goes in the U.S. science, provided that you have the power. That is what alarmed informed foreign observers, because the damage to mankind of an uncontrolled ethical decay of the U.S. science can be potentially lethal to mankind due to its current power.

As clearly stated in the paper below, the new species of "heavy hydrogen" with Santilli magnecular structure has been discovered and developed precisely to provide a serious solution to the increasingly cataclysmic climactic events that are expected to render the Southern part of the U.S.A. un-inhabitable within two generations.

No person with a marginal sense of dignity can deny that, in the review of Prof. Kadeisvili's paper, the American Chemical Society has opposed the resolution of these increasingly cataclysmic climactic events for the evident purpose of serving organized academic interests on the billions of dollars surrounding the old notion of molecules and its polluting fuels.

But then, without due and timely corrections beginning with the setting up of serious and severe controls of scientific ethics at all levels, a historical condemnation of the United States of America by posterity for irreparable damage to mankind is simply unavoidable.

Thanks are due to Prof. R. M. Santilli for technical assistance in the preparation of the above comments.

NOTE 1: Comments are welcome for addition in this web page by submitting them in writing to W. F. Pound, Box 1577, Palm Harbor, FL 34682 U.S.A.

NOTE 2: Doubts on the existence of the new species of "heavy hydrogen" are indeed scientifically valuable and supported, due to the novelty of the species, and are part of the routine scientific process. However, since the new species exists and can be tested by qualified scientists, any expression of doubts without serious effort for their dismissal with counter-measurements, will be denounced as immoral conduct and sheer scientific corruption for equivocal personal gains against scientific democracy for qualified research in our alarming environmental problems.

NOTE 3: Due to the lack of scientific processing by the American Chemical Society of the new species of "heavy hydrogen" protracted for years from its initial submission in 2001, Prof. Santilli's original measurements were published in late 2003, certainly not in the USA but in Europe, in the prestigious refereed journal published at Oxford, England:

R. M. Santilli, "A novel magnecular species of hydrogen and oxygen with increased specific weight and energy content,"
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Oxford, England, Volume 28, pages 177-196 (2003).



NOTE: The paper is reproduced below from its original Tex/LaTex version witout changes. Therefore, the Tex/Latex symbols have not been changed.

Preprint of the Institute for Basic Research IBR-TC-034-03, of May 20, 2001, revised March 15, 2003; revised August 10, 2003; final revision May 8, 2004

Submitted to the Journal of Physical Chemistry


J. V. Kadeisvili
Institute for Basic Research
P. O. Box 1577, Palm Harbor, FL 34682, U.S.A.
ibr@gte.net, http://www.i-b-r.org

In this note we present recent measurements indicating the apparent eb> Axistence of a new species of gaseous Hydrogen with considerable environmental significance identified by the Italian-American physicist Ruggero Maria Santilli having the specific weight of 15.06 a.m.u. while resulting to be composed of 99.2\% Hydrogen that normally has specific weight of 2.016 a.m.u.; we outline the method needed for the production of the species and make available the gas originally used for independent re-runs by interested colleagues; and we point out that the data signal the birth of a new chemical species since they cannot be interpreted via conventional valence bonds. With the understanding that the final identification of the new bond will require considerable time, we point out the most plausible interpretation available at this writing given by {\it Santilli magnecules} [1] with a clearly identified attractive force among the atomic constituents originating from toroidal polarizations of atomic orbitals. Alternative theoretical interpretations of the data are encouraged, provided that they identify indeed the actual attractive force responsible for the bond and avoid experimentally unverifiable new valence nomenclatures.

1. The Experimental Evidence on the New Species of Hydrogen.
In this note we report an apparently new species of Hydrogen identified by the Italian-American physicist Ruggero Maria Santilli via molecular sieving separation from a combustible gas, called MagneGas (MG) because of certain magnetic polarizations reviewed below, produced via an underwater electric arc between Carbon-base electrodes and the use of the new PlasmaArcFlow process described in detail in www.magnegas.com. Quantum chemistry predicts that such a combustible gas is composed of 50\% Hydrogen contained in a {\it mixture} (rather than a valence bond) with other Carbon-base gases, thus permitting separation via molecular filtering, pressure swing adsorption, and similar methods.

The new species of Hydrogen was separated at Adsorption Research Laboratory of Dublin, Ohio, by passing said combustible gas various times through a 0.5 nm zeolite, that, as well known, separates gases via a process called "molecular sieving," or molecular size exclusion. Santilli then obtained the following measurements on the new species of Hydrogen:

1) Following the separation of the new species, Adsorption Research Laboratory conducted in February 2001 measurements of specific weighty, and released a signed statement according to which the new species has the specific weight of 15.06 atomic mass units (a.m.u.), namely, 7.47 times the specific weight of conventional Hydrogen that has the specific weight of 2.016 a.m.u. (Figure 1).

2) In March 2001 SpectraLab of Largo, Florida, conducted analyses on the chemical composition of the same species of Hydrogen tested by Adsorption Research Laboratory via the use of Fourier Transform Infra-Red Spectroscopy (FTIRS) and other equipment. All measurements were normalized, air contamination was removed, and the lower detection limit was identified as being 0.01\%. SpectraLab then released a signed statement according to which said species is composed of 99.2\% Hydrogen, the rest being apparently given by 0.78\% methane and traces of other substances (Figure 2).

3) In April 2001, Air Toxic Laboratory of Folsom, California, subjected the same sample of Hydrogen used in the preceding two tests to Gas Chromatographic Mass Spectrometric (GC-MS) scans via the use of a HP GC model number 5890 and a HP MS model number 5972. Air Toxic Laboratory then released a signed statement with computer print-outs of the scans showing the species to be composed of a dominant peak at about 2 a.m.u. representing Hydrogen, plus numerous additional peaks in macroscopic percentages that are unidentifiable by the computer search among known molecules (Figure 3).

The above analyses were repeated at different laboratories by confirming the indicated results. For instance, SpectraLab repeated the measurement of specific weight of the new species by confirming the value of 15.06 a.m.u. obtained by Adsorption Research Laboratory; the FTIRS tests done by Spectra Lab were repeated at Adsorption Research Laboratory by confirming the content of 99.2\% Hydrogen; and the GC-MS scans of Air Toxic Laboratory were repeated by other laboratories confirming the presence of a major peak representing $H_2$ plus a series of unidentifiable peaks.

Santilli called the new species MagneHydrogen (with chemical symbol MH to distinguish it from $H_2$) because derived from Magnegas, thus having similar magnetic polarizations also described below. MH is clearly important for the emerging new Hydrogen Era because: 1) The increased specific weight permits a corresponding reduction of storage volume, thus avoiding the expensive cryogenic liquefaction of Hydrogen currently needed to achieve sufficient range by BMW, GC and other Hydrogen fueled cars; 2) Underwater electric arcs are much more efficient in the separation of water than electrolysis, thus implying a major reduction in Hydrogen cost; 3) The new species of Hydrogen is contained as a mixture with other gases, thus implying additional cost reductions compared to other methods of Hydrogen production based on the break-down of its valence bond with other atoms, as it is the case for electrolysis or the reformation of fossil fuels; 4) The magnetic polarizations contained in MH seal by induction containers walls, thus decreasing the known Hydrogen storage caused by seepage; and 5) The residual fuel in MG following MH separation is very rich in Oxygen originating from liquids (rather than from the atmosphere), thus reducing the depletion of atmospheric Oxygen caused by the combustion of ordinary $H_2$, an environmental problem of Hydrogen combustion known as "oxygen depletion" (see www.magnegas.com for detail).

In view of the above environmental significance, interested chemists are encouraged to repeated measurements 1), 2) and 3) under certain guidelines provided in below. Magnegas can be easily obtained by its manufacturer or reproduced via reactors described in details in www.magnegas.com. The separation of the new species of Hydrogen from magnegas can be easily done via the molecular seeving techniques identified above, or via the assistance of Adsorption Research Laboratory of Dublin, Ohio. Measurements on specific weight and Hydrogen content on the species so obtained are routine and can be done at various chemical laboratories. In addition to that, samples of the new species of Hydrogen can be obtained by the author for independent use by interested chemists.

It should be indicated upfront that MagneHydrogen is an anomalous species, whose first and perhaps most significant anomaly is that of having a {\it variable specific weight} since the latter depends on the method used for its production (e.g., how many times MG is passed through the zeolites). In fact, Santilli suggested the symbol of MH for the new species, in lieu of the expected $H_15$, precisely to emphasize that aspect. As a consequence, the reproduction of exactly the specific weight 15.06 a.m.u. has a marginal significance, if any. What is significant is the reproduction of an essentially pure Hydrogen species whose specific weight is a {\it multiple} of the standard value 2.016 a.m.u. since that is the condition establishing true novelty.

2. The New Chemical Species of Santilli Magnecules.
The most important scientific implication of the new species of magneHydrogen is that it establishes the birth of a basically new chemical species, that is, a species characterized by a bond that cannot possibly be of valence type.

In fact, Hydrogen has only {\it one valence electron.} As a consequence, any interpretations of the new Hydrogen species via valence bonds in any of their various forms and nomenclatures are not plausible, besides having no visible value due to the absence of a {\it numerical} interpretation of the data {\it without} the rather fashionable assumption of esoteric new forms of valence lacking a clearly identified {\it attractive force} causing the bond.

Therefore, Santilli's identification of the new species of MH mandates, apparently for the first time in chemistry, the search for {\it basically new bonds not of valence type.} With the understanding that the final identification of the structure of MH will require considerable time, the second objective of this note is to report that, following a laborious search by the author, the most plausible hypothesis for the quantitative interpretation of the experimental data of Section 1 is given by the new chemical species of {\it Santilli magnecules} [1].

For the case of gases, magnecules can be defined as clusters of individual atoms (such as H, C, O, etc.), radicals (such as O-H, C-H, etc.), C-O in single valence bond, C=O in double valence bonds, and ordinary molecules (such as H$_2$, CO in triple valence bonds, H$_{2}$O, etc.), all bonded together by attractive forces among opposite magnetic polarities originating in toroidal polarizations of the orbitals of at least some of the peripheral atomic electrons when exposed to sufficiently strong (electric and) magnetic fields.

Stated in elementary language, natural distributions of electron orbitals in all space directions possess no well defined magnetic field. However, when the same electrons are caused to orbit within a toroid, quantum electrodynamics predicts the creation of a magnetic field with polarities North-South along the symmetry axis of the toroid. Santilli magnecules are merely given by two or more atoms with said polarization of their orbitals bonded together by opposing magnetic polarities North-South-North-South-etc. In short magnecules can be solely predicted via the use of quantum electrodynamics, thus having a credibility beyond doubt.

The clusters of the new species of magnecules are identifiable by suitably selected Gas Chromatographers, Mass Spectrometers, GC-MS (Figure 4), operated according to procedures indicated in the next section. A given MS peak with a given a.m.u. value constitutes a Santilli magnecule when it remains unidentified by the computer search among all known ordinary molecules and, when tested under InfraRed Detectors (IRD), said peak admits no IR signatures other that those of its constituents at lower a.m.u. value (Figure 5). For brevity we cannot here reproduce the numerous additional measurements and experimental evidence provided in Ref. [1].

The absence of an IR signature, specifically, at the large a.m.u. value of the peak (rather than at the smaller a.m.u. values of its constituents) is crucial for the detection of Santilli magnecules, since it establishes the lack of valence character of the bond (see again Figure 4), since valence bonds with perfect spherical symmetry (as needed for no IR signature) are practically impossible for large atomic masses.

The identification of the new species of magnecules finally requires the occurrence of physical conditions necessary for their creation. By taking into consideration the existing literature (see, e.g., refs. [3a,3b] and large number of papers quoted therein), A. K. Aringazin [3c] conducted an in depth study on the toroidal polarization of atomic orbitals (reviewed in Appendix 8A of Ref. [1]), and confirmed the need of very big values of electric and magnetic fields, exactly as predicted by quantum electrodynamics.

Santilli created the new species of magnecules detected in the scans of Figures 4 and 5 by flowing a liquid through a submerged electric arc (U.S. Patents numbers 6,673,322; 6,663,752; 6,540,966; and 6,183,604. , and other patents pending). The liquid molecules are decomposed by the arc, and then mostly ionized, resulting in the formation of a plasma at about 10,000$^o$ F around the tips of the electrodes. Since the magnetic field B of an electric arc $M = I/r$ (see Figure 6) is directly proportional to the DC current I and inversely proportional to the distance r, it is easy to see that at atomic distances of $10^{-8}$ cm from a DC arc with $10^3$ A, orbitals are exposed to magnetic fields up to $10^{11} Gauss$, thus being amply sufficient to deform conventional spherical distributions into toroidal forms (see [1] for details).

Moreover, calculations originally done by Santilli [1] and confirmed by M. G. Kucherenko and A. K. Aringazin [3] have established that {\it the magnetic field of a toroidal polarized Hydrogen atom is 1,415 times bigger than the nuclear magnetic field.} Therefore, the new species of magnecules not only identify concretely the {\it attractive force} needed for the bond (identification absent in several models of esoteric valence bonds), but also identified its {\it numerical value,} thus increasing the plausibility of the new species.

Needless to say, toroidal polarizations are, individually, highly unstable because they disappear immediately following the termination of the external field, in which case orbitals reacquire their natural spherical distributions. However, once two polarized atoms are bonded to each other via opposing magnetic polarities, the bond is indeed stable at ambient temperature and pressure, because rotations, vibrations and other motions due to temperature occur for the bonded couple as a whole. The same argument holds for bonds of more than two atoms, resulting in clusters conceptually illustrated in Figure 7.

Nowadays there are several years of evidence on the stability of gases with magnecular structure when stored at pressures up to $5,000$ pounds per square inches (psi) and at ambient temperature (see www.magnegas.com for details). It is known that, as it is the case for all magnetic effects, magnecules must admit a temperature at which their bonds cease to exist (Curie Temperature for magnecules). However, such a temperature is not known for the available gases due to their combustible character. It is however known that combustion eliminates all magnecular bonds since all exhausts tested until now have resulted to possess a fully conventional molecular structure.

It should be noted that the geometry of the DC electric arc is particularly suited for the creation of the new magnecular bond. As illustrated in Figure 6, said geometry is such to: 1) Achieve the needed toroidal polarization (illustrated in the figure with circles perpendicular to the local magnetic field line); 2) Naturally align polarized atoms next to each other with opposite magnetic polarities North-South-North-etc.; and 3) Force polarized atoms one against the other due to the magnetic field itself and other reasons (such as the Casimir effect).

Due to the presence in the arc of both electric and magnetic fields, Santilli called the new species "electromagnecules" [1] in order to distinguish it from the ordinary species of "molecules." In view of the dominance of magnetic over electric effects, the new species is now known as {\it Santilli magnecules.} Gases having a magnecular structure are called {\it MagneGases} and are now in industrial production and sale [1].

One should keep in mind the insistence in the {\it atomic} (rather than molecular) character of the polarizations here considered and related bonds [1]. As such, the new bonds apply irrespective of whether dealing with paramagnetic or diamagnetic molecules.

As an illustration, the Hydrogen molecule is known to be {\it diamagnetic,} thus being unable to acquire any appreciable {\it total} magnetic polarization. However, quantum electrodynamics establishes that individual {\it atoms} of a Hydrogen molecule can indeed acquire a toroidal polarization of their orbitals, thus permitting the bond at the {\it atomic} (rather than molecular) level, while preserving the total null value of the magnetic field for a polarized $H_2$ molecule (see Fig. 7).

A quantitative interpretation of the experimental data of Section 1 is then straightforward. By denoting with the symbol $-$ conventional valence bonds and with the symbol $\times$ the new magnecular bonds, all species of Figure 3 can be quantitative explained as clusters with structures of the type $ H_3 = (H-H)\times H$, $H_4 = (H-H)\times (H-H)$, $H_5 = (H-H)\times (H-H)\times H$, etc.

In turn, the latter feature explains the occurrence indicated at the end of Section 1, namely, that MH has a variable specific weight depending on the various characteristics of its production, including the power of the arc, liquid flow, ambient pressure, etc. It is evident that the variable nature of the specific weight is an additional strong evidence excluding a valence bond in favor of a basically new chemical species.

Note that the species $H_3$ is routinely detected in GC-MS scans and appears to be created by the ionization process itself needed for the detection, rather than being present in the original substance. Santilli magnecules offer the new interpretation of $H_3$ as being composed of an H$_2$ molecule with a {\it magnetically} (rather than valence) bonded H atom, as illustrated in the top of Figure 7. This new interpretation is compatible with the well established evidence that {\it valance bonds occurs in pairs and not in triplets} (see Ref. [1], Section 8.4, for detail). At any rate, the geometry creating the species $H_3$ in the ionization process of GC-MS scans is essentially the same as that for the creation of Santilli magnecules (Figure 6).

The known existence of the species $H_3$ provides an evident support for the expectation of the heavier species $H_4$, $H_5$, etc., with the clarification that the creation of the latter species requires magnetic fields dramatically stronger than those of the GC-MS ionization process [2], precisely as done by Santilli in the creation of his magnecules.

The lack of detection of methane by the GC-MS scans while detected in 0.78\% by the FTIRS tests constitutes yet another illustration of the novelty of the field. In fact, $CH_4$ cannot exist in the original gas because created at the $10,000^o$ F of the electric arc. Also, methane could not have been adsorbed by the molecular sieving process due to insufficient intermolecular sizing. Assuming that, somehow, the $CH_4$ passage escaped the analysts, the macroscopic presence of 0.78\% methane should have been detected by the GC-MS, while such scans reveals no appreciable peak at 16 a.m.u.

Even assuming that all these diversified inconsistencies could be somehow bypassed via machinations to salvage valence bonds in the unknown 0.78\%, the final resolution is provided by {\it the absence of the IR signature belonging to the methane.} Therefore, the species with 16 a.m.u. may well {\it appear} to the analyst as being $CH_4$ while being in reality a magnecule purely composed of H -atoms. Needless to say, this is presented simple as a plausible hypothesis to resolve the numerous contradictions for the $CH_4$ interpretation, with the understanding that the final resolution of the case may require years of additional tests and theoretical research.

Note that {\it Santilli magnecules are solely based on conventional quantum electrodynamics applied to conventional atomic structures, are fully compatible with conventional quantum mechanics, and require no assumption of esoteric and hypothetical bonds often without a clearly identified attractive force.} As such, Santilli magnecule provide a plausible and quantitative interpretation of the measurements of Section 1. Alternative theoretical interpretations are solicited, provided that they have the same plausibility, permit an equally quantitative representation of the data and, above all, are not based on hypothetical and unverified new valence nomenclatures without a clearly identified {\it attractive force} necessary for a credible interpretation of the bond.

Needless to say, the number of intriguing and novel, open problems is endless. For instance, it is known that {\it gases with magnecular structure have dramatic departures from the perfect gas law} due to a little known phenomenon tentatively called by Santilli {magnecular accretion} [1]. The phenomenon is essentially due to the capability of magnecules that are distinct at a given pressures to bond together into a bigger ,magnecule at higher pressures, thus resulting in the expectation (to be verified) of {\it gases whose Avogadro number decreases with the increase of the pressure.}

Yet another anomalous feature is that {\it gases with magnecular structure have a thermal content that is not constant as per ordinary gases, but varies with its use.} As an illustration, MH burns with a rather cold flame. Yet, MH is capable of instantly melting bricks [4]. As a result, the thermal content for the melting of bricks cannot possibly be reconciled with the thermal content of the flame. This is the reason all efforts to measure the thermal content of MH have failed until now to provide a definite results, at least not a result reconcilable with conventional thermal knowledge. We can only state that the thermal content of MH is definitely bigger than that of $H_2$, but its numerical value for the species of MH presented in this note could not be identified. Intriguingly, {\it in practical industrial uses, the existence of a variable thermal content in a gas is considered evidence of its magnecular structure,} trivially, because combustible gases with a conventional molecular structure have a fixed thermal content.

Yet another intriguing but vastly unknown aspect is that {\it the cryogenic liquefaction of MagneHydrogen is expected to occur at a temperature considerably bigger than that for ordinary Hydrogen,} although its explicit value is unknown at this writing. This additional expected anomaly is due to the fact that, being aggregates of atoms at short distances, magnecules may well result to be a new form of liquids. The expectation is also due to the fact that magnecular accretions increase, not only with the increase of the pressure (as indicated above) but also with the decrease of the temperature.

Due to the evident industrial and scientific significance of these new intriguing open problems, interested colleagues are encouraged to study them, provided that the emphasis is in the prior conduction of {\experimental measurements,} with the understanding that theoretical elaborations of the above problems based on conventional molecular settings have no scientific value at all.

In closing it should be indicated that MagneGas and MagneHydrogen are not, by far, the sole substances identified until now with a magnecular structure. As a known example, Ref. [4] presents experimental evidence on a new gaseous and combustible form of water with peaks between 2 and 16 a.m.u. as well as in excess of the biggest possible valence bond (32 a.m.u.) which peaks simply cannot be explained as any conceivable valence bond between $H$ and $O$, yet admitting an immediate quantitative interpretation via the new magnecular bond. More generally (although lesser known due to understandable corporate secrecy), large industrial investments are under way to develop new versions of fossil fuels with a magnecular, rather than a molecular structure, since such a replacement eliminates the real enemy of the environment, the hydrocarbon, in favor of a structure with a dramatically cleaner combustion while continuing to use fossil fuels as basic feedstoc [5].

3. Difficulties in Detecting Santilli Magnecules via Molecular Methods.
The third motivation of this note is to voice a word of caution for colleagues interested in their independent detection of Santilli magnecules, because the currently available equipment has been developed for the detection of the {\it different} species of molecules. These difficulties also illustrate the reason why magnecules were not discovered since the detection of molecules about 150 years ago. An outline of these difficulties is essential to prevent receptive colleagues from venturing invalid beliefs of counter-measurements.

A {\bf first problem} is due to the fact that different molecules have clearly different features characterized by different peaks in the MS or IR scans. Therefore, one single detection (for instance, one via a GC-MS) is generally sufficient for molecular identifications. While fully valid for molecules, this procedure is no longer acceptable for Santilli magnecules whose identification requires the use of {\it at least two different detections.}

For instance, the detection in the FTIRS of a peak representing methane is no longer sufficient for a scientific identification, and at least one second identification is necessary to avoid "experimental beliefs." As indicated earlier, methane detected in the FTIRS scans of Figure 2 was not confirmed in the GC-MS scans of Figure 3. In any case, methane cannot be present in 0.5 nm zeolites and cannot survive at the $10,000^o$ F of the plasma creating the gas. Similarly, the detection in a GC-MS alone of a peak at 4 a.m.u. is no longer sufficient for a scientific identification of the peak with Helium, because, until disproved, the possibility that the 4 a.m.u. peak could be the magnecule $H_4 = (H-H)\times (H-H)$ cannot be dismissed lightly, e.g., in forensic procedures.

The best instrument recommended for the detection of magnecules (as well as for conventional molecules) in gases is a GC-MS necessarily equipped with IRD [1]. The GC-MS/IRD first permits the identification of a peak in the mass scans, and then permits the study of the specific peak considered under the IR scan, resulting in a dual measurement of the same peak. For instance, analysts Louis A. Dee and Norman Wade of NTS laboratories at the McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento, California, selected for the scans of Figures 4 and 5 an HP GC model 5890, an HP MS model 5972, and an HP IRD model 5965.

The use of two separate instruments, that is, the GC-MS and, separately, the IRD for the test of the same gas is strongly discouraged, because not leading to final analytic results, again, because the peaks identified in the GC-MS are not generally kept in the IRD when separately used, resulting in two generally different analytic results whose reconciliation is reduced to theoretical conjectures one way or the other.

The presence in the GC-MS of the IRD is truly crucial for the detection of magnecules. This is due to the appearance of numerous peaks in the GC-MS that, according to long standing practice by chemists, may be subjected to an interpretation via one given molecule or another. The main function of the IRD is to show that {\it a magnecular peak has no IR signature at its atomic weight} (see Figure 5), thus excluding the possibility that such a peak can represent a molecule due to its generally large atomic weight for which no perfect spherical symmetry is credible.

Needless to say, magnecules do have IR signatures for the {\it constituents} of the considered peak at much smaller a.m.u. values. For instance, the MS peak of Figure 4 at 257 a.m.u. may have a clear IR signature for $CO$, another for CO$_2$, another for H$_{2}$O, another for C-H, etc., all signatures belonging to molecules and/or radicals actually existing in the peak considered. The point is that {\it these signatures do not occur at the 257 a.m.u. of the considered MS peak and, consequently, they cannot possibly identify the nature of that peak.} When the IRD is attached to the GC-MS, its setting at 247 a.m.u. gives the IR signature of that peak and not of its constituents.

A {\bf second problem} in the detection of magnecules is that contemporary analytic equipment are designed for fast and efficient commercial detections, for which scope they generally have strong ionization or other detection processes. The full validity of these instruments for the detection of molecules is, again, out of question here, because valence bonds are very strong and the ionization energy is known to be below the valence fragmentation value. This second problem originates when these molecular instruments are used to attempt the detection of magnecules, because their bond is weaker than the molecular one, and the ionization energy of the instruments can be bigger than the fragmentation energy, in which case the instruments produce beautiful results, although solely applicable to the {\it fragments,} and not to the species itself.

In the absence of an analytic instrument specifically designed to detect molecules and magnecules, the only recommended solution is the selection of the detection process and its setting admitting the smallest possible fragmentation. For instance, to reach the scans of Figures 4 and 5, analysts Louis A. Dee and Norman Wade operated their GC-MS/IRD at the lowest ionization voltage, and the same approach was used by the analysts of Air Toxic Laboratory to reach the scan of Figure 3. It is an instructive exercise for interested analysts to personally eyewitness the fact that GC-MS scans of gases with magnecular structure conducted at minimal and maximal ionization voltages produce substantially different mass spectra.

Another illustration of the difficulties in detecting magnecules with molecular instruments is given by the fact that flame ionization generally detects no magnecular structure at all, because the temperature of the ionization method can be bigger than the Curie temperature of the species, under which temperature all magnetic polarizations disappears according to a well established physical law.

These are the reasons why, to reach the scans of Figures 4 and 5, analysts Louis A. Dee and Norman Wade used their GC-MS/IRD at the lowest possible operating temperature. In addition, they even cooled cryogenically the feeding line to assure the lack of alteration of the species due to ambient temperature.

A {\bf third problem} is caused by the use of micrometric feeding lines whose applicability to conventional molecular gases is, again, out of question, while the scientific detection of magnecules require the use of the largest possible feeding line, e.g., those with 0.5 mm diameter. Being originally sceptical on this issue, the author has personally eyewitnessed the fact that a GC-MS with a feeding line of 0.1 mm provided no scan all all, while the sole change of the feeding line into one of 0.53 mm diameter yielded a large mass spectrum.

The only interpretation the author can provide on this occurrence is that reported by Santilli [1], namely, that feeding lines with very small sectional areas are clogged up with magnecules attached to the walls of the lines because of the well known magnetic induction, thus resulting in the possible occlusion of the line itself. In conclusion, the use of very small feeding lines generally prevents the species to be tested from even entering into the instrument, let alone conducting any measurement of any scientific value.

A {\bf fourth problem} is given by the elusion time that, in contemporary commercial instruments, is generally reduced to a minimum to increase productivity. Again, the use of GC-MS with small elusion times is fully acceptable for the detection of molecules, because their separation is assured by the high ionization voltage and other procedures. However, the use of short elusion times generally prevents the detection of magnecules. In fact, to reach the scan of Figures 4 and 5, analysts Louis A. Dee and Norman Wade set their GC-MS/IRD at the maximal allowed elusion time of 21 minutes. As reported by Santilli in Ref. [1], the same gas tested with the same instrument but operated at another laboratory for less than one minute elusion time yielded the grouping of the various peaks of Figure 4 into one single peak (see Figures 8.13 and 8.14, pages 346-347, Ref. [1]), in which case no scientific identification of the structure of the species is possible.

Yet {\bf other problems} in the identification of magnecules are given by protracted use of procedures fully established for the detection of molecules. For instance, analysts customarily check the blank of the instrument before and after the scans, to verify that the instrument is properly working. Following the removal of the gas from the instrument, in the event the blank shows the detection of anomalous peaks, the entire analysis is usually rejected on grounds that the instrument failed to operate properly.

The validity of this procedure for the detection of molecules is, again, out of questions. However, for the case of magnecules the occurrence is exactly the opposite as that for molecules. In the event there is no anomalous peak in the blank following the removal of the gas, the analysis is generally defective and should be discarded, e.g., because the species was too large for the selected feeding line and, therefore, the only species that entered into the instrument was that of the molecular {\it constituents,} or the magnecular structure was destroyed by the detection process. In reality, the presence of anomalous peaks in the blank following the removal of the gas is another direct experimental evidence of the magnetic polarization of the species due to its adhesion to the interior of the instrument via magnetic induction, thus implying the presence of residual gas in the instrument following its removal.

The internal adhesion of gases with magnecular structures is actually such that, following their use to detect magnecules, instruments generally fail to provide routine detections of ordinary molecules, unless they are flushed with an inert gas at high temperature until they regain the standard blank in the absence of detections.

The above and other analytic difficulties illustrate the reason why Santilli magnecules escaped identification throughout the 20-th century. The same difficulties illustrate the need of extreme caution in venturing a conventional molecular interpretations for any species in which the new magnecular structure is suspected.

The reader should be aware that, in addition to the original, rather vast experimental evidence on the existence of Santilli magnecules presented in monograph [1], and the new experimental evidence presented in this note, rather vast additional evidence is under finalization for presentation in subsequent papers. Admittedly, the theoretical interpretation of the new chemical species as originating from the toroidal polarization of orbitals is only the most plausible at this writing and, as such, must be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

The important point established by the experimental evidence here considered is the existing in nature of {\it new bonds not due to valence,} a result that is {\it per se} a momentous contribution by Santilli to chemist, besides the achievement of a numerically exact representation of experimental data on conventional molecules that preceding the discovery of magnecules [1].

The author wants to thank Prof. Santilli for assistance without which this note could not have been written.


[q] Santilli~R.M., {\it Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry with Applications to New Clean Energies and Fuels}, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston-Dordrecht-London, 2001.

[w] Landau,~L.D. and Lifshitz~E.M.: {\it Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory}, 3rd ed., Pergamon, Oxford, 1989 [2a]. Ruder,~H., Wunner,~G., Herold,~H. Geyer,~F.: {\it Atoms in Strong Magnetic Fields}, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1994 [2b]. A.K.~Aringazin, {\it Hadronic Journal} {\bf 24}, 395 (2001) summarized in Appendix 8A of Ref. [2c].

[3] M.G.~Kucherenko and A.K.~Aringazin, {\it Hadronic Journal} {\bf 21}, 895 (1998).

[4] R. M. Santilli, A new gaseous and combustible form of water, IBR preprint TC-04-33, submitted for publication.

[5] J. V. Kadeisvili, A study of new fuels with magnecular structure, in preparation (for background theoretical studies see J. V. Kadeisvili {\it Santilli's Isotopies of Contemporary Algebras, Geometries and Relativities,} Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev, second edition, 1997).

FIGURE 1: A reproduction of the main results of the signed statement released by Adsorption Research Laboratory of Dublin, Ohio, on the measurement of the specific weight of: 1) the original gaseous feedstock (called "MagneGas") with specific weight of 15.60 a.m.u.; 2) the new species of Hydrogen obtained via molecular sieving on 0.5 nm zeolites (called "MagneHydrogen") with specific weight 14.06, and 3) conventional Hydrogen $H_2$ with specific weight 2.016 a.m.u. According to these measurements, independently repeated and confirmed by other laboratories, the specific weight of the new species of Hydrogen is 7.47 times that of conventional Hydrogen. Note that the specific weight of 15.06 a.m.u. was reached by passing the feedstock gas several times through the zeolite. As a result, the specific weight of 14.06 a.m.u. is not expected for an industrial production of the species based on only one passage.

FIGURE 2: A reproduction of the main results of the signed statement on the chemical analysis of the same sample of Hydrogen used for the test of Figure 1 released by SpectraLab of Largo, Florida, via the use of FTIRS and other detectors showing that the species is composed of 99.2\% Hydrogen. Note also the detection of 0.78\% methane that, however, is an unconfirmed "experimental belief" because: methane cannot pass through the 0.5 nm zeolite used for the tests; methane is not confirmed at all (let alone in the macroscopic 0.78\%) by the GC-MS tests of Figure 3 due to the absence of any appreciable peak in the neighborhood of 16 a.m.u.; and methane cannot be present in the original feedstock gas since the latter is produced at about 10,000$^o$ F of the electric arc.}

FIGURE 3: The TIC of one of the several scans done by Air Toxic Laboratories in Folsom, California, on the same new species of Hydrogen tested by Adsorption Research Laboratory for specific weight and SpectraLab for chemical composition. The understanding of the new chemical species of magnecules requires the knowledge that one should not look for one single peak with 15 amu, since that would be a strictly molecular interpretation. For the case of magnecular species we have instead a variety of clusters with different atomic weight eluding at different times as shown by this scan, whose average atomic weight is 15.15.06 a.m.u.

FIGURE 4: A reproduction of the first detection of the new chemical species of Santilli magnecules reported in Ref. [1] done at the National Technical System laboratory located at McClellan Air Force Base in North Island, near Sacramento, California, on June 19, 1998, by analysts Louis A. Dee and Norman Wade who operated a GC-MS equipped with IRD (HP GC model 5890, an HP MS model 5972, and an HP IRD model 5965). The species consists of a gas produced via a DC electric arc submerged in ordinary water. As such, quantum chemists predicts that the heaviest expected element was $CO_2$ at 44 a.m.u. To avoid the very large peaks for $H_2$ and $CO$, the mass range was restricted from 40 a.m.u. to 500 a.m.u. As one can see, the species showed no clearly identifiable and isolated peak at 44 a.m.u., with the presence instead of numerous peaks in macroscopic percentage all the way to 500 a.m.u. None of these peaks could be identified by the computer among all known molecules existing in the memory banks of the McClellan Air Force Base (see [1] for details). Note that the lack of identification with known molecules is not sufficient, per se, to claim the detection of a new non-valence chemical species due to the need of separate confirmations by other instruments.

FIGURE 5: The IRD scan of the same spectrum of Figure 4 done by analysts Louis A. Dee and Norman Wade [1] showing that none of the MS peaks have an IR signature at their atomic weight. This complementary test proved that the attractive bond originating the new peaks cannot be of valence type since the cluster size prevents perfect spherical symmetry. Upon a number of repetitions of the tests, the analysts released a signed statement that the species was new. Note the detection of the IR signature of the CO$_2$ that, however, is a constituent of all the MS peaks, since the CO$_2$ is not identifiable as an isolated species in the MS scans. Other scans for different mass ranges reported in Ref. [1] have confirmed the additional presence in the peaks of Figure 4 of isolated H, C and O atoms, as well as of radicals O-H and C-H and ordinary molecules, thus confirming the definition of a magnecule reviewed in the tex.

FIGURE 6: A schematic view of the creation of the new species of Santilli magnecules reproduced from Ref. [1]. A DC electric arc with about 3,000 A (represented with the vertical axis) creates a magnetic field (represented with circles perpendicular to the arc) that at atomic distances can reach values of up to $10^{11}$ Gauss, thus being suitable to polarize atomic orbitals into toroidal distributions (represented with circles perpendicular to the magnetic flux line). The electric arc also aligns polarized atoms one next to the other with opposite magnetic polarities North-South-North-South-etc., thus causing magnetic bonds. Individual toroidal polarizations are unstable. However, bonded polarizations of two or more atoms are stable at ambient pressure and temperature because rotations and oscillations occur for bonded polarized atoms as a whole.

FIGURE 7: A schematic view from Ref,. [1] of a magnecule composed of one single polarized H atom bonded to another polarized atom of a C-H radical that, in turn, is magnetically bonded to one atom of an H$_2$ molecule. The structure has the same atomic weight of CH$_{4}$ and, therefore, it appears as methane under FTIR and other detectors resulting in an "experimental belief" due to the lack of an independent verification. The test of the same peak with the IRD reveals the lack of a valence bond at 16 a.m.u. Note that the total magnetic moment of the Hydrogen molecule is depicted in this figure as being null in conformity with its diamagnetic character (because consisting of two opposite magnetic polarities at a very short mutual distance), while admitting magnecular bonds at the level of the individual atom,s (see Ref. [1] for details on the model of the $H_2$ molecule having opposing magnetic polarizations).



logged by
Ruggero Maria Santilli
on September 29, 2004

Dr. xxxxxx from yyyy sent us a note dated September 16, 2004, in which he requested to know how they [the members of the International Committee on Scientific Ethics] have been selected, and, without volunteering his birth certificate for full identification and/or his CV for professional qualifications, requested William F. Pound your CV. Since you are a ''neighbour'' of Dr. Santilli, I started to wonder.

While thanking Dr. xxxx for his interest in the case, I would like to indicate that membership to the International Committee on Scientific Ethics is open to all qualified scholars provided that they have a clear record of dedication to scientific democracy, a condition often implying conflicts with academia, thus reducing qualification for membership to a rarity.

Also, I feel obliged to indicate that I have an international reputation for being fearless in putting my name in public denunciations of scientific misconduct, as established by various documents in this web site as well as the references below [1,2,3] and quotations therein. Therefore, I want to reassure Dr. xxxx that, positively, I do not need a pseudonym to express my views. At the same time, my technical assistance in Pound's comments and Kadeisvili's paper is transparent, it is formally acknowledged, it is here admitted with pride.

After these clarifications, I would like to express, most respectfully but candidly, my reservations on the note by Dr. xxx because of the suppression of serious scientific problems via the age old technique of diversions into peripheral aspects without any value, not even minimal or indirect .

It is appropriate here to recall that the fight depicted in this web page deals with the future resolution of our alarming environmental problems. The main issue is the excessive strength of the now old ''molecular bonds" characterizing fossil fuels, whose strength is the ultimate origin of environmental pollution due to the impossibility of a full combustion. Therefore, the effort is toward the replacement of ''molecular bonds'' with a basically new and much weaker bond of the same atoms of a fossil fuel, tentatively called ''magnecular bonds'', as a necessary condition to allow complete combustion with consequential improvement of the exhaust.

The achievement of the needed weaker bonds has been proved by analytic laboratories around the world and, as limpidly reported by Prof. Kadeisvili, it is established beyond scientific or otherwise “credible” doubt by the detection of peaks in the GC-MS in large amu units which peaks have no IR signature at their amu value, said peaks having instead numerous IR signatures but for much smaller amu values, thus being identifying the CONSTITUENTS of said peak.

The denial or the dismissal of this experimental evidence without providing clear counter-measurements conducted, as the original measurements, in independent analytic laboratories and signed, as the original measurements, by the laboratory direct, is vulgar scientific corruption. The lack of admission that the bond of the indicated peaks cannot be of valence type, thus establishing fundamental novelty in chemical structures, is also vulgar scientific corruption, particularly when proffered by self-proclaimed "experts", because valence bonds at large amu value must produce IR signatures due to the impossibility of achieving perfect spheridicity.

The problem underlying the episode here treated is that the admission of a basically new chemical species is drastically against organized academic interests in quantum chemistry. Therefore, it is my opinion that our human society will not resolve our alarming environmental problems without first addressing issues of scientific ethics.

I am writing these words from my office in Florida turned into a real bunker with all windows and doors boarded up with metal panels due to the chain of six hurricanes in a few weeks until now. A few months ago, The Economist published a supposedly secret report from the Pentagon establishing that the Gulf Stream will eventually stop flowing under current trends, at which time England in winter will become a new Iceland (with torrid summers, by contrast). Following hundreds of tornados in winters with hundreds of deaths per year, it is now certain that the southern part of the U. S. A. and numerous other regions throughout the world will become uninhabitable, the only debatable issues being the time,

Under these alarming environmental problems, I would like to encourage Dr. xxx to ignore vacuous peripheral issues and provide instead his contribution toward a resolution of said problems, which resolution can only be achieved via the laborious process of trials and error necessarily based on true scientific democracy for qualified technical inquiries that are nowadays generally suppressed by the scientific establishment the world over.

In short, the rejection by the American Chemical Society and the U. S. National Science Foundation of Prof. Kadeisvili outstanding and well written paper on a possible solution of our environmental problems supported by vast and incontrovertible experimental evidence, rejection perpetrated over several years with pseudo-reviews that are simply shameful for all of the human society, is another manifestation of the internationally known and denounced ethical decay of the U. S. scientific community generally attempting to control science for personal financial gains via a nazi-type suppression of scientific democracy for qualified inquiries perpetrated via academic power rather than scientific veritas, which ethical decay has now reached such incredible proportions, due to the complete lack of control by the rest of the country, to be on a clear suicidal pattern as well as to constitute a serisous threat to the orderly advance in scientific knowledge by the rest of the world.

Ruggero Maria Santilli


[1] R. M. Santilli, Ethical Probe of Einstein's Followers in the U.S.A.: An Insider's View, Alpha Publishing (1984), ISBN # 0-931753-00-7.

[2] R. M. Santilli, Documentation of Ethical Probe, Volumes I, II and III, Alpha Publishing (1985), ISBN # 0-931753-00-7.

[3] R. M. Santilli, ''Open Letter to Prof. Bengt Nagel, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics, published in Fundamental Open Problems in Science at the end of the Millennium,'' Volume III, pages 671-689, T. Gill, K. Liu and E. Trell, Editors, Hadronic Press (1999), ISBN # 1-57485-029-6.



Copyright © 1999-2005 International Committee for Scientific Ethics.