So, putting the device in the shade will neither completely eliminate the effect of solar radiation (there
are only degrees of shade), nor of absorption of local sensible heat, nor will its failure to operate in the
shade - in light of the delta T range limit - permit one to conclude anything whatsoever from the null
result [ie not being able to drive an engine].
In fact, as we see it, there never was a real need for a control in our minds, since the question was
instead - can one produce a To-T large enough to drive the large delta of the MM6, without it being an
artifact of transporting either cool or warm boxes from the inside of buildings to the outside. But we
note the following:
1. With the top Stirling plate shaded, and the bottom plate on a table exposed to the sun, the motor failed
to run despite repeated attempts carried out around noontime; hence the box volume was needed.
2. With the Stirling assembly mounted atop the naked Faraday cage, that is, without the other three
BORAC sides, and with the top Stirling plate shaded, the device [ie the modified MM6] also failed to
operate. This means that the top plate of the cage (bottom plate of the Stirling motor) was neither
uniformly heated, nor sufficiently warm.
Ken also fails to realize - as stated in the paper - that for the large delta T values employed, on the order
of 9-13°C, the corresponding To-T values were much greater, on the order of 15-20°C. There is no way
that any ORAC will output such To-T values in whatever it is he means by total shade.
Even if one tried the technique of wet rag evaporation that you reported ASC to have suggested - and
which is the reasoning behind the cooler temperature of the wet thermometer of a psychrometer - this
would at most add 2-3°C, but not in a dark room or at night!
Moreover, we fail to see the rationale or the cogency of the reasoning regarding the plastic box control.
Ken really proceeds as if there are two avenues - thermalization of solar electromagnetic radiation vs
what he calls orgone generation of sensible heat. We proceed very differently here - electromagnetic
radiation is always thermalized! It is optothermal radiation - that exists locally and is not transmitted
from the sun. It is, moreover, absorbed by black surfaces quite efficiently, and thus one of the sources
of the heat moving that Stirling. But we have already demonstrated, and feel no real necessity to have to
re-demonstrate again here in the Stirling video or paper (those who want to know about it should read
AS2-05), that a significant portion of the sensible heat of ORACs results from the conversion of the
latent heat they concentrate and which can be quantified electroscopically (and not from orgone directly)
[later, the study of the HYBORAC/Stirling permitted better determinations of latent heat that
essentially provided a correction to the under-estimations of the electroscopic method]. There is no
visual way to demonstrate this with the Stirling, because it responds to the total sensible heat output,
whether the device is in the shade or in the sun.
We also object to the notion that wooden boxes have greater thermal insulation than plastic boxes - it is
usually the other way around, but even that depends on the nature of the plastic, the density and type of
wood, etc. Yet it is easy to see what the objection to the plastic box control not working would be - that
it failed to transduce sufficient heat to the bottom plate of the Stirling, and this could be made sure to
happen simply by making that plate also plastic. So, in no way would this necessarily rule out the
classical explanation. You see, the problem is that Ken is not posing the problem (or the meaning of
controls) adequately with respect to all of its variables and implications. An experiment like this can
never be an analytical experiment, only a demonstration that the heat from a modified BORAC is
sufficient to run a Stirling with a delta such and such under such and such conditions. That is all.
If he wants answers to the other questions, then those are to be found in our monographs. In fact, he
appears to be arguing almost along the lines of those skeptics' state-of-mind - by suggesting that unless
we warm their coffee, education and understanding are useless. This is the kind of Rothwellian position
that we thought our discussions with you had long overcome. Professional skeptics will never be
convinced by anything. And there is nothing we intend to do which is directed at them, as if they were
our reference frame or signifier. And one does not turn a nonanalytical experiment into an analytical
experiment by designing controls that further muddy the water. This underlines our apprehensions in
engaging in a mere business venture when atop it all the individuals involved lack the grasp of the
aetherometric tools.
(...) Obviously, we never regarded the Stirling experiment as something that could stand on its own, in
isolation from the rest of the story. The combat in science is often between two different ways of
looking at the same event. And unless other elements are brought into consideration, that event by itself
can never be the deciding factor.
Subject: Re: Orgone Accumulators and Stirling Engines
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:06:59 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: George Lyons
> Your coverage of driving Stirling engines with orgone accumulators
> described by the Correa's is puzzling.
Dear Mr. Lyons,
I do very much appreciate reader feedback, especially from an IE subscriber. However, I am puzzled by
your puzzlement! It is quite clearly brought out through our extensive discussions of the Correas' work
and the various anomalous processes that they report, and to which I have testified to, that: 1. The
experimental back up of the anomaly is extensive and 2. An in-depth theoretical discussion of the physics
of the aether as proposed by the Correas is available on their web site www.aetherometry.com We have
provided brief summaries and overviews of some aspects of the theory, as have they in their various
articles. Perhaps these have slipped by you? I urge you to look at the resources available on that site. In
the future in IE, we plan additional generalized discussions of aetherometry
Sincerely,
Dr. Mallove
P.S. See several annotations below.
>The fact a heat source will drive
> a Stirling engine is already known, and the fact these Faraday cages
> exhibit some anomalous heat source was already established
[Note: by these authors, in Gene's IE!]
> without devoting
> a dozen pages to details of getting a good coupling to a Stirling
> engine. At the same time, what one would think are obvious scientific
> questions about the subject received no explanation, nor any resources.
> It is important in this respect to understand that scientific questions are
> not simply matters of whether an anomaly exists. The important questions
> about an anomaly are what its nature is, what properties it has, how
> different theories about it can be tested. The fact you have tested
> accepted theory and successfully disproved it, is barely the
> beginning. For example, I saw no report of evidence that the heat source
> had anything to do with a Faraday cage as such, instead of just being a
> property of any object whatever -- where was the control?
Controls WERE discussed!
> Or is this a
> property of metals, which just happened to have been tested in these ways
> in cages? If it is Faraday cages which produce heat, a critical matter
> should be why the heat appears at the top of the cage; what in fact, can
> even distinguish one side of the cage from another with respect to the heat
> source? If it really takes a cage and heat appears on only one side,
> fundamental questions arise about what role the cold sides play and how
> they influence the hot side. These are just examples of the kinds of
> questions that have to be investigated.
> There seems to be a principle of logic missing in this coverage: once a
> defect in accepted theory is established, there is no presumption of
> validity of any offered alternative theory; it is open season on what the
> explanation is. The important questions then are to distinguish between
> mutliple different alternative phsysics, none of which would be what we now
> accept. Existence of a heat anomaly without question alone establishes
> none of the theory offered so far to explain it without extensive analysis
> and incisive experiment. Yet your coverage does not even explain the
> particular theories which have been offered, which clearly is not something
> readers can be expected to be familiar with, such as references to
> "ambipolar" energy, whatever that is. Devoting numerous pages to details
> of coupling a Stirling engine we already know about, while saying little
> about what theory has been offered about it, is practically bizarre in this
> context.
> Part of the problem I call attention to may arise from covering what is
> works of inventors instead of science per se.
Science BEGINS with experiment, which shows that there is a flaw in conventional theory, because that
conventional theory certainly cannot explain the Reich thermal anomaly. Whether or not a new theory is
put forth to explain the anomaly is irrelevant to the fact that the experiment itself is the highest form of
science. However, in this case (the Correa work), there IS an extensive theoretical structure that is being
referenced.
> The purpose of this coverage
> seems to be in the nature of investment promotion, establishing that
> someone has some unique knowledge of a portentious anomaly we should invest in.
That was NOT the purpose of the coverage.
> Nothing wrong with that, but it has a limited scope. Unfortunately,
> the mere existence of an anomaly even when unquestionable, and even one
> which overthrows accepted theory, only goes so far, even as far as
> promoting an investment. About all one can do about it is wait for
> products to appear in stores.
In other words, you are saying that you cannot begin to judge the worth of scientific measurements and
discussions if you do not see a product in a store first?
Here was the scientific principle being applied to Faraday cages in the dark, day and
night, as in the Reich-Einstein experiment; here was the scientific principle being
applied to modified Orgone Accumulators that could drive the MM6 seven hours into a
cold night, sustaining throughout that time a temperature difference of 4°C, ten times
greater than that observed in the Reich-Einstein experiment - and 'reasonable'
scientists, such as these, did not think it mattered to investigate it?
This absence of curiousity was simply amazing to all of us. But even more amazing was
the fact that all those self-proclaimed Reichians, petty or institutional, who so much
decry the lack of consideration - in ongoing scientific studies - to Reich's observations,
did not even have the courage to come clean and to thank us for what we and
Gene had done - for we had not only put the experiment that Reich had shown to
Einstein back on the map, but even more importantly, we had demonstrated the
accuracy of Reich's belief that his accumulator might one day have a role in the
development of a new, clean energy technology. This was infinitely more than any of
these Reichians had ever done for Reich's credibility, let alone for his work.
Yes, we had already accomplished the same with our work on the Aether Motor and the
utilization of the real Vacor principle in that Aether Motor. But this time, with the
HYBORAC/Stirling method, we were accomplishing it with a much simpler
technology, a free-energy technology that had been right under the noses of all those
Reichians for years, ever since Reich had stated that solar radiation was not composed
of light or of heat, but of what he had termed orgone radiation - and proceeded to
expose his accumulators to the sun. Tesla, too, some three decades earlier, had
suggested that solar radiation was electric in nature and composed of longitudinal
waves. Furthermore, the Reichians had all this time failed to realize that this radiation
transforms into latent heat inside those Faraday cages - and that this latent heat is the
direct or local source of the sensible heat anomaly detectable in the dark, under the
stringent conditions of the Reich-Einstein experiment, and maximalizable under direct
solar exposure.
This lack of grasp of the Reich material, the very material that Reichians bandied about as if it were a
Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, left us all aghast, but the symmetric reaction that met
our work on the other side of the shallow divide - where, to Gene's astonishment,
scientists righteously ignored the new functions we proposed for latent and sensible
heats - was just as shocking. Proceeding to the most effective, time-honored means of
suppression of information, they either enveloped the reports in silence, or denounced
them for idiotic claims that they themselves invented.
Meanwhile, given the absence of a sponsor for this extraordinary, yet simple
technology, we were forced to abandon the provisional patent application. At the time
when this happened, the experiments had not yet succeeded in producing a clear, round-
the-clock operation of the Stirling engine - though we were pressing ever closer to this
milestone. In early 2003, improvements to the HYBORAC construction had extended
the performance further and then, at last, in the Spring of that year, just before we went
down to New Hampshire to visit Gene, critical modifications to the construction of the
device yielded, not only round-the-clock operation, but comparably efficient daytime
and nighttime outputs with a solid mean of 2 watts. This, then, was the major
breakthrough - on both the theoretical and the prototypic setup fronts - we had been
convinced was achievable through the strict application of aetherometric solutions to
the few remaining problems. Though Gene and we kept these modifications secret, we
planned two papers on the measurement of the power outputs of the
HYBORAC/Stirling and its continuous 48-hour performance. And Gene, being so
excited with the results now achieved, pressed us not only to finish these reports as
soon as possible, but to produce another DVD, this time dedicated to this burgeoning
new technology. As it happened, the
last of the reports came out
first - in November 2003, at Akronos Publishing - followed by the DVD
Free Power
around-the-clock, whereas the third paper of the series only appeared in January
2004, in #53 of IE, with an excellent editorial by Gene, entitled The New
'Solar' Power. Little did any of us expect that this third HYBORAC paper
would be Gene's last research paper.
As the earlier material began to be published, Gene, incapable of containing himself,
sent a message to Vortex-l on Nov. 4, 2003 - a message which is telling, for he chose to comment
on the scientific significance of the new HYBORAC/Stirling technology:
The new Stirling Hyborac monograph, is also a profound illustration of the presence of available aether
energy -- which ORACs evidently capture from latent heat produced by solar-sourced ambipolar radiation
(this latent heat is intimately related to the "latent heat" spoken of in conventional steam/water physics,
but which is poorly understood --actually not understood at all-- there is extensive discussion of this in
the Correa monographs). This is, in part, what Graneau et al have been seeing in their arc discharge
experiments in air and in water. The Stirling has been calibrated by the Correas with resistance heaters
(one can read about this in the monograph), which proves that the average for 48 hours round-the-
clock sensible heat (at the Stirling hot plate, sitting on top of the Faraday cage) developed within the
Faraday cage is about 2 watts! This is a huge continuous power source from what is clearly unexpected
environmental energy -- unless someone can find a flaw in the published measurements, and the other
fundamental thermal/electric/gravitational studies that they have published.
The energy source is : 1. NOT LENR or cold fusion reactions; 2. NOT capture of sensible heat from
the environment; 3. NOT Puthoff et al's "ZPE"; 3. NOT Mills' hydrinos; 4. NOT from "dark energy"
or "dark matter". It is ultimately from massfree aether (the non-inertial "substance" from which all
inertial matter -- and all electric "charge" -- ultimately derives and is composed). In order to study this
energy source, once must carefully resolve the very real anomalies that have been described by the
Correas (building on the work of Wilhelm Reich), both thermal and electroscope-related -- both in
ORACs as well as concerns naked electroscopes. Just as in the case of LENR or cold fusion, to
understand its experimental reality, one must carefully study the anomalies therein i.e. READ about and
STUDY them.
The bottom line in all of this work is the following: there is NO SUCH THING as "empty space." You
may evacuate all molecular and atomic species to your heart's content and you will still have a perpetual
source of energy in that mass-evacuated space -- most elegantly seen in the Correa DVD (available at
www.aethera.org) where additional evacuated glass tubes added to the aether motor circuit make the
motor run faster and faster. This aether is massfree and it does NOT carry electromagnetic waves. The
Michelson/Morley experiment stands. Light is NOT what has been thought and modeled. Photons are
local productions only. Obviously EM mathematical models work and are fine for most conventional
engineering systems, but they most certainly do not work for a comprehensive description of nature.
Energy can be developed for real, technical machines that does NOT come from E=mc^2 mass
conversion. There is much more to nature than conventionally understood mass and conventionally
understood charge and conventionally understood EM theory....Once again, as in the failure of the
mathematized fictions known as Special and General Relativity, one sees that an incomplete view of
nature is presented by a restricted view of experimental measurements -- i.e. picking and choosing
what experiments one wishes to consider. This goes equally for conventional bigoted "thinkers" such as
Park and Zimmerman, for advanced theorists and pioneering experimenters such as Randell Mills and
their followers (e.g. Tom Stolper), and for pioneering theorists and experimenters in the CF/LENR field.
In Infinite Energy #53, which will be out in January (#52 will appear in late November), a joint paper by
the Correas and me will have further discussion of the calibration of these Stirling/Hyboracs - some of
this first-principles mechanical calibration was done in New Hampshire by me, and confirmed by other
mechanical methods in Canada, but the present downloadable monograph is exclusively the work of the
Correas.
Those who continue not to read and study and not to perform these experiments, and who come up with
all manner of ridiculous and bigoted excuses for not doing so will get what they deserve -- more
wandering around in a swamp of perpetual confusion. Good luck in yours studies...
Finally, to answer why, in general, the Correas -- and I too -- do not attempt to carry on lengthy technical
discussions on this Vortex-l forum, Paulo Correa provides a comprehensive answer
[i.e. The Serpent's Tooth].
I happen to
agree with most all of its generalities and particulars, but it is HIS message to Vortex. I am sure that
other attacked individuals and companies may feel the same way, differing perhaps only in the matter of
degree. Fortunately, there are now other venues in which accuracy and open-mindedness are valued.
Gene, of course, was determined to not let that paralytic wall of silence fall over our
work. And he was committed to this not only by virtue of his multiple verifications and
confirmations, not only by his evolving understanding, but also by the fact that we had
all spent so much time experimentally tightening up the discoveries. Gene was directly
involved in the HYBORAC/Stirling project, and while it never ceased to astonish him
that such a simple technology - lying at the intersection of Stirling's and Reich's distinct
legacies - had for so long been within reach, right "under the nose" of
investigators, as it were, but somehow invisible to them, even more astonishing was that
those very investigators seemed absolutely determined to keep it invisible.
Around the same time, another gratuitous attack on this work was mounted by one
Roger Wilcox. It was every bit as devious as the other attacks on our work, but with
the added twist of now amalgamating our 'damned authorship' (one that even figures in
DeMeo's Summa Index) to so-called 'orgonomists'. Consequently, we sent this Roger
Rabbit his dues -
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
To: Roger Wilcox
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:05:47 -0500
Subject: Reich accumulators
Re: http://pw1.netcom.com/~rogermw/Reich/accumulators.html
To Mr. Roger Wilcox -
One may well understand that you may not like the person of W. Reich nor his work - but that you go
out of your way to be intellectually dishonest and to then extend that dishonesty to our work - while
openly stating you have never bothered to read the material but that you are able to guess its content from
reading the abstracts of two of our four papers on the matter - that, let us tell you, is in our book nothing
short of debile!
We shall pass over your imbecillic contention about mounting a turbine upon an ORAC while including
ventilation holes for its operation - which plainly shows you have understood NOTHING of the complex
meteorological physics of latent versus sensible heat inside a simple Faraday cage. Your ridiculous
suggestion is pure quackery. But then, you go on to talk about testing the accuracy of Reich's findings
of the thermal anomaly, and make a suggestion which you simply decided to steal from those abstracts of
our work:
"Or: place a Stirling engine over the top of the accumulator, and use the heat differential to drive the
piston."
Brilliant Roger Rabbit! But what is it you have discovered? That, "apparently, two modern orgonomists
[sic], Paulo N. Correa and Alexandra N. Correa, have attempted to build the latter device."
It was 'your idea', so to speak, but apparently others have tried -- unsucessfully, of course -- to build it.
Moreover, you deliberately misrepresent the facts when you call us "orgonomists". And you deliberately
misreprent the facts when you intimate we have failed -
"They present abstracts of their findings on this webpage, but the complete articles must be purchased in
order to read them. Even from the abstracts, though, their findings do not appear to be anything that
can't be explained by conventional physics. The first experiment (code-named AS2-25) used an
accumulator painted black and set out in direct sunlight - of course such a device will have a higher
internal temperature than its surroundings, for obvious reasons. The second experiment (code-named
AS2-26) seems a bit more promising on the surface, because it was done at night. However, they used
the same black painted accumulator from the first experiment, which had been out in the sun before the
experiment began and thus had already acquired quite a bit of conventional solar heating before the
experiment began."
If you weren't so astoundingly ignorant, it would almost be funny to hear your invocation of the
expression "conventional solar heating". What's that, O rabbit? You have paid absolutely no attention to
what is being said - how boxes made of reflective metal remain hotter than their surroundings even in
dark and cold basements (see our paper on the Reich-Einstein experiment), how both the sensible and the
latent heats are derived from solar radiation, how we have demonstrated, with improved ORACs,
sensible heat outputs and Stirling motor outputs during nighttime that ARE COMPARABLE to those
during daytime (see our monograph AS2-32 that you purposefully fail to mention -- yes, we almost
forgot, it is necessary to pay in order to actually become informed on the subject which you prefer to just
inanely spout about), and how - completely unpredictably to any conventional thought - these boxes can
output more than 2 watts of sensible heat around the clock, day and night! You gloss over these facts
not, we submit, because you lack the funds to purchase the material, but simply because you are a
dishonest little intellectual whore, ready, at the drop of a hat, to shamelessly lie about the hard work of
others, be it Reich or the Correas (who's paid you to do this? we can only wonder). Lies is apparently
what you, Roger Wilcox, strive to excel at:
"The Correas' results were concerned with how rapidly the MM-6 motor was rotating, not with how
much power or torque was actually being generated."
Well, from the abstract of that AS2-32 monograph you choose not to mention, you could have learned
that we calculate both the output power of that Stirling and the sensible heat produced by a simple box
with 8 cubic inches. We leave it up to you and your readers, if you have any, to find out the exact
values that we report, and to pay, as one should, for our hard work. Let it be known, however, that our
simple technology has already surpassed, by a long shot, both photovoltaic and passive solar
technologies. Maybe you, Mr. Wilcox, should get informed about what it is exactly that emanates from
the palm of your hand. It is hardly as miniscule as you pretend.
Paulo Correa, MSc, PhD
Alexandra Correa, HBA
To which this abusive Wilcox responded:
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 23:41:35 -0800
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
From: Roger M. Wilcox
Subject: Re: Reich accumulators
At 11:05 PM 12/1/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>about), and how - completely unpredictably to any conventional
>thought - these boxes can output more than 2 watts of sensible
>heat around the clock, day and night!
>[ ... ]
>to mention, you could have learned that we calculate both the output
>power of that Stirling and the sensible heat produced by a simple box
>with 8 cubic inches. We leave it up to you and your readers, if you have
>any, to find out the exact values that we report, and to pay, as one
>should, for our hard work. Let it be known, however, that our simple
>technology has already surpassed, by a long shot, both photovoltaic
>and passive solar technologies.
Well, then! That sounds like a duly impressive discovery. Why haven't your findings been published in
any of the peer-reviewed scientific journals?
This feckless response from Wilcox brought to mind nothing so much as those words
of W. Reich, the man Mr. Wilcox seems so obsessed with loving to hate - perhaps because
he described so well the Wilcoxes of the world: "But when the discovery comes out in
the paper, little man, then you believe it whether you understand it or not."
So we responded -
From: Alexandra and Paulo Correa
To: Roger Wilcox
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:38:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Reich accumulators
> Well, then! That sounds like a duly impressive discovery.
> Why haven't your findings been published in any of the peer-reviewed
> scientific journals?
Dear Mr. Wilcox,
We are very pleased with your response; it crystallizes, with great clarity, the true nature of your
endeavour. You are not a skeptic; you are a chaser of official opinion -- a condition somewhat akin to
ambulance chasing. You attach yourself to the coat tails of official opinion, and derive benefits --
whether just those of mental satisfaction, or some others -- from jeering at what official opinion has
already rejected, and what it is therefore "safe" to "be skeptical" about. No, dear Mr. Wilcox, this is not
skepticism. A skeptic exercises his skepticism first and foremost on the opinions of official opinion. He
strives for deep and exhaustive knowledge of his subject, and wrenches his own opinions on the subject
by the hard work of first-hand analysis and experimentation. If you were a skeptic, you would learn,
think, experiment, and carefully examine, before expressing an opinion. And you would apply your
skepticism not just to the work of Reich or of the Correas, but also, and equally, to the process of peer-
review.
Yours,
Paulo Correa, MSc, PhD
Alexandra Correa, HBA
We copied Gene and the Aetherometry Study Group (ASG) on this exchange, and
Gene, in response, sent the following message to the ASG:
Subject: Re: [ASG] Message to All
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:53:21 -0500
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Aetherometry Study Group
Dear All,
Let me take this opportunity (...) to make some general comments and observations.
First, I thank A&P for noting the etheric whereabouts (of the www "ether" variety) of this vile creature,
Roger Wilcox. I suppose his site bears some study to examine the psychopathology of his skeptical
certainty about EVERYTHING! Their put-down of this person was most apt -- too bad it had to be done
after they evidently have completed some extensive travels. They did not need this for a homecoming
present...
Sigh.... this material from Wilcox I had the poor fortune to examine after I had devoted many, many
hours in recent days to studying and restudying monographs and parts of monographs pertaining to the
Stirling/Hyborac performance. This, in preparation for writing commentary in Infinite Energy issue #53
(out in January), which will introduce a paper by A&P, with yours truly as co-author, on the
Hyborac/Stirling area -- albeit the paper covering a much reduced scope -- but I will be commenting in
IE on the staggering implications of both papers. Worry wart that I am, I continue to try to find flaws in
the methodology, but I can find none -- I don't think I'll find any, but it is good to look! What a shame
to have to coexist on this orb with the likes of the self-satisfied Wilcoxes, who glibly brush away
experiments by -- OF COURSE! -- not reading about them in detail, and, to be sure, by also NOT
DOING THEM. We mere mortals have to be content with the tough work of reading, studying, and
doing...
The HYBORAC work had been yet another eye-opener for Gene: for here was a simple
technology with a new analytical model extracted from a variety of experimental lines
of investigation, and yet those he turned to for what he hoped would be intelligent
feedback flatly refused to inform themselves by looking at the FACTS. Reichian,
orthodox or alternative - no matter the orientation of these commentators, journalists,
scientists and engineers, the behavior was the same sanctimonious ignorance and
imbecility. And he knew just how sneaky were the ways of Rothwell and Storms and
others of their ilk or their club - how these people derided, at every opportunity,
the work we were engaged with, using the sole weapon they had at their disposal - confusion.
This is witnessed by a letter (of Oct 2, 2003) from a prospective sponsor who approached this dynamic duo
with questions about Aetherometry:
"Mr. Rothwell, in particular, exclaimed (...) that the power [of the Stirling engine] was being driven by
heat differentials - just as a sterling [sic] engine will run on a hot cup of coffee."
This idiocy is rather like exclaiming that the sky is blue when the sun comes up.
We expected nothing less from the ignorant mouth of Rothwell - but such nonsense
nevertheless obliged us to spend time in
responding
to this potential sponsor and to Rothwell's supposed objection. Thus it is that one spends much too much of
one's precious time fighting oblique assaults or miscomprehension organized by
competitors and jealous brides, or otherwise fighting irrelevant and fantasistic
objections:
"And so now we jump into yet another ill-digested non-reading of still another of our lines of research.
This is such a ridiculous assertion that it can hardly even qualify as a bone of contention. Obviously, a
heat engine - such as the Stirling engine - is ALWAYS driven from thermal differences. The question is,
rather, HOW are specific thermal differences sustained around the clock, even under stringent
conditions, such as in our reproduction of the Reich-Einstein experiment. That's the question. (...) This
idiotic "allegation" only proves, once more, that neither Rothwell nor Storms have the slightest idea of
what they so brainlessly speak about. The fact is that, in its present stage of development, the
STIRLING/HYBORAC technology (developed by the ABRI, not by Labofex) has already far surpassed
the present capability of any cold fusion cell these 'gentlemen' may care to offer."
And the fact is that these cold-fusioneers are not only jealous, but felt directly
threatened by the modified Orgone Accumulator which was already generating, around
the clock, 2 watts of thermal power, while after 16 years of cold fusion research there
still isn't a single cold-fusion cell that can do this (apparently, not even Swartz's last
gizmo), despite the dwindling hopes Gene had had that a cold-fusion device might, at last,
still emerge. A hard assessment of the record of Cold Fusion reveals that it more
and more resembles the record of Thermonuclear Fusion. Granted, the money that's
been poured into it is not in the trillions, but it is probably approaching the half-billion
to a billion mark. And what has it generated that a modified Orgone Accumulator
exposed to the elements, day and night, hasn't already done and surpassed - without any
wires, any electronics, or the finnicky uncontrolled parameters?
And these are the people that claim that everything is known about heating boxes with
'solar heat'? Why don't they do the computations and verify what heat it takes to
output an average of 2 watts around the clock for an 8 inch cube? Buenos dias,
señores!
—> Next section
Table of Contents