|
James Demeo's "reichianist" exertions
1. Gene Mallove to James DeMeo, February 12, 2002
P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816 Tel. 603-228-4516 • Fax 603-224-5975 • http://www.infinite-energy.com • editor@infinite-energy.com February 12 , 2002
Dr. James DeMeo Dear Jim, I hope things are going very well with you - even in these very troubled global times. We were very happy to have had your Miller-aether article in IE and your Handbook still seems to be generating interest. I think the contributors to our relativity criticism series have collectively put Einstein in his place. Thank you so very much for submitting your paper, "Seed-sprouting inside the Orgone Accumulator: biological demonstrations of Wilhelm Reich's Orgone energy." I am sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. I had very much hoped to be able to publish it, and perhaps we will still be able to publish a revised version of it in the future, but for now let me outline some of the reasons for passing on it for now (though I was glad to hear that you have a place for it in a forthcoming Pulse of the Planet): Basically, I am afraid that the experimental approach is not strong enough and will not be convincing to those who are experienced biological researchers - especially since I, one not schooled in such experiments, can perceive certain flaws. An assessment: • The greatest flaw of the experiment seems to be that the control boxes and the ORAC boxes containing the seedling plates should have been placed in the same environment, either both inside or both outside. Not having done so, the comparison appears to be meaningless. This is underlined by the fact that you fail to provide records of the temperature inside the two boxes, and yet it is easy to see that the outside, so-called control groups, were exposed to a daily variation in temperature which was very attenuated inside the Mini-Barn where the ORAC-group was placed. This alone could be the basis of the reported difference in response. • In a future experiment, you should provide around-the-clock measurements of the temperature and humidity inside the two test groups. You say that on average the two groups were but 1°F apart "as measured with maximum-minimum alcohol thermometers," but you present no data to substantiate this assertion. May I suggest that sensitive mercury thermometers should be employed, the readings performed around the clock, and a full record provided for what is really a short period of time (only 10 days). The record would undoubtedly show rather different temperatures and humidities inside the outdoor (so-called "control" boxes), as compared to the indoor ORAC boxes. • The amount of water provided to the seedlings should also have been controlled. • Another good idea for the future: Introduce other non-ORAC controls, which you could do by using dry and humid incubators at set temperatures approximating the mean temperatures of the control and ORAC groups. I imagine that biological techniques of incubation are fairly well developed. The use of these commercially available incubators should be explored so that no critic of this area could attack your results as easily as I am afraid they can right now. I am afraid that the effect of temperature upon seed length and rate of growth, a phenomenon that is probably well established in a variety of botanical studies, is likely a defect of your approach. • As a further comment on the experiment methodology, there are some questions I have about the statistical techniques that you employ - particularly aggregating distinct trials together rather than keeping them separate. But these issues are of less concern to me at this time than the question of adequate controls. At one point in the paper you write, "While the physics experiments developed by Reich are very important, the biological effects remain more foundational." I am sure you believe this and you are welcome to that viewpoint, but I do take great exception to that statement. The biophysics that Reich revealed simply must be connected in the most intimate way with radically different fundamental physics, such as is increasingly being revealed in the experiments that the Correas are elucidating on their web site. Despite your differences with the Correas on certain matters (I very much regret that your relationship with them has evidently deteriorated), science is science and I do urge you to pay the closest attention to the elegant experiments and theoretical insights that they have. Though they were initially prompted in this direction by their study of Reich's work, in my view they have gone so far beyond his understanding of aether physics that I am sure that they have legitimate claim to highly original insights and discoveries in this area. Their work has a highly developed and very quantitative character. Finally, I was surprised that you did not reference the Correas' work when you discussed a possible antigravitational aspect of the energy concentrated inside ORACs. In a future paper you should provide such referencing (e.g. to their monographs AS2-01, AS2-05 and AS2-06). As you know, the Correas have explicitly proposed that the latent heat inside ORACs has antigravitational properties and they provide the first concrete, scientific model which could account for its physical mechanism. I do hope that we can all move forward in harmony toward the greater good as we explore the science of the aether and its practical consequences. Best regards,
Dr. Eugene F. Mallove Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine
2. James DeMeo to Gene Mallove, February 16, 2004Our own battles with DeMeo in 2001-2002 - culminated in what we called "ACT-1" - "To be done with (An)Orgonomists: conversations with (hopefully) the last one - a complete response to J. DeMeo's attack on Aetherometry", followed by "ACT-2", "Pulse of the Planet Taken to Task". Later, in February 2004, DeMeo came back to the attack by sending Gene a long letter. In turn, Gene wrote to us (via Malgosia, while we were abroad) and forwarded DeMeo's letter. So, we wrote back to Gene with our comments on DeMeo's loquacious nonsense. February 17, 2004 Dear Gene > Dear All,Exactly because it is filled with nonsense and misrepresentation, not to mention sheer falsities, we do not think it wise or proper for you to publish it. It definitely lowers the tone of IE, and squarely fails to meet the basic criteria of a scientific appraisal, rebuttal or paper. Please notice, from the outset, that it fails to: (1) address the published record regarding the Hyborac/Sterling technology (Demeo has failed to consult our monograph AS2-32 or purchase our H/S video), thereby making numerous statements that are simply false, (2) address any of the public criticisms we have made of his attack on Aetherometry and of his Pulse of the Planet #5. We do not think it worthy that we should lower ourselves to respond to his bogus criticisms when, in the past, he has failed to respond to any of our published critiques. His objective is to have a quotable paper in IE to which he may, in the future, make reference, as if he had effectively addressed some or any of the real scientific problems inherent to his glib distortions of Reich's work, or made a real, critical contribution to the discussion of Aetherometry. That's a feather in his cap you should not give him. Publishing this would be elevating his paper to a status of intelligent thought which it does not have, and to a recognition he certainly does not deserve. It would be tantamount to us publishing an article by Kooistra on the latter's defense of his inexcusable behavior towards you - and us complying simply to avoid his potential accusations of censorship or suppression. > However, it is obviously NOT just a letter. It is a lengthy critical article. It would have to be answered side-by-side with technical arguments, which we are prepared to do. I suggest and article signed by A&P and me.It is far from qualifying as a "critical article" on anything, let alone on our work. And it does no service to Reich's work at all. Why give him the appearance of being on a footing equal to our work or to Reich's or even to that of thoughtful scientific analysis? And why should we spend any more time on this jerk, which will oblige us to divert energy from other fronts and force us to do more real work, when he has not deigned or dared to respond to our published detailed criticisms of his attack on Aetherometry or his distortions of Reich's work and has produced nothing new in this document worthy of a single minute of thought?? > Unfortunately, DeMeo's entire Institute and his credibility is on the line and he feels necessary to attack the very successes that have come from Reich's work -- but were not done by HIM, therefore they are not given by him the credit they deserve! He's in a tough situation...Yes he is, which is precisely why he does not deserve you to suddenly jump in to save his skin, giving him a forum to expound on more nonsense. He does not deserve that recognition - has no capacity to discuss the field intelligently - but, what's more, effectively this ill-informed piece of a-scientific trash deserves no sanction, let alone recognition. > Malgosia, perhaps it would be best not to forward this letter at this time while the Correas are enjoying somewhat of a vacation -- the DeMeo nastiness would spoil it. On the other hand, it opens up the possibility of a devastating counter-attack against this eclectic Reichian who needs to be publicly dressed down but with technical argument in the lead -- not with polemics.He is already past that devastation, Gene, since he has already suffered it. He now wants a podium that will appear to give him some credibility as our equal and as a bona fide scientific contributor. Since he has failed and, no doubt, will continue to fail to address any concrete objections leveled at his supposedly critical claims, has systematically failed to get acquainted with the published material he pretends to take issue with, invents red herrings right left and center, and has gone as far as smearing our reputation and that of Malgosia - and yours by association - if for no other reasons, Gene, you should reject it for publication. He is certainly free to publish his continuing confusionistic trash on his own website. > I will leave that decision up to you about forwarding -- and look forward to eventual input from Alex and Paulo.Save for punctual comments below, our minds - after reading this trash - only feel revulsion for his insufferable low life tactics. You should not play into his otherwise incapable hands.
------ Forwarded Message From: James DeMeo[First lie: the present work does not rest upon any prior work; it rests upon its own data, which Demeo has failed to familiarize himself with.] and makes several inaccurate references to my work, requiring a clear response.[Second lie: this defense of Aetherometry that we wrote is and was some 80 pages long (ACT-1), but Demeo has, to this day, failed to read it. This alone is proof that while we have addressed his supposed criticisms, he has steadfastly refused to reciprocate in kind, as was incumbent upon him in his pretentious quality of a scientific researcher. One more reason to give him now no forum or recognition.] In fact, I did undertake experiments to specifically "confirm this proof" of the Correas,[This is a total nonsequitur: which proof of the Correas is he talking about?? Proof of what?? This is the kind of unexact writing characteristic of this buffoon.] but obtained negative results after applying tighter controls and a more rigorous experimental design than they had done.[What the heck is he talking about? The Reich-Einstein experiment which he initially applauded?? The outdoors shaded experiments?? Neither is directly relevant to the Hyborac/Sterling experiment at stake here!] No citation was given to my paper on this subject: "Preliminary Report on a Bare-Metal-Box, 'Naked Accumulator' To-T Experiment, with Negative Results" (http://www.orgonelab.org/correas2.htm) The results of this particular experiment strongly suggest the high temperatures which the Correas were observing in their original foundational experiments on To-T, which were carried out under direct sunlight with only a double layer of "nylon canvas" for shading,[Notice, for heavens'sake!, the sheer lack of comprehension of this fellow: the outdoor shaded experiments are not relevant to the Hyborac/Sterling experiment under consideration! We stated that in AS2-04, and then again in the ACT-1 rebuttal of Demeo's underhanded attack (papers which he has failed to familiarize himself with, and thus failed to address!). Moreover, the high values of To-T that are relevant to the H/S experiment were obtained with direct outdoor exposure to sunlight, under the same conditions with which Reich claimed to have obtained equally large values! This guy is beyond the pale! What an insufferable opportunist!] were the product of:[A pure red herring, when his supposed criticism applies to experiments not directly relevant to the present one, and he has failed to familiarize himself with AS2-32, WHERE ROUND-THE-CLOCK READINGS WITH NO MISSING DATA HAVE BEEN REPORTED!! Besides it is a bald-faced lie to claim we have reported or observed negative To-T readings anywhere! MOREOVER, IN AS2-04 IT IS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT, FOR DIRECTLY SOLAR-EXPOSED CAGES AND ACCUMULATORS, THE IR ABSORPTION SPECTRUM CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE SENSIBLE HEAT BEING EVOLVED. He has consistently failed to address this obvious experimental invalidation of his "reasoning", whose existence well antedates his supposed criticism. IT IS INCUMBENT UPON Demeo TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IR photons CAN EXPLAIN OUR OBSERVATIONS. ASSUMPTION DOES NOT SUFFICE IN SCIENCE!!!]1) downward-directed solar infrared (IR) radiation which could easily penetrate the canvas covers of their experiment, and collect inside the upper chamber and mechanically warm the interior, and 2) thermal lag effects which they did not account for, resulting in high "To-T" during the daytime and evening periods when they were recording data, but low or negative "To-T" during the late night and AM periods when they failed to make measurements. For nearly half the day, when the data would have undermined their conclusions, they simply did not bother to make temperature measurements![Third blatant lie!] To my knowledge the Correas have never addressed these fundamental errors in their procedures and methodology.[Fourth lie couched with the proviso of "to his knowledge". Had he read our response to him in ACT-1 and in our public debunking of his letter of Dec 20, 2001, he would have realized - had he wanted to realize! that we have thoroughly addressed his supposed criticism. Bad faith to boot. Gene, this is intolerable. No person with integrity would put up with this shit.] When I privately pointed out the problems to them in 2001, they reacted with extreme agitation and eventually, public attacks on their internet site. But they never bothered to address the issues I had raised, nor to undertake fresh experiments under more rigorously controlled conditions.[The lie that caps and subsumes all the preceding ones. We like the touch "with agitation". It is psychoanalytical, down to its hypocrisy. What a total and complete masturbatory jerk.] As I have shown, their results are fully in keeping with classical thermodynamic expectations.[Fluff: he has not shown anything of the kind. On the contrary, we have shown that the IR absorption spectrum cannot account for the observed sensible heat evolving in directly solar-exposed Faraday cages or ORACs. He has not experimentally shown the opposite. This guy just ingests as much blessed water as he feels like. He, too, smells of holy roses.] One cannot invoke "anomalous" explanations without firstly removing ordinary and known effects from consideration. This has not been done with regard to the Correas "naked box" accumulator experiment,[There is not one single Correa experiment with a naked box; there are many very different ones - the R-E experiment, the shaded outdoors experiment, the direct solar exposure experiments and the direct solar exposed experiments with the HYBORAC. All are different and may not be clumped under one lousy confusionistic heading.] the claimed significance and interpretation of which lies at the fundament of their aetherometry theory.[This is bullshit. Aetherometry does not depend upon one single Correa experiment with a naked box, nor on any of them! This alone proves this guy has no idea of the foundations of Aetherometry - beginning with the spectrum of ambipolar Orgone energy! What an ass! You must not accept this kind of malevolent BS to soil the pages of IE.] And this failure also has consequences to their more recent work integrating the orgone accumulator with the Sterling engine, as I discuss below.[The only consequence it has is that we have blown midgets like this reichian out of the water, to the dustbin of mystic sectarian cults.] Furthermore, I never asserted as claimed that "the thermal anomaly [in the orgone accumulator] is caused by IR absorption" -- that is a distortion -- rather, I suggested their work was plagued by incident solar IR absorption, and their temperature measurements showing very high To-T (~8 deg. C.) in only bare metal boxes were predominantly the consequence of downward directed solar IR and ordinary thermal lag effects.[One more real-life proof that no one dies of contradictions: he says he did not say what he said and then proceeds to say it again! Moreover, if high values of To-T, up to 20 or more deg. C, were the consequence of IR absorption, then Reich's contentions of the solar nature of orgone would themselves be disqualified. He steadfastly refuses to take this consequence of his own assertions. Moron!] I also criticized their failure to make around-the-clock measurements -- they had almost systematically neglected to take temperature readings during the AM periods -- a critical oversight, as during morning periods, outside air temperatures would be warmer than within any ordinary metal box or single-ply orgone accumulator, due to ordinary thermal lag effects.[He repeats himself when under stress. And it is with bad faith that he conjures up a criticism that would require these researchers to not sleep for a month of round-the-clock thermometer readings...] My criticisms were based partly on classical thermodynamic expectations, and partly upon my 30-years of research experience with orgone accumulators,[Another lie - fifth? We lost count. Demeo has never once provided a single classically based computation of the sensible heat expected to evolve within these boxes under any conditions - be it directly exposed to the sun or otherwise. No wonder he provides no reference to his statement. Please, Gene, this is too much.] but mostly upon an experimental testing of their claims. Only after I got negative results, and made criticisms of their work, did I become one of the disparaged "Reichians" against whom the Correas wage war.[Another lie: one only has to go back to the archive record he tries so desperately to obscure. He became a moving target when he passed around confidential copies of our work to others, in infringement of the NDA he had executed, along with his supposed criticism - that we subsequently addressed and which he failed to address in any manner, let alone an intelligent one! Poor self-elected victim! He expected we would just lie down in the face of Reichian censure and play dead?] Also, I have never disavowed Reich's findings on solar energy effects upon the orgone accumulator, and none of the scientists I know following Reich's track have done so either. This is a straw-man argument made against imaginary "Reichians" -- why does this kind of snide commentary even appear in a scientific paper?[He is so thick that he does not realize that invoking IR photons as the cause of the high values of To-T on directly exposed cages runs counter to Reich's contention that the energy from the sun is not electromagnetic but orgonotic! Can this guy be this stupid? Evidently he can.] Ever since Reich it has been widely known that the sunlight excites the orgone, and this has been used practically to "sun-charge" orgone accumulators, increasing their strength.[One will find no such statement in Reich's work. Reich claimed that solar radiation was not sunlight but orgone! It is meaningless to say that sunlight excites orgone. There is no single physical proof of such a senseless statement.] Certainly, Reich used the principle to obtain the highest To-T he observed. But it may be, this particular measurement technique, where the orgone accumulator is exposed to sunlight and especially where temperature is measured above the upper metal layer of an accumulator (or a bare metal box), is dramatically confounded by solar IR heating as classically understood.[There could be no clearer admission of the confused state of Demeo's "understanding" of what is at stake and how to go about analysing it in a scientific manner. Once again he admits it is all just IR photons. Then Reich was, implicitly, also a moron like Demeo.] As I discuss below, I know the To-T effect is real, because over many years I have demonstrated it repeatedly, most recently in a new program of rigorous experimental tests which overcome all the known classical objections, including those problems which exist within the Correas experiments.[BS! A "program" that was began in order to avoid the perceived danger of Aetherometry and our systematic findings, as he himself has admitted on several occasions. The gall of this fellow!] Regarding the latest publication on the Stirling motor merged with the accumulator, on page 11 once again there is clear evidence of this same failure to consider ordinary phenomenon such as thermal lag, and long periods of missing data during critical night periods. In Figure 1 of this paper, the hourly periods from 120-128 and 145-153 show no data, but lines are inappropriately drawn across those times of "no data".[Third time that he returns to the same shoddy "criticism". Have you noticed how he has not moved beyond Fig. 1 of the present paper? And if he wanted more and better data, why hasn't he realized that Fig. 1 is about direct solar exposure, not shaded exposure, or moved on to read AS2-32, where the supposed missing points have never been missing?? Your answer to him could reduce to this - read ACT-1 and AS2-32 before writing again some other letter to the Editor.] They also mention, but do not graph, a month-long period of data acquisition, during June and July 1998, giving figures for the average temperature within a black metal box (~40 deg. C), a black orgone accumulator (~34 deg. C.) and a white orgone accumulator (~27 deg. C.) versus outdoor air temperatures averaging ~26 deg. C. over the same period. But were these temperature averages also obtained without the inclusion of data for critical night and AM periods? We cannot tell, as the data are not supplied or graphed.[And again! What a broken record.] If they did not gather late night and morning data, or consider the effects of ordinary thermal lag, then the rest of the paper with the computations of efficiency and power estimates, loses validity.[A liturgical generalization worthy of the Holy Inquisition.] The Correa's work on these thermal-anomaly issues has yielded nothing outside of what is naturally expected from known causes -- there is no anomalous finding in their work, and certainly nothing by which they can rationally substitute their aetherometric theory for Reich's original orgonomy, much less for the ordinary thermodynamic principles of solar collector engineering. I should recommend, a standard solar oven or solar water heater would provide even higher temperatures, approaching the boiling point of water, and run a demonstration-model Sterling engine even later into the night![Tell him to read AS2-32 and buy the H/S DVD! And he might take the trouble to learn how to spell Stirling while he's at it.] Isn't that the kind of "optimal solar absorption" the standard control against which the Stirling engine/orgone accumulator apparatus should be compared?[Ditto for what he should read] Since undertaking the Correa-type "naked metal box" experiment summarized above, with negative results, I have made several months of additional To-T investigations using standard orgone accumulators, with quite positive results. These new experiments were not designed to produce any appreciable power output, but merely to demonstrate the orgone accumulator thermal anomaly under conditions where all known classical objections were taken into account. A small, strong orgone accumulator composed of galvanized steel and celetox fibreboard, with additional multiple layers of steel wool and cotton batting (with paper backing) were used for the accumulator. A thermally matched control enclosure was made, but with thin paperboard sheets substituted for the metal, and additional cotton batting added in the place of steel wool. The control enclosure was designed by empirical testing, where five sheets of paperboard used in the control were determined to have nearly the same thermal conductivity as the galvanized steel in the accumulator. Likewise, a certain thickness of cotton batting in the control was empirically determined to have the same thermal penetration as the steel wool in the accumulator. The wall construction for both accumulator and control were thereby adjusted and matched until their thermal dynamics were nearly identical, being within 0.05 degree C. of each other as determined by temporarily subjecting them to a heat source and then measuring the temperature rise and fall on the opposite side, using a sensitive thermistor.[We simply don't believe that such thermistors can be relied upon to make such a determination. He should have referenced what thermistor he has employed - and we'd bet that its error would be greater than that alone! Besides everything else, this guy is not just a hoarder when it comes to spending money on mercury thermometers, but he's also lazy - he believes that thermistors should do the job...What would Reich say of this? That he is armored against work and truth?] Further testing of the fully-assembled accumulator and control enclosures, by subjecting them to intense heating from both light bulbs and IR sources, showed their temperature curves to again be within around 0.05 degree, during both heating and cooling phases, with identical inflection points on the curves.[Has he realized then that he is looking at the error of the thermistors, in a calibration procedure??] This suggested the heat capacities of the accumulator and control enclosures were also nearly identical, and in fact the weights of the two finished enclosures were nearly identical. This kind of empirical testing gave assurance that under conditions when no artificial external heat source was present, any observed heating within the accumulator above 0.05 degree greater than the control would be potentially anomalous.[No, assuming 0.05 deg C is his SD, all this says is that his thermistors might detect as significant, differences greater than 2 times his standard deviation, not that these differences would thereby be anomalous. What a piece of ectoplasm devoid of any knowledge of statistics. Besides, it is not even clear he has performed any stats on these results.] This experiment...[What experiment? He calls a (potential) calibration an experiment???] ...was undertaken in the center of the ground floor of my 3-story laboratory building in the forested Greensprings region of Ashland, Oregon. The accumulator and control enclosure were isolated from incident sunlight or thermal IR sources, and windows were almost fully blacked out, but full ventilation was permitted.[So a ground floor with almost blacked out windows now has no IR penetration? This guy really missed his calling as a Catholic priest.] The experimental room closely matched outdoor temperatures, which ranged from approximately 10 to 30 degrees C. over the experimental period of several months.[Closely matched has no meaning, operational or otherwise, under these conditions!] The building itself was composed of wood composite exterior with 6" batts of fibreglass paper-backed wall insulation, and interior gypsum wallboard. Tall trees cast a shadow on both east and west walls, insuring that primarily the south wall of the building was heated by the sun -- the accumulator and control were therefore oriented side-by-side towards the south facing wall. They were placed on wood plank secured to a rotating tripod, at about 3'height, such that their positions could be changed to see how that might affect the readings -- reversing the positions of the accumulator and control did not show measurable differences in their readings.[This is an unending vacuous description of M&M with no values of any sort and sprinkled with such catch words as "measurable differences"...] Additional fibreboard panels were suspended from the ceiling to block out incident light and IR radiation from the walls and windows. A remote-sensing IR thermometer [!] was used to evaluate the temperatures of each interior wall, for optimal placement of the fibreboard panels, and their surfaces facing the accumulator-control enclosures were also evaluated, until observable differences were eliminated. The roof and upper floors of the laboratory building shielded out any downward-directed solar influences quite effectively, again as determined by direct measurement. In this manner, a "protected nest" was made for the thermal apparatus within the core of the insulated building. With windows covered to keep the room dark, suspended insulation panels between the interior walls and the experimental apparatus, periodic rotations of the experimental platform, and daily monitoring of interior wall and insulating panel temperatures by remote [a single !!!] IR thermometer [!], I was assured the interior temperatures of the "protected nest" was identical on all sides before the actual experimental runs were begun.[Mind-boggling! Tragic even.] Data was measured electronically by thermistors which were firstly calibrated by use of a calibration chamber. The thermistor wires were taped together, with the sensing elements placed inside a clear plastic air-tight container, without touching its walls, and the container was then inserted inside a one cubic foot calibration chamber composed of 2" white styrofoam, which also was made airtight. The calibration chamber was then subjected to various thermal environments, and the behavior of the thermistors evaluated. The thermistors were observed over a period of days and under various changing temperatures, ranging beyond what was anticipated for the actual To-T experiment. Measurements were recorded automatically to computer, and any necessary calibration adjustments were made electronically, until variations between the different thermistors were reduced to no more than around 0.05 degree.[Since he adjusts the calibration electronically, couldn't he have avoided the hassles of such unending precautions, all for nothing? We almost feel sorry for this guy. Clearly, he has not even heard of thermistor drift...] Once this was done, without shutting off the computer [An important note, since it may all go south if the computer is shut down...], the thermistors were transferred into the accumulator and control enclosures, which were made air-tight. Measurements were made at the upper-interior and within an isolated airtight chamber above the inner metal surface of the accumulator, or above the inner paperboard surface of the control. Air temperatures were monitored, but due to the issues of thermal lag, they were not considered relevant [!] to this experiment except as a measure to evaluate any differences in open air temperatures from one side of the "protected nest" to the other.[In other words, it mattered little whether the building was being heated up or not by the sun, or whether it was sunny outside or cloudy, etc, etc. Superb.] At the end of each experimental run, without ever shutting of the computer [! Whose constant heat generation was negligible... How far did he place his computer? And how long were the cables he used? Coursing through what?], the thermistors were placed back into the calibration chamber and double-checked to insure they had remained in calibration throughout the measuring period. The first series of experimental runs applying this methodology, and lasting from one to five days each were started in July 2003, and continued sequentially through November 2003.[Where is the data for such an assertion? Did he take into account the time that it takes for air to heat up under solar radiation? That is one of the meanings of a lag...] The To-T readings were from near zero to +0.1 deg. C. during the night periods, but as soon as dawn broke, with solar excitation of the Earth's orgone energy field, the thermal anomaly developed and grew to around +0.3 deg. C. on sunny days, less on cloudy days. On a few sunny days, peaks of up to +0.5 deg. C. were noted.[Did he control for nearly-instantaneous electric factors that are well known to affect thermistor drift? Had he used mercury thermometers that confirmed these values he would have ruled out these electrical factors... And what is the possible relevance of these experiments to the present H/S experiment - when they more likely appear to be a reproduction of the Reich-Einstein experiment??] Around sunset, the effect diminished, but not always so. On rainy days, the effect nearly vanished altogether. Much depends, as Reich noted, upon the weather.[Everything depends on the weather, including the disappearance of electric thermistor drift due to increased humidity...] Some preliminary observations suggested a lunar-cycle component [Hoia! What a selenite!] in the data, which could never be explained as the consequence of solar-thermal effects. And most importantly, no thermal lag effects were observed.[Thermal lag with respect to what??? Since outdoor temperatures were discarded and indoor ones not controlled for thermistor drift, this is vacuous.] 2. The To-T effect grows in proportion to the number of layers or plys used to construct the orgone accumulator. A "naked metal box" and even a one-ply accumulator showed basically a zero effect -- no thermal anomaly - as compared to a thermally-balanced control. A two-ply accumulator showed the first appearance of the thermal anomaly as compared to its appropriate control enclosure, to around +0.15 deg. C., while a 3-ply accumulator increased the phenomenon to the levels of +0.3 to +0.5 deg. C., as described in point #1, above. Theoretically, we might expect continued orgone-accumulating layers or plys to progressively increase temperature, and work continues along those lines, to see how much the effect might be increased.[Good, that should keep him busy, try a fifty-ply ORAC...] 3. In the absence of any downward-directed IR radiation, the interior of the accumulator is almost always warmer than the temperature in the upper chamber, arguably because that is where the thermal anomaly is being created -- inside the accumulator, after which it slowly dissipates to the exterior. Early in development of the experiment, I observed the upper chamber temperature could be artifactually increased if the top of the accumulator or control was accidentally illuminated, even by a ceiling light bulb at a considerable distance.[In other words, he discovered what Rothwell's daughter also discovered. And no account was given for the heat from his computer being constantly turned on...] I therefore insured no such direct or even significant diffuse light from any artificial sources would enter the "protected nest" where measurements were made. Fibreboard insulating panels were thereafter inserted between even the smallest of light sources and the accumulator/control enclosures, and I attempted to run the entire experiment under dark conditions, with only minimal and occasional dim lighting off in the corners of the room.[So, his light sources did not heat the air circulating between the panels...] 4. Other completely separate control experiments were undertaken in direct sunlight, using a one-ply accumulator (1/2" fibreboard and galvanized steel) and thermally-balanced control enclosure (1/2" fibreboard and paperboard) of identical shape, size and color, mounted to a telescope tripod and allowed to "track the sun" so as to guarantee equal exposures. This approach confirmed dramatically that the upper chamber of the metal-lined accumulator was basically a solar-infrared heat-trap, reflecting the downward-directed solar IR back upwards off the top metal layer of the accumulator, heating it up mechanically.[How is it that because he observed heating by exposure to the sun he can automatically assume this was due to IR photons??? Petition of principle.] I was able to get "To-T" readings of around +20 degrees C (!) [Houaw, this must a first, with his exclamation mark!] using this method -- but I attribute no "anomalous" orgone-energy significance to these readings whatsoever, as the interior To-T readings inside the accumulator have not matched this superficially "amazing" result.[So, he has rediscovered thermal lag, and so has invalidated the observation. Thereby also, Reich's claim of larger To-T values under direct exposure to the sun are also invalidated. It is all photons, so no need exists to understand how photons are produced and heat is evolved. Peabrain!] By comparison, my To-T experiments undertaken indoors in the "protected nest" show an excitation curve matching what happens outside with ordinary daytime. Even an accumulator kept in the dark responds to the sun [nothing stunning, since we had shown the same already in the R-E expt!, and without the doubts associated with thermistor drift as contributed by electric factors and varying humidity!] , confirming Reich's findings on the mechanism of orgonotic excitation and lumination in the production of heat.No curves, no data points, no humidity measurements inside and outside, no controls with good old calibrated mercury thermometers, no analysis of thermistor drift, no accounting of hidden heat sources (his computer, the light bulbs shielded by panels, his cup of coffee, etc), no exclusion of fast-acting electric factors. At best he has provided an oral confirmation of the R-E experiment. At worst it is all baloney based upon his electronic compensations. Give a computer to a fool and he will prove just about anything. In our view, to publish this shit would demean IE. To respond to it - in IE - would demean both us and you. Not to mention the amount of work required to separate it into the proper contexts. He has failed to read the relevant material (AS2-04, ACT-1, AS2-32) but drones endlessly as though he had. He has equally failed to address the question of latent heat, and failed to separate thermal lags due to penetration times from thermal lags due to the role of latent heat - which remain blissfully unmentioned. He has illegitimately assimilated very different experiments and treats them all as one indistinguishable stew. And he has failed to address the H/S paper - save for his ridiculous mantras regarding Fig. 1. Moreover, in stark contrast to Reich, he believes that solar radiation is solar light, and even that, he reduces to IR photons alone - yet provides no experimental proof for the assertion, save for his foggy mental attributions. We think it would be a grave mistake to publish this garbage and oblige us to do undue work when he has not had the verticality to address our many published criticisms of his spurious contentions. His gratuitious suppression of our work should be matched by contempt towards his Sisyphus-like travails. Let him publish this garbage elsewhere, that is our advice to you. |