|
<— Previous section
Subject: Re: Suggestions, Sponsors & Sterling Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 13:47:54 -0500 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa Dear Paulo and Alex, (...) We have some very good news on the cold fusion front. It appears that we have mastered sonofusion, Roger Stringham's devices as redesigned by us. It looks well suited to sale as a demonstration device. Our most recent performance was about 19 electrical watts input, 8+ watts excess , i.e about 27 watts output. If we can do this again with a duplicate set of equipment, we plan to go into production with kits immediately.
It was as if a full circle was finally emerging in Gene's thought. Having seen our
equations for complex superimposition in nuclear reactions and the proposed reactor
design, Gene suggested that he should more agressively target the CF community.
Alternative physicists, and cold-fusioneers in particular, needed to understand why they
had been failing and how the way forward depended upon their learning of the new
aetherometric physics. On the eve of ICCF-9 he wrote:
Subject: Re: Various - 5/8/02 Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:39:47 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
Dear Alex and Paulo, Going with mixed feelings. (...) On the one hand a curiosity to visit China and desire to listen to interesting technical representations, but also sadness with the slow progress in CF and the understanding that the aether as facilitator is most probably at the source of it all and the CF researchers will not wake up to that possibility no matter what I tell them. Also, my unease at having to "small talk" and fight with JR, who will attend too. Fortunately -- NOT on the same plane! > A hug, dear Gene. A big HUG from me! Gene
Meanwhile, as ICCF-9 was happening in China, Gene wrote about his impressions there:
Subject: From China Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 08:54:34 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa Dear Alex and Paulo Just wanted you to know that ICCF9 is going fine and that we can be in e-mail contact. I feel very alienated here. This is the first ICCF I've attended post my great awakening of Aug. 27, 2000. The phenomena reported here are all legitimate, but I have the strong impression that the CF researchers are glimpsing the tiniest aspect of a new reality. Still a bit jet-lagged but able to get along. This is a very unusual country -- a strange mixture of the old and the new. The social interaction is most peculiar. They get very confused and upset if the slightest departure from expected or accepted practice occurs! Will be very glad to get back to NH. We are exactly 12 hours ahead of you in time. All good wishes, Gene
Undaunted, Gene pursued the matter - now he wanted us to go on the attack on the
issue of nuclear fusion:
Subject: Storms' full response to me + My #44 editorial Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:21:51 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
Dear Alex and Paulo, Even though you may resist it, I suggest again a "small project" for you that I once mentioned: An essay, in general and specific terms for IE, critiquing the quandary that the CF field finds itself in because it is unwilling, in general, to consider an enlarged domain of physics or that mainstream physics has serious flaws. My editorial in the next issue, "The Boundaries of Cold Fusion" addresses that matter -- see attached Quark file. What you would write would be more specific, perhaps. Just a thought (...)
Subject: Re: Your recent mail Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:14:17 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa DEAR ALEX AND PAULO, USING UPPER CASE TO IDENTIFY MY REPLIES. GOOD TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE. (...)
>Dear Gene,
>>>>> Have you gathered the requisite [NEF] board members yet?
>>>> Yes. Five excellent people have agreed (...)
>>> This appears to be an excellent board. Is (...) the only source of
>>There are a handful of others who I think will contribute quickly, but,
>We'll keep our fingers crossed that you may find them! We thank you GOOD THOUGHT. THERE ARE NEVER ASSURANCES IN THIS AREA, AS YOU KNOW. IT'S A COIN TOSS AT BEST. (...)
>>>In any case we still have our feelers out on this while having already
>>Jed is [a] boor and a creep. I have done nothing wrong. He, by contrast has been
>Indeed, what he has done to you is even worse than what he has done to us. (...). IF IT WERE JUST A MALLOVE/ROTHWELL PARTNERSHIP IT WOULD BE A SIMPLER MATTER. STILL, I CONTINUE TO COMPOSE IN MY MIND. A LETTER SUGGESTING SOME KIND OF SPLIT. IT WILL BE MUCH EASIER IF I CAN EFFECT THE NEW ENERGY FOUNDATION.
>>As for Ed Storms, I think the influence has gone the
>That may well be the case. We read the Storms letter, which was quite THE UNIFORMITY OF RESPONSE IS AMAZING. THE ARMOURING AT WORK.
(...)
>>My hope is that we can jointly work on aetherometry in a a successful
>That, for us, is not 'victory' over Rothwell, but over an epoch! Yet, IT SEEMS THAT WAY TO ME TOO, BUT I STILL HAVE MUCH MORE FIGHT IN ME!! (...) TODAY WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT TIME. IT IS THE "INTERNET AGE" -- GRATIFICATION MUST BE INSTANT AND 'GEE WHIZ.' UNDERSTANDING MAY OR MAY NOT FOLLOW LATER. IT IS OK FOR LUDICROUS LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT STRING THEORY AND THE BIG BANG TO OCCUPY THE 'INTELLIGENTSIA', BUT THEY WILL NOT SPEND TWO MINUTES LOOKING AT AN EXPERIMENT OR DATA THAT UNDERMINES THEIR BASIC PHYSICS RELIGION. TO SOME EXTENT THEY REALLY DO HAVE TO BE 'HIT OVER THE HEAD' TO START THINKING AGAIN. MAYBE I GRANT THEM TOO MUCH. MAYBE EVEN AFTER BEING HIT THEY WOULD NOT THINK!
>Storms may be correct in thinking that we would like other scientists INDEED!
>It is a stunning inversion - that which his response to you avows - "SMALL NEUROSES' -- VERY GOOD TERM!
>there is no passage left open for scientific interest or a dialogue. INDEED.
>(...)By refusing to articulate analytical and theoretical problems, I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE.
>Thereby also, science and theoretical science become replaced
YES, YES, YES...
(...)
>We have been thinking about your offer to publish something on the matter (...) FOR YOU THERE IS NEVER A DEADLINE! JUST DO IT WHEN YOU CAN AND I WILL FIND/MAKE ROOM AS WHATEVER OPORTUNE TIME THE MAGAZINE EVOLVES AND IS READY FOR SPACE TO BE FILLED!!!!
>one could perhaps write an overview of the problems affecting the field, YES, MAKE IT GENERAL - DOES NOT HAVE TO [BE] 'IN DEPTH.'
>but an indepth approach would require several communications; I WOULD SIMPLY SAY THIS: TAKE ALL THE CF EVIDENCE OF WHICH YOU ARE AWARE (...), AND SUGGEST IN GENERAL TERMS BASED ON AETHER EXPERIMENTS ALREADY DONE, WHICH ONES IMPLY A KIND OF INTERACTION THAT JUST MIGHT AFFECT THE METALLIC/GAS/ION SYSTEM IN QUESTION. PERHAPS EVEN DISCUSS WHY CERTAIN EMPIRICAL PROTOCOLS IN CF SEEM TO WORK.
> in which case it could be like an experiment in writing something THIS LATTER WOULD BE THE CENTERPIECE OF THE ARTICLE! THAT IS AN ALIEN CONCEPT TO THE CF FIELD.
> the nonQCD fine energy gravitic, electric and electromagentic YOU HAVE OUTLINED THE STORY QUITE NICELY AS TO WHAT GROUND WOULD HAVE TO BE COVERED. IT IS LARGE, BUT IT CAN BE STATED IN TERMS ROUGHLY AS YOU HAVE. JUST ELABORATED ON THESE WITH MORE REFERENCES AND OBSERVATIONS. MAKE A COMPELLIGN CASE FOR WHAT CF PEOPLE SHOULD LOOK BEYOND THEIR PRESENT PARADIGM. YES I UNDERSTAND THE MALIGNANT PURPOSE ISSUE. HANDLE IT AS YOU CAN.
>>It would be an opportunity to take some shots at Kooistra/Storms and Rothwell
>We think not - for the idiocies these particular morons have engaged YES.
Subject: FW: NAE paper Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:40:20 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa Dear Paulo and Alex, I thought you would like to have a look at this paper by Storms, which I have accepted for publishing in issue #45 of IE -- out in September. The references to experimental observations in cold fusion are solid. The hand waving about theory is weak, as it is throughout the cold fusion field. I thought that this might encourage some thinking on your part about how aetherometry would address these gaps. You see how within cold fusion Storms views himself as a revolutionary! :) All best, Gene ------ Forwarded Message From: Edmund Storms Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:12:20 -0600 To: Eugene F. Mallove Subject: NAE paper Dear Gene, I improved the paper I sent you based on an informal peer review. The revised paper is attached. I do not expect this paper will make the theoreticians nor Fleischmann very happy. If I'm right, most theories will need to be seriously revised. I look forward to seeing it published in IE in the near future.
Regards,
Subject: Re: Infernal rumblings Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:44:55 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa Dear Alex and Paulo, At least a break to write this delayed response...
> Dear Gene - Me too. Too much travel, enjoyable as some of it has been. (...) Then went on to nearby Norwich, CT to do more work on my parents' home -- a full day of throwing virtually the last stuff out from he basement -- piles and piles of aggregated junk. It was amazing how my mind could instantly recall specific uses of some of the ancient trash -- when the items were new. Now the basement is perfectly clear -- albeit damp and sprouting some mushrooms (!) from the walls. This is the first time in 55 years or more that that basement has been clear. My parents bought the place in 1947, just before I was born. It was a very rural neighborhood -- chicken farm on two sides, dairy farm on the other. The great Connecticut Turnpike came though in 1955, and everything changed. Now there is a McDonalds, ugh!, right behind the house -- although the massive trees on my parents' land blocks much of its view to the highway -- hah, hah! -- maybe sell the place to them someday just to give them their view --assuming they are still in business :)
> What happened was this - left with some time in our present indecision Ah, so again, as with the Stirling matter, I have been a useful catalyst -- delighted!
> This led us to revisit the unpublished It is good at least that you WANT it published.
> Then we found Sounds like a quite dramatic bit of progress.
>It did not finish here, however, since we had long standing Excellent too. The CF field suffers most by not having a useful theoretical foundation. There are many theories based on standard QM analysis of lattice interactions. Hagelstein at MIT and the Chubbs at NRL have perhaps the best such "conventional" physics explanations. I should send you their best -- most recent -- papers, so you can see how they think about the problem. Most all of CF today is empirical (...)
> Whether this will lead us, as it appears at Well, it will definitely need to explain the presence of helium-4 in some CF experiments, even if the reaction producing said He-4 is not D-D.
> But there is aether involvement and it runs, indeed, along I am happy that there appears to be aether involvement. (...)
> So, this led us to examine that 'forbidden' matter and this, right now, is Just a thought -- if this could be done, it sounds like something that C.E., with his single-minded CF focus, could directly support. Yes, I know, you have problems with this.
> However, the detailed nature of this THAT, as you know, I would love for you to do. That would be a great accomplishment. Do you foresee that such a paper could be written such that it could appear before ICCF10 (Aug. 2003)?
> but until then, you should scrupulously
I will, OF COURSE.
> This is probably all for now. Let us know your thoughts and news - I have in mind to revise my seminal book Fire From Ice (1991). It is very out of date. The new work would build on the old version of the book, but it would be called something provocative like: The Triumph of Alchemy: Cold Fusion, Infinite Energy, and the Birth of New Physics. I would re-write much of the ancient text, but use it as a foundation structure, continue the cold fusion story where it left off in 1991, but then take a sharp turn toward the Aether and Aetherometry physics. The basic message would be that there is much more to be learned about the universe than "mere CF," but that CF, for me, was the trigger to look into the window of aether physics. Therefore, whatever (safe) CF insights you wish to share with me as ICCF10 approaches, would be appreciated. I am deluded enough to think that I could revise the book in time for ICCF10, which due to its high-profile location and Hagelstein and Chairman, may attract more than a little support. Wherever you are at that time, it may be that you would want to attend this meeting -- give a paper, or a poster, perhaps? If you were not there, I could attend the poster session for you. Or, I might consider delivering a paper myself, based on what I learn over the coming year.
Subject: Re: Infernal rumblings Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 08:37:23 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
> Dear Gene -
There have been recent "bites" on possible renters -- all my work may yet pay off this year! Need the
money for the family...
(...)
> Theories can only be as good as the the foodstuff they are fed. For as Agreed.
> On this side of the I will send the papers.
> Just as understanding the electron was critical to Of course.
>
Very true, unless there is a very lucky break.
>>> We might write something for you and IE, that could summarize the On whatever schedule you wish.
> We also have a reactor or cell plus circuit design that should be
At least temporarily, (...) no?
(...)
>>> Nothing ever materialized from those quarters, of Klatz et
Yes, always a hurry followed by silence - the usual pattern. People are just too over-"mediaized" (or is it
"mediated"?) today.
>>The basic message would be that there Ha! Indeed. Perhaps that is my goal :)
>> (...) whatever (safe) CF insights you wish to share with me as ICCF10 Understand. (...) Keeping my eye on this Tilley development, which is quite strange: http://www.tilleyfoundation.com I'll send you the results of my investigations - nest week, maybe.
Subject: Re: Infernal rumblings Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 07:58:50 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa Dear Alex and Paulo,
> We take from this that C.E. is really single-minded...Yet, he should know that He does not have this global perspective on science. It is too much to expect in such a potential benefactor. I have tried to tutor him to think more globally, but he is focused completely, it seems, on CF.
>>> We also have a reactor or cell plus circuit design that should be I know that this is what is going on with you now.
> Our desperation has at times pushed us to even It is your intellectual property, but if it seemed to me something that might well be doable, I would go to many lengths to try it.(...)!
> Or publish our entire insight into CF. But we need to get something from all IF your reactor design showed life fairly quickly, I do not think it would be difficult to get C.E., through the imminent NEF fund, to fund you on that. (The key would be what experimental/theoretical proof of likelihood of success we could provide.) (...) Obviously he would respect your right to your own patent protection -- not sure he would want to "invest" in it, just would want it brought out publicly to the world. I believe he would support YOU, through NEF, on this basis.
>Yet, nowhere in our, yours and Uri's searches through high and low I would very, very much like to help this initiative. I think it is your best shot, in the clearest way, to achieve success via the channels that have opened via the hunger of the CF field for new directions and new understandings.
All this, of course, altered nothing in Gene's determination to pursue the new battleplan
he had drawn up. He was keenly aware that while the media have their Rifkins and the
President has his advisors, paradoxically they both agreed that a 'hydrogen fuel-cell
economy' is the way of the future. While blissfully ignoring the production costs of
hydrogen - and the fact that the fossil-fuel energy consumed in the production of
hydrogen is more than the energy generated by fuel cells, they had colluded to
trumpet this perfectly useless approach as the solution to America's future energy
needs. But neither could Cold Fusion - in its present state, at least - provide any hope
for an answer. In the following letter to a journalist, Gene minced no words in calling
it exactly as he saw it:
Subject: Comments on your article Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:48:47 -0800 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: David Moon CC: Christy Frazier To David Moon: Dear David, Thank you for sending along the Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial on fuel cells and your proposed editorial to them concerning cold fusion vs. fuel cells. Nice try, but they will almost certainly reject it! Though I like your commentary, I'll pass on it for Infinite Energy, but thank you for your thought anyway. By the way, you forgot to hit back at the also $1.5 to $1.7 billion that has just been added for ITER -- further scandalous waste of money -- not just what will be pissed off by fuel cell research funded by DOE! I have an additional comment on your remark in your cover letter: "I am prepared to say that cold fusion is the greatest discovery of all time." I disagree with that, though at one time I might have agreed with you. It turns out that the evidence for a biophysically active aether is mostprobably the most important discovery of all time, because this not only impacts on all of technology -- especially energy technology, but all of science. It goes to the very root of what and who we are. We are NOT mere biochemical factories -- and this can be proved, not by mystical belief systems but by actual experiments. I know that you are not well read enough in this matter to appreciate what I am saying, but if you were to scrape together enough money to order the Correa DVD (www.aethera.org), you would begin to understand what I am talking about. Alternately, look at the free material available on www.aetherometry.com. Sad to say, at least one of the worst ignorers and ignorant detractors of the Correa work has been within the cold fusion field! (That is at least one reason why one has been removed from the IE masthead). I hope that you will not be one of these people. Clear your mind of the cobwebs of exclusive focus on LENR/cold fusion. You will find that there is a much bigger world out there that has been improperly characterized. We will not understand cold fusion, I am reasonably sure, unless we develop new foundational theories. Best wishes, and keep up your good spirits! Gene Mallove
Subject: Re: Package was received Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:23:07 -0400 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
[snip] I have alerted him. He is very interested and wants to be able to speak with you.
>However, we are not sure yet when That would be a good time. May I tell him you will eventually speak with him? I have been doing more experiments. Interesting results, for sure. I have some new ideas. I'll speak to you tomorrow, perhaps? Let me know the best time.
Subject: Re: New Scientist cold fusion article Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:25:13 -0800 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Ben Daviss Ben, >Hi, Gene---
>I've gotten the editor's annotated final draft of the article Let me handle them right now.
>First, Im hoping to nail down the provenance of the equation First, the equation is correct but you need to associate a gamma ray with the 23.8meV - hot fusion of two deuterons says that the gamma ray comes out at that energy, 23.8 meV.
>Was that an acknowledged reaction in nuclear physics Absolutely - this was and is accepted knowledge - the gamma coming out at that energy. In D + D plasma hot fusion physics this is a rare reaction - only occurs 1/10,000,000 times. The other two outcomes of the D + D reaction in hot fusion are each 50% likely.
>Or was that equation hatched by Chubb or Schwinger or No! The three reaction outcomes for D + D in hot fusion are: He-4 plus gamma at 23.4 Mev 1-out-of 10 million!Cold fusion's claim to fame is that it suggests that the gamma is suppressed and excess heat comes out instead at that same energy level.
>Second, in my research I've found no evidence that anyone Not true. Especially the amazing multiple gamma ray signatures that the late Kevin Wolf at Texas A&M found - in his Pd cathodes long after they were run - these were coming from the radioactive transmutations he inadvertently made! Poor bastard - he was trying to disprove CF and he proved it in spades (but he never admitted it)! There have been other gamma detections (not the 23.8 MeV- but Mev gammas for sure). Yan Kucherov in Russia found them - this was reported in Physics Letters A in early 1990s.
>The idea seems to be that the cells produce heat instead of gamma rays; You can find both. But it is true -- as Schwinger said -- "The primary signature of cold fusion is excess heat."
>Finally, people report tritium coming from cold fusion cells. Yes it has NEVER been the "right" amount. And it has always been "cold" -- otherwise its bumping into other D's after it was "born" would produce horrific 14 MeV neutron radiation - the tokamak hot fusion reaction of T + D. Those high energy neutrons have not been observed. When excess heat was measured at the same time as T - e.g. by Bockris's group - the T was only 1/100 or much less than the amount necessary to "explain" the excess heat.
>Boss and Szpak used a mass-balance method that seemed to PLEASE!! There is no "SHOULD BE" any longer. Cold fusion takes us into an Alice-in- Wonderland world where the mainstream physicists fear to tread because they are wedded to their old non-functional paradigms. There is no longer any "necessity" of ANYTHING coming out of the LENR field comporting with any dogma. How can we possibly move forward if the old dogmas are used to "specify" what we "must" see. Things are being seen and they are repeatable. They are YET to be explained in an overarching theory. I would bet an awful lot that this will have to do with the omnipresent energetic aether. There is little way around that. I got a kick out of the current New Scientist which has an anti-Relativity article by one David Harris of the APS!!!! his last sentence: "When the edifice of 20th Century physics starts crumbling around your ears, don't say you weren't warned." IDIOT!! We told him that years ago! He only listens when certain renegades - who are nonetheless in "good" academia, so they can be quoted and blathered about - make pronouncements about "Doubly Special Relativity" -- the subject of the article. What a joke... Now with THAT as background already in NS - how about doing an article on Aether motors and Aether physics after the CF article comes out? THAT is the real direction to explore for the crumbling of - make that destruction of - physics.
>Thanks as always--- Gene
Subject: Re: news and question Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:31:26 -0800 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Ben Daviss On 3/14/03 5:10 AM, Ben Daviss wrote: Gene---Ben, Thank you for your concern and good wishes, but the fact remains that my work and efforts have been marginalized and we are indeed "screwed" -- though it was certainly not your doing. How outrageous that Infinite Energy is not mentioned, when it specifically gave rise to lenr-canr.org and helped so much in the article. At least people consulting lenr-canr.org will see references to Infinite Energy. But, that said, the injustice is overwhelming - as it is on so many other fronts connected with new science. I anticipate with great trepidation the editorial commentary by your editor. I can see now the self-serving bastard praising himself on his "good judgment" in bringing to NS readers news of the US Navy report. Years ago we anticipated that the establishment would begin to re-write history - in effect rediscovering the phenomena themselves and saying that "they" were doing good science (and reporting) to resolve the matter, while those in the CF field were fanatics and "zealots." No, I will not cut you off, but from now on please do not ask me for any assistance for ANY article connected with or potentially connected with New Scientist. New Scientist will regret the day it dealt with Infinite Energy this way. The bottom line is this: New Scientist has shown itself to be an unethical anti-science journal, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Gene
Gene was willing to entertain the notion that it wasn't Daviss' work. Kind heart! But Daviss, if
he wasn't responsible for the shenanigan, was at the very least a willing accomplice!
And a coward, to boot. Daviss had proved to be just another small man. But Gene
was far from finished; he wasn't about to let it die here:
Subject: Urgent request Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:39:54 -0800 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Scott Chubb Scott, The New Scientist article will be coming out shortly, as you know. The article has been severely edited down, I understand. Several thousand words have been removed. Further, as of yesterday, Infinite Energy magazine was royally screwed: The editor of New Scientist unethically, and without justification, blocked a small ad that we had placed, which was to cost us $480. Further, there is no reference to me or Infinite Energy in the article -- or our web site as a reference. But there IS citation of lenr-canr.org. I am fucking pissed! Send me that article! Gene
Subject: Re: Urgent request Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:26:13 -0800 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Scott Chubb
> Gene, Scott, Please ALSO forward to me -- hard copy or e-mail -- the original version as well. It will be instructive to compare them. This will be a BIG accountability issue. - Gene
The joke, then, here too, is the sheer hypocrisy of Chubbs consoling 'unethical' opinion.
And tragic? Now, in hindsight, and in light of the still unsolved murder of Eugene
Mallove, these words ring true. But notice the sycophancy and the hypocrisy - barely
masked and just under the skin: for what was truly tragic was the silence with which
these people (Daviss, Chubb, etc) stone-walled Gene while hypocritically playing
dumbfounded and 'sorry'. That's tragic, an unspeakably tragic silence.
Americans need to know that this is the caliber of the scientists their Navy trusts. This
is the caliber of the democratic journalists whose pieces they consume in their media
outlets.
One such American wrote to us of his experience at ICCF-10, where Scott Chubb was
the Technical Chairman:
"[Scott Chubb] even had Eugene convinced that he was one of "the good guys" that I could have a good dialogue with. In a "nutshell", Scott wouldn't look at the concrete work of the Correas, in IE articles, or otherwise. He insisted that [neither] Eugene, nor the Correas, understood Relativity. He refused to study the Correas' work in spite of the fact that I repeatedly told him that it was unscientific to criticize something without studying it first. In my opinion, Scott is an eloquent bullshit artist! He is of the most clever and cunning type. He returned my call after Eugene was murdered. He told me that he had written up a "Eulogy" for Eugene after he learned that Eugene was _"shot"_ to death. I told him that Eugene wasn't shot and that he was beaten to death. His reaction seemed "plastic" to me. (...)"Plastic reactions by plastic people with very plastic objectives and the ethics of plastic. Chubb was doing what Rothwell, Storms and still others had decided to do - to avert Gene's persistent question: what is it with you people - that if the price of understanding your own field is to study Aether science, and Aetherometry in particular, you'd rather bury your heads in the sand, ignore, suppress, silence, omit, misrepresent? And all the while wearing the sycophantic mask of appearing to be 'a friend of Eugene'? Under the auspices of red herrings such as Chubb's 'lack of understanding of relativity' - every disingenous motivation could seamlessly fit. Incensed but undaunted, Gene would push forward:
Subject: FW: ICCF10 Program Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:34:33 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa FYI -- My paper will be a poster session -- but it could be promoted to an oral talk. I'd rather it be a poster. Then I could have my continuously playing DVD of you-know-what :) - Gene
The truth is that, already during preparations for ICCF-10, we had tried to dissuade
Gene from putting forward the case for Aetherometry with respect to Cold Fusion. We
anticipated precisely what came to pass - his ostracization at ICCF-10. But he was
determined to see this for himself, to verify it, to feel and understand it, while refusing
to let anyone or anything touch his excitment with the discoveries afforded by a
functionalist physics of the Aether. And, in the months leading up to the conference,
he distributed his proposed abstract to many of his colleagues:
Subject: Re: CF secretly underway as government "black" program? Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:39:08 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: George Miley, Hal Fox, Robert Bass, Mike McKubre, David Nagel, Graham Hubler, Peter Hagelstein, Edmund Storms, Scott Chubb, Talbot Chubb, Brian Josephson, Eugene Skolnikoff, Pat Bailey, Jed Rothwell, Steven Weinberg, P. James E. Peebles George and Friends,
> Hi Hal - thanks for the copy of your comments. I generally agree, except There are many basic papers that are indicative of non-nuclear excess energy in various systems. The closest to major publication in mainstream publications are the work of Peter and Neal Graneau -- air and water arc discharges. I am sure you know about these, but they are often overlooked. Then there is the work of Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa, cover[ed] in IE since 1996. Their Pulsed Abnormal Glow discharge Reactor (PAGD) patents are themselves quite profound technical papers (referencing electrical and force anomalies that were reported in vacuum glow discharges earlier in the 20th century), with explicit methodology called out to create the pulsed abnormal glow discharge excess electricity. If you don't have these patents and the mainstream technical papers which foreshadow this work, you can look back at IE #7, #8, and #9. You might also wish to check Dr. Harold Aspden's Aether Science site in the UK, which you can access via our web site links. Then there is also the excess heat being obtained in plasma discharges at BlackLight Power -- you should examine the BLP calorimetry (www.blacklightpower.com) and see how it compares with calorimetry done in the CF field. Mills has nice control experiments -- and a theory with great predictive power --even if the theory may not be correct in toto. A helium-hydrogen plasma that gives excess heat, but a krypton-hydrogen plasma that does not -- impressive.
> If the cold fusion community is overlooking some basic It's going to be. I'm working on the paper right now for the poster session -- see my abstract: Abstract for ICCF10 - August 24-29, 2003> As it stands, I don't see paper > titles along these lines. Am I missing something? One problem, George, is that the word "ZPE" is loaded with all kinds of baggage -- and not much direct experimental support, with the exception perhaps of the Casimir effect. Yes there are technical papers by people like Puthoff, Cole, and others that talk about ZPE energy extraction in hypothetical practical devices -- and god knows we've published quite a few more popularized versions of these papers, e.g. Moray King's work. There are on the other hand, many direct measurements of vacuum energy that have been marginalized for many of the same reasons that cold fusion has been marginalized. It is worth looking into these measurements and I hope that you do.
> Regards, Best wishes -- see you at ICCF10! It's shaping up to be an exciting conference. Gene
Subject: Re: CF secretly underway as government "black" program? Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:22:55 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Edmund Storms Cc: George Miley, Hal Fox, Robert Bass, Mike McKubre, David Nagel, Graham Hubler, Peter Hagelstein, Scott Chubb, Talbot Chubb, Brian Josephson, Eugene Skolnikoff, Pat Bailey, Jed Rothwell, Steven Weinberg, P. James E. Peebles On 7/29/03 1:46 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
> I have to agree with George. Cold fusion has over 1000 papers that give an Indeed, there is a large body of LENR/CF effects and some of these papers have made it into conventional journals after peer review. These do provide, as Ed says, an increasing understanding of the LENR effect. Likewise, the BlackLight Power material has appeared, increasingly, in peer reviewed journals. The foundational articles in physics which support the earliest indications of anomalies in glow discharge devices, which support the Correa PAGD, are in peer reviewed journals. The Graneau arc discharge excess energy work has recently been reproduced by others and appears in mainstream plasma physics journals (I'll be getting the exact references on this soon.) As Ed well knows, the mainstream is not famous for paying much attention to the anomalies seen in [his] own published work!
> Papers describing ZPE are, by We are not sure exactly what it is, but it does reveal some serious questions about standard QM -- even if the large umbrella which Mills tries to put over physics may well not be correct in its large form or in some of its particulars. It deals with excess energy and spectral signatures. There is no doubt in my mind that it was a direct outgrowth of CF experiments reported in the media, as substantiated by when Mills filed his first patent -- though his CQM ideas predate P&F for sure. >At least no evidence exists to force a person to believe ZPE is involved. There is significant evidence in Mills work of a need to alter our views about what constitutes the all- important "electron cloud" surrounding an atom. That is of central importance to CF, no? Why is there not more interest in this by CF people -- especially when all manner of electron screening theories are being discussed. > The Correa work may involve ZPE, No, it does not, as far as they are concerned. They explicitly reject that. They do not claim ZPE is the energy source of the PAGD -- or their later devices. > but I am unable to understand their descriptions or explanations > no matter how hard I Well, that is only an indication that you have not tried quite hard enough, and you have examined -- as far as their monographs are concerned -- only one (that I have heard about) monograph of the few dozen in existence, but perhaps I am not up to date? There are many other individuals, at university mathematics and physics levels who DO understand this work. I have made the effort to understand its overall structure, and many of the details. There can be no doubt about the richness of its experimental basis and its theoretical elegance -- both in explicit experiments described by the Correas and in experiments from the open literature to which they are explicitly connected. The PAGD work, on the other other hand, introduces nothing more than what is in the open literature. It is a self-contained description of a device that can be tested and has been tested in numerous ways.
> They do not use words in a conventional way and appear to be unable to This is most unfair. It is actually an outrageous statement, as far as I am concerned. It does not befit you in your usual circumspect manner, which I have come to appreciate -- beyond your pioneering work in LENR experimentation. Your assertion may be based on your inability to climb a few significant paradigm hurdles, but please do not extend this difficulty to the charge that they are not writing in normal English. Clearly, there are others -- myself included, who do very much understand this work and are mining its rich content. It cannot be appreciated in just a few weeks of examining one isolated monograph, albeit with tutorial provided. It is possible that a moderated discussion group or organization will be forming shortly, of those technically qualified people who DO understand this work. Stay tuned. For your enlightenment here are a few examples of words from MAINSTREAM physics that are not used in conventional ways, and in which we are expected to believe and accept:
- false vacuum I could go on and on... Faced with this bestiary of confusion and pomposity in the mainstream language, it is no wonder that pioneering scientists -- like Mills (orbitsphere) and the Correas (aetherometry), need to invent new terms to describe what they believe to be a more tenable, experimentally based physical reality.
> The Peter and Neal Graneau work You are right. It has not been shown to be related to ZPE. The Graneaus think it is stored solar energy in ordinary chemical systems. I think they are wrong.
> As for ZPE
I disagree with this. Sure, the nuclear changes that have been observed are likely prima facie to be either
energy producing or energy consuming -- BUT there are important caveats to this which you are
overlooking at your peril. I think what is overwhelmingly proved, which I have not diverted from since
1991: Item #1 and Item#2 are related, to be sure, but not necessarily in the sense that I think you are implying - - an implied belief that an E= mc^2 relationship from hypothesized mass deficits from LENR reactions, linking the excess heat. That is your paradigm, but it is not necessarily valid. There is a great danger that it is not valid precisely because other experiments are showing energy fluxes that are quite clearly in some cases -- likely in others -- NOT due to special "nuclear active" sites. (I do agree, nonetheless, that your term "nuclear active site" is a useful concept for LENR.) Furthermore, there is one excellent experiment, by McKubre et al (ICCF8 proceedings), which shows an apparent approximate commensurate excess energy with helium from a series of Case "catalytic fusion" replications, but this is 31 +/- 13 MeV/atom with one method and 32 +/- 13 MeV/atom another way. That is not proof that d + d > He-4 releasing 23.8 MeV is occurring. It would not even be proof if the error [f]ound was much smaller and centered on 23.8 MeV/atom. Perhaps there are other experiments in LENR that are this precise, but I am not sure there are -- I may have overlooked them. Let me know if I have.
> ZPE may add to the energy, but this I am not in favor of speculation any longer. I am in favor of any and ALL experiments that work, that show excess energy, that show nuclear changes or no changes, that show self-sustaining energy production phenomena, or that show measurable effects that are not in the quite badly out-of-date physics books. > So, where are the data that would support communization? Please! You are NOT a Communist -- that I know! Unless this is another term created de novo to denote "commercialization"!
> How would a person go Well, it's not ZPE, but it is a device that could be tested, and has been: Look at the PAGD patents. Gene
Subject: Re: CF secretly underway as government "black" program? Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:13:56 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Edmund Storms Cc: George Miley, Hal Fox, Robert Bass, Mike McKubre, David Nagel, Graham Hubler, Peter Hagelstein, Scott Chubb, Talbot Chubb, Brian Josephson, Eugene Skolnikoff, Pat Bailey, Jed Rothwell, Steven Weinberg, P. James E. Peebles On 7/30/03 12:59 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Ed, > Gene, I don't want to get into an argument about the merits of the Correa work. Either do I. I have said as much as I need to say, for now, in my last few e-mails. > It may well be real and important. It most certainly is, and my understanding is that you once told Paulo (at the Manchester, NH symposium - correct me if I am wrong), that you much appreciated or admired the PAGD work. If they had stopped with PAGD -- and had not gone on to Aetherometry, what then?
>The issue is one of communication, and this issue Indeed, that is what contemporary "accepted" physics does ALL the time.
> Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the person Yes, of course. And that has been done by the Correas. It takes great care and precision to discuss why electroscope gold leaves (the charges within them) can be shown to be constantly consuming energy just to make the leaves stay in one position -- as they do, in particular, near mid-day (electroscopic arrest). The evidence is overwhelming for that based on extensive experiments performed in the monographs that you did not take the time to read. All the control experiments have been done. This reflects back on the first monograph, which gave your trouble.
> It does Evidently there is some conceptual hurdle that you are still suffering from. Clearly, all those who have found merit in the Correa monographs have either understood more than you, or are all wrong-minded. I think the former explanation is the case.
> As you know, Gene, words are the only way we have to communicate concepts. If He did not take offense that you did not understand. He was quite surprised that you did not take the initiative to go beyond that first monograph to help you try to understand -- as he suggested that you do. Let's leave it at that. You did not have the curiosity to go beyond that. And, I do understand and appreciate that you have other demands on your time. But I too was disappointed that you did not make the effort to go beyond AS2-01.
> When this happens in such a discussion, I'm This hypothesis is quite wrong -- certainly in the case of the Correas. They VERY much wanted you to come to an understanding, and spent extended hours working with you on whatever concepts were bothering you. It is too bad that it did not work out for you. Perhaps in the future others will be able to help inform you, perhaps by a different way of presenting the work.
> If a discussion group is organized around their work, I OK. Back to other matters now -- we agree to disagree on the above points. Gene
When Gene requested Storms' permission to publish our email interchange with him on the functions of electroscopes, which, in Gene's view - and in ours as well - Storms was misrepresenting, Gene wrote to this same community of 'cold fusioneers':
Subject: Re: Use of English and science terminology by the Correas... Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:07:05 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Edmund Storms Cc: George Miley, Hal Fox, Robert Bass, Mike McKubre, David Nagel, Graham Hubler, Peter Hagelstein, Scott Chubb, Talbot Chubb, Brian Josephson, Eugene Skolnikoff, Pat Bailey, Jed Rothwell, Steven Weinberg, P. James E. Peebles On 7/31/03 10:00 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Ed,
> Gene, I have no objections to your suggestion provided the published exchange Good. I will convey this to them and see what they say.
> While the peripheral personal remarks are best left out, the remarks [Here was a perfect example of Storms' public misrepresentation which demanded the record be made public. Consult the record - no such reaction was there. Annoyance with Storms' persistence with intentional errors that had been addressed and corrected time and again, but which would disappear after his miraculous [snip!], only to return in the exactly the same form - that annoyed us yes - since it demonstrated either nothing had been understood by him or that he was bent on twisting what he was told! Or both.] My suggestion is that there be a mutual agreement about what is or is not edited out when it is published.
> However, I will summarize here my main problem with the way the Correas [Storms means our model of the electroscopic arrest and spontaneous discharge! For Ed Storms has only read one of our monographs - and at that, without any effort at comprehension. A careful reading of the record would suggest a greater interest in defending his funder Rothwell's appraisal of his non-reading of our writings than any attempt at understanding.]
> Paulo believes that when the gold leaves in an electroscope are being held [That would be good, eh? For *all* the observations... ] The source is the multi-component aether, which is a mass-free, non-electromagnetic aether (it is NOT the static "luminiferous aether" of the 19th century, which indeed was ruled out). This aether give[s] rise to mass and monopolar charge -- and this has been modeled -- and is in the process of being published. Inertial mass and charge in Aetherometry are manifestations of toroidal flows in the electron and nucleon structures --unlike in conventional physics where the electron is a point and nucleons are agglomerations of "solid" quarks. > The concept of "work" requires a force being moved through a distance. Yes, and such work is occurring among the electrons of the gold leaf. That can be demonstrated.
> The leaves In this you are quite profoundly wrong. You are inadvertently making a cartoon of the description in the monograph [AS2-01].
> Paulo has two choices. Either he does not use the term "work" but instead Clearly, you did not grasp what he meant.
> The idea that energy is used or consumed in holding an object stationary has This again is a mere cartoon of how the discussion went.
> I have no problem with a person proposing the existence of processes that This is your executive fiat statement, not a scientific exploration of the related topic in that monograph (and others) of why under some circumstances a leaf declines in its elevation over one period of time, and that same leaf declines over a much longer period in other circumstances. Yes, the charge leakage and seepage control experiments have been done.
> Therefore, the Well, the process led to motors that work off this energy source. It is most remarkable to see in one demonstration in their DVD the addition of more evacuated tubes into the motor circuit, and then observe faster rotation of the motor. In other words, MORE of this supposedly "empty" vacuum of modern physics -- a glass evacuated cell with two electrodes creates more energetic action. Patents have been applied for this Aether Motor. The PAGD patents are, on the other hand, public.
> However, if a way can be found to The correct statement would be that your conception of how this energy source works and how it has been explained is not complete.
> The minimum I expect from any model is that it correctly describe what we I agree with that and the Correas agree with that too -- 100%.
> Once well understood concepts are correctly described, the model maker On the contrary, that is what the Aetherometry monographs are all about.
> When Paulo can not get a very basic concept correct, I have little incentive I hope you will. You will be the better for it -- I hope. There are most important implications for cold fusion/LENR. Whatever the fundamental models of Nature really are (whether it is what is presently accepted or something else) has enormous impact on what we look for and how we analyze situations in science. If the fundamental models are very flawed, there is little hope of moving forward very far into unchartered territory -- unless empiricism works (as I agree it sometimes does). That's all for now, I've got to help Peter Hagelstein place some ads for ICCF10. - Gene
> "Eugene F. Mallove" wrote:
Subject: Re: I agree with Ed Storms about "work = force X distance-moved" and Statics involve no "work" Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:45:49 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Robert Bass, Edmund Storms Cc: George Miley, Hal Fox, Mike McKubre, David Nagel, Graham Hubler, Peter Hagelstein, Scott Chubb, Talbot Chubb, Brian Josephson, Eugene Skolnikoff, Pat Bailey, Jed Rothwell, Steven Weinberg, P. James E. Peebles On 7/31/03 11:30 AM, Robert Bass wrote: Bob,
> Gene, There are many interesting aspects of the Correa Aetherometry theory "AToS", which I think would particularly interest you, who are a superb mathematician and open-minded thinker. You would be pleasantly surprised at some of the insights -- among them a formal association of mass of a "particle" with a length (which comes, in part, from certain pendulum experiments that are described in one of their most recent monographs). This leads to many very interesting formulations. The Correas have been able to reduce all physical constants and entities to quantities having embedded dimensions of powers of time and length. In their physics, energy is the primary plenum out of which time and space emerge, so to speak. And they are rigorous believers in the conservation of energy. You might find flaws with their work, you might be initially astounded by the brashness of it, but I am sure you would be very challenged and pleased to see how they have developed their physics in association with reproducible experiments. You might wish to glance at the abstracts of the monographs on their web site www.aetherometry.com
> When one holds one's arm outstretched, at the microscopic level Conventional biophysicists and biochemists quite clearly do NOT have the complete picture of living organisms. Read the Correa monograph AS2-28 on Fundamental Measurements of Biophysical Energies (I). It's a real eye-opener. Did you know, for example, that there was a huge controversy between Galvani and Volta in the 18th century, which Volta was deemed to have "won" -- i.e. The "disproof" of so-called "animal" electricity. Yet today, modern fNMR technologies are showing the presence of acupuncture point-related signaling through the body at speed exceeding (at a minimum) 1000 times nerve conduction speed. Of course, acupuncture points on the foot are not supposed to be trigger points for visual cortex brain activation, but this has been seen and published in Proc Natl Acad Sci (the work was rejected, without review, by Nature and Science). There is much more. Don't be so sure that the model of organisms as purely biochemical factories is correct. Perhaps I should elaborate that assertion just a bit more: Don't even be sure that conventional understandings of non-covalent bonding are correct either, so even within conventional biochemistry, some of its mysteries (e.g. protein folding) might be assisted by a more true physics. I am of the opinion that there is likely much more involved in biochemistry and biology than what is purveyed in the textbooks.
> If Correa claims that electroSTATIC phenomena require "work" then
Indeed, the Correas, by their admission, suggest that a violent departure is necessary. That is why they
began their introduction of Aetherometry not by laying out the whole theoretical formalism, but by the
numerous experiments that they show contradict common understandings -- all the while pointing out, of
course, how it came to be that such matters were overlooked. It is consistent and coherent, and existing
*measurements* in conventional physics are NOT thrown out. They are reinterpreted and subsumed in
the new theory.
> When someone wishes to appear "profound" and resents any In general I would agree with you. I have seen plenty of such people and they anger me. Quite frankly, that description applies most perfectly to people in the current physics establishment which, while claiming to be very close to having a Theory of Everything, makes a mockery of experimental evidence -- such as LENR -- that may contradict its "profound" theories of nuclear physics and much else. But the Correas are definitely not people like this. I believe that Ed's characterization was unfair. There is absolutely no charlatanism there. There is no self- delusion either. I have witnessed on many occasions the Correas accepting and dealing with criticism from outside -- even modifying their approach as a result. You'll be able to judge for yourself when their exchanges with Ed are published.
> Sincerely, Best wishes, Gene
Subject: Various -- lots Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:52:36 -0500 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Peter Hagelstein Peter,
Can you tell me anything about the status of the DoE "review" -- which I firmly assume will NOT occur,
or if it does it will be led astray? I am eager to know. I'll send you my recent posting to Vortex-l (see below). You ought to consider what this means very carefully -- the scientific message and the data, especially. The long overdue Correa defense of themselves against Jed Frothwell ought to be read very carefully. Rothwell is a pernicious villain. I am very sorry that I was the one responsible for bringing him into the field. As you told me, you find it nearly impossible to work with him. I find his very presence in this field bothersome. At best, he is a good clerk. But intellectually he is just about at the level of Robert Park. Sorry for this perhaps disturbing message, but it's the truth. I need to get on with my life and find out what this universe is REALLY all about. I am finding the answers, I think, and they are most certainly NOT all in the restricted field known as "cold fusion." I encourage you to expand your vision of the cosmos -- before it's too late. Best,
Your eternal friend -- I hope!
Puff! It was as if a magic wand had been waved - it sufficed to remove
Eugene Mallove from the picture, and IE fell into the fold of these cold-fusioneers and
their marionette-handlers.
It was in the wake of ICCF-10 that Gene wrote his
Universal Appeal - which, following
his death, was abused by R. Hoagland (and then by Sterling Allan), who confabulated that Gene
had written the Appeal for Hoagland, on the day before his murder, and not five
months earlier!
This is how Gene, in fact, qualified this Appeal:
Subject: Universal Appeal for Support of New Energy Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:38:36 -0500 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa, Malgosia Askanas, Uri Soudak Dear Alex and Paulo, Malgosia, and Uri, Herewith, in the form of an MS Word attachment, is a distillation of the last 15 years of my experience - with Internet site referencing. I hope that you appreciate its story and tone. There are some juicy quotes! The field is greatly in need. We are at a critical turning point as you know... The next issue of Infinite Energy (#52) has gone to press... We squeezed in a small ad for Experimental Aetherometry, Vol.1. I will review it in the next issue #53. The DVD ad was changed and the new price put in. I am proceeding on my other writing projects for Aetherometry. My Best Wishes to you all, Gene
"Question: Do you believe that it is possible that modern science has overlooked or ignored major scientific discoveries, which - if developed into technologies - would revolutionize almost every aspect of civilization? It has!"The Appeal dedicated to our work and that of Dr. Harold Aspden a separate category - Vacuum Energy - the remaining two categories being Cold Fusion and Thermal Energy. In the wake of the ICCF-10 reception, and as a result of our mutual agreement to hold off on any announcement regarding our aetherometric work in nuclear physics, it intentionally did not mention any of the contributions of our work to the Cold Fusion category. We had all agreed we wanted to keep this under wraps. Then, in early 2004, in the context of the 4-month-long negotiations we had with Prof. H. Branover and the potential investors he represented, we made a collective decision - with Gene, Uri and Malgosia - to put the Aetherometric Fusion Reactor on the table, for the first time. Gene, needless to say, was delighted with this development. Fired up, he went, once more, on the attack, to draw attention to the contributions of Aetherometry to 'cold fusion':
Subject: Re: [Fwd: cold fusion] Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:20:08 -0500 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Stan Holubowicz Dear Stan, Thank you for your remarks. I too do not believe that "cold fusion" is purely a nuclear reaction phenomenon releasing heat. There are indeed nuclear changes - that cannot be disputed. In my view, there is a kind of mixture of an advanced chemical physics of latent heat - coming from a cosmic aether - and a conversion of mass energy into sensible heat. I do not accept Hal Puthoff's ZPE explanation. There are to many other experimental findings that Puthoff et al's ZPE approach do not explain - such as the thermal anomalies and electroscopic anomalies around Faraday cages - and round-the-clock operation of Stirling engines from Faraday cages. See my essay for ICCF10 posted on the home page of www.infinite-energy.com Also see www.aetherometry.com Sincerely, Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
Subject: Re: Last minute thoughts (from Gene) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:17:58 -0500 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Uri Soudak, Malgosia Askanas CC: Paulo and Alexandra Correa I believe I am personally in a unique position to destroy the opposition from the other camp -- Dardik, Hagelstein, McKubre -- because of my role as someone who started in CF per se, wrote the famous book, did the movie, etc., etc. and then "saw the light." Do you see my point?
But one might as well have been talking to the little fish. Still Gene's delight was to
anticipate how we would undertake these undertakers who call themselves scientists, if
only we were able to secure the financing for our power technologies, including the
Aetherometric Fusion Reactor.
On March 15th and 16th, Gene and Uri, along with Prof. Branover, came to visit us again
- for a lecture on Aetherometry, a few small demonstrations, and a business proposal
presentation. Shortly after returning back to NH, and while these negotiations were
still ongoing, Gene released what could be regarded as his second appeal, which he
called his Press Release.
The mere, lone mention in this document of the Aetherometry website was sufficient to drive the
cold-fusioneers up the wall. Consider this exchange with Storms, which took place 1 hour
after the Press Release was sent out:
Storms: By including www.blacklightpower.com and www.aetherometry.com you encourage a whole new collection of skeptics to attack us. Gene: Oh, please, dear friend! Did you not think they would attack anyway? What matters most is comprehensive science, NOT concern about ephemeral PR issues interfering with that science. Storms: You are as aware of the political issues as I am. I'm just pointing out that this is not a good political move, regards [sic] of the scientific issues. Gene: I think it is a VERY good political move. For one, BLP has a powerful standing now among some investment quarters -- they are a somewhat robust company and not a rag-tag band of scattered researchers. Their advisory board has people who themselves are in a position to influence DoE policies. Even more to the point: It is inevitable that Blacklight will attempt to influence the direction of the DoE review. Furthermore, their experiments are fully repeatable on demand, apparently -- not always so for LENR. And as for the Correas, they have solid patents that are written more like PhD theses, which manifest excess electrical energy in a very clear way. This should give the DoE evaluators -- and perhaps even some enlightened LENR researchers -- a chance to consider the electrical phenomena they may be dealing with in discharge systems, including electrolytic cells.
Subject: Re: U.S. DoE Will Review 15-Years of "Cold Fusion" Excess Heat andNuclear Evidence Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:55:19 -0500 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
> Gene, Paulo and Alex, Yes, it is coming before much longer, I believe. The opportune time will surely come -- it almost has. - Gene
"I am of course aware that that there can always be a "typical reaction" by so-called scientists to any discussion of fund raising by non-government sources. I am also aware, as demonstrated by the reaction of cold fusion scientists to BLP [Black Light Power]and Correa work, that even some supposedly open- minded scientists are not so at all. Therefore, I approach the problem of publication not from these unworkable restrictions on information that I --and others -- believe has significant and direct bearing on the "cold fusion" matter. If it is truth about Nature that we are looking for and progress in true understanding of scientific anomalies, then one cannot arbitrarily create artificial borders to scientific exploration. That has already been done in "mainstream cold fusion" -- and the consequences are all too obvious. I felt that the new information -- beyond the mainstream stuff -- was put sufficiently down in the article, that it was included as supplementary material in a way that should not interfere with the the main message -- namely the fundamental DoE review. You give no credit for that apparently."While still trying to educate Ed Storms on the eve of getting him to leave the Scientific Board of IE, Gene was determined to put him in his place:
Subject: Re: U.S. DoE Will Review 15-Years of "Cold Fusion" Excess Heat and Nuclear Evidence Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:42:45 -0500 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Edmund Storms
Ed, The precise details of the mechanism are not at my disposal (i.e. the complete detailed recipe), but I do know that the Correas have their own very precise mechanism in mind [see our 2004 paper and JAR04-05-01] and proposed embodiments which are related to but NOT like current cold fusion experiments (I have very good ideas of what details this relates to, but this is on NDA with them). Their work is based on the very beautiful structure of their AToS theory, which I am growing to understand. This relates to the structure of leptons (including electrons and positrons) as toroidal structures in a massfree aether. There are many other implications about these toroids, of course. It is clear to me now how the toroidal structures can be related to the supposed Heisenberg "probability zones" around nuclei in which conventional physics'point-particles are imagined. In point of fact, I have come to understand that there is no such thing as inertial mass -- or charge for that matter-- without the formation of these leptonic toroids. When massfree aether is not in these toroidal forms, it has no inertia or monopolar charge characteristics. This is quite beautiful, since it gives a meaning to mass and charge that otherwise is imposed by fiat in conventional physics. One must therefore assume that there is a vast plenum of mass free energy that could be available to BOTH chemical and nuclear reactions. The mathematics of this aether plenum is quite interesting here, since we have Space and Time being a characteristic that falls out from energy in the AToS theory -- rather than the other way around (with energy being subservient to Time and Space as we normally think in our dimensional formulations). What you have been missing in not trying to immerse yourself in aetherometry -- and the experiments on which it is based -- is the clear evidence in many experiments, such as Greaneau electrical discharges in air and water, as well as numerous elementary investigations in the first volumes of Experimental Aetherometry, that non-conventional chemical, and non-conventional nuclear energy-releasing processes can be shown to exist. The most provocative is of course the thermal anomaly associated with solid-metal Faraday cages made of particular metals. (It is not present with copper or aluminum, but it is with iron.) This has now progressed to the very well calibrated and verified operation round-the-clock of precision Stirling motors running off the heat that is evidently transformed from mass free sources originating in solar radiation and its effect on the atmospheric environment (this latter is a short-hand way of describing a more detailed understanding that has been developed in the Correa monographs and papers). (...)
March 22, 2004 Dear Dr. Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa: It is my great pleasure to convey to you the enclosed check for $10,000.00, a research grant gift from the non-profit New Energy Foundation, Inc. The purpose of this research grant is specifically addressed to your Research Proposal, dated January 10, 2004 and titled, "Controlled Increase of the Radioactivity of Beta Emitters Could Shorten Their Half-Lives: Consequences for Remediation of Nuclear Waste." This proposal was evaluated by me and Mr. William Zebuhr of the NEF Board of Directors, the other technically skilled person on that panel. We made our decision based on a number of factors, including the critical nature of the scientific knowledge that might come from this study, which seems to bridge issues in the field of low-energy nuclear reactions and vacuum energy. It was particularly helpful to us that you have already recorded in the past some provocative measurements. That there is a practical potential application too was of importance. While we understand that this sum of money may not cover all the expenses involved in a project of this kind, we hope that the spirit of the award will encourage you onward as well as offset some of the on- going financial needs of your laboratory. We very much look forward to learning about progress on this research project, and to be able to publish some or all of your results on the pages of Infinite Energy magazine, per whatever you may be able to provide us. The grant is being awarded with the expectation that the results - to the extent that your proprietary information is also protected - are to be published on one or more venues, including perhaps on your own website. You are free to use your technical judgment about how to best use these funds in conducting the research in this area. In your discussion with outside parties or in issuing any publicity about this grant, please do acknowledge that the funds have come from the nonprofit New Energy Foundation, Inc., (irrespective of the ultimate originating source of these funds). This action will help encourage others to consider donating to NEF based on the good work that NEF is supporting. Thank you very much in advance. (We have received contributions so far now from over 100 individuals and foundations from our newly initiated solicitation effort.) Let me again encourage you to keep NEF apprised of the progress of your work, in keeping of course with whatever confidentiality you require. We also urge you to publish your results in a timely fashion, through whatever channels you deem to be appropriate, though we would very much appreciate first consideration for Infinite Energy. All good wishes,
Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, cc: William Zebuhr
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:56:34 -0500 Subject: Re: Reifenschweiler article From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Edmund Storms CC: Christy Frazier, Jed Rothwell On 3/25/04 11:09 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
> Gene, at the risk of once again raising your ire, I feel obliged to Thank you for your input, Ed. We have increasingly used peer review, but I do not believe that your views are sufficiently broad -- or accurate , on some occasions -- to make you a peer of much that occurs on the new energy frontier, other than in the insular field known as LENR. I completely disagree with you and had been intending for some months now to ask you if you would prefer not to be on the Board of Science Advisors, since I do feel that our views about science, politics, and PR are quite radically different. I wish you well in your future work and will always value your contributions to the LENR field very much -- and your contributions to Infinite Energy, but we now need to go our separate ways. We'll see you in Marseilles, I trust. Sincerely, Gene
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:23:37 -0500 Subject: Earlier trash from Storms -- I did not reply to it. From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa Dear Alex and Paulo, This was Storms' last message before his recent resignation. This missive from him I did not reply to, nor will I. - Gene ****STORMS' LETTER:
Gene, you did a good job of describing your approach. Now let me describe mine in similar detail.
I agree with you, the Correas and other people have shown that a unique source of energy exists that can
apparently be extracted from space. Whether all of the methods claimed to do the extraction tap the same
energy source is still an open question. I realize that you and the Correas propose a universal
explanation that
you would like to apply to all such studies. While the model is interesting, from my perspective it is still
untested. [By "his" perspective, Storms means the perspective of someone who has not taken the
trouble to familiarize himself with the plentiful experimental results documented in our
monographs and books.]
The conventional model of mass-energy conversion is so well supported that I see no reason to throw out
the conventional description even if the Correa model were correct. [Clearly, Storms has no idea of
what the aetherometric model is that he so freely speaks about.] The E=MC2 equation applies to the
beginning and ending conditions and not on how the end condition is achieved. The Correa model only
attempts to show how the end condition is achieved. [Though Storms hasn't the foggiest idea what he's
talking about, he nevertheless speaks with great authority...] Consequently, the models are describing
two separate situations. In any case, if energy resulting from mass is added to energy coming from the
Correa source, the resulting measured energy should be unexpectedly large. Can you cite any examples
of this outside of LENR or the Correa work?
As for basic particles being made of mass-free aether, it seems to me a person needs to demonstrate this
assertion using methods that are independent of the Correa's work [This, too, is amusing - the need for
employing methods other than ours is supposed to justify Storms' refusal to study our methods
themselves!]. Considerable evidence has been generated in studies of basic particles that is not consistent
with this idea [Which idea???]. This can not be dismissed just because the Correas have a "beautiful"
model. [The Correas have a beautiful model which he does not understand nor has read about, nor has
any use for...] Enthusiasm for their model is understandable [Note the condescension.], but I would
error [sic] on the side of caution [read: ignorance] in throwing out all of the hard won conventional understanding
of mass.
As for cold fusion, the challenge is to discover the conditions that initiate the process and discover how
to change these conditions so as to increase the magnitude of the effect. I do not see how the Correa
model allows this to be done. [How could he?? This scientist has read only one of our monographs,
and only after we had already embarrassed him for not having done so...] They describe conditions
that produce the effect once the conditions are achieved [How authoritatively he makes these ludicrous
statements!], like most models applied to this problem. They do not tell how to achieve these
conditions. On the other hand, my "model" is guiding me to a solution of this problem. We will just
have to see which model wins.
Regards,
From: Eugene F. Mallove Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 07:27:14 -0500 To: Edmund Storms Cc: Jed Rothwell, Christy Frazier Subject: Re: Reifenschweiler article I am glad that you agree that you very seriously misinterpreted the article by Reifenschweiler. Your other comments about why this careful work should not be taken seriously and the author's interpretation considered seriously are as vague as the usual hand-waving done by the anti-cold fusion skeptics. I am very disappointed, especially since you were willing to call the combination of Reifenschweiler article and my commentary as a "Disaster." - Gene
From: Eugene F. Mallove Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 23:17:37 -0500 To: Edmund Storms Cc: Jed Rothwell, Christy Frazier Subject: Re: Reifenschweiler article Ed, > Gene, you could test the patience of a saint. I can assure you, Ed, that the feeling is quite mutual. You sorely try MY patience. We are like repelling nuclei.
> I admit that I misinterpreted part There are no serious flaws that you have specifically identified by other than hand-waving. Indeed, I caught you with a rather egregious mistake. That mistake does not necessarily invalidate any other specific criticism that you might offer to explain away the trough in the tritium counts, but I believe based on the Physics Letters A paper which began my awareness of this Reifenschweiler work, extreme due-diligence was performed to show that this is not an artifact (not that it is impossible that it is one, but there is no reason to consider it likely that it is such an artifact.)
> Instead of meeting me I feel no need to meet you "half way" -- there is no reason to do so because I do not agree with your criticism. > Are you seriously interested in dealing with this problem? The main problem is your egregious dismissal of this work as a "bad paper." It is your lack of appreciation for the potential importance of this paper that is bad.
> The paper is still a I am not a "believer" nor are you, I trust. I am an observer of evidence and logic. We do not all have the same view of evidence and appropriate logic. That is clear in this case.
> They say that believers try to publish poor papers without any willingness to use You wish to force the argument that there are most likely artifactual explanations for this paper. OK, summarize them briefly and I will put them in a letter to the editor. That will be the end of it. I and others -- including Reifenschweiler -- believe that this paper holds fundamental clues to LENR phenomena. I stand by that -- especially since it is supported by other evidence of the modifiability of radioactive decay. Do you think I give a damn about "skeptics"? I don't. > This paper, in a very public way, justifies this attitude. I am quite sure you would have that view about the Stirling/Hyborac papers too --even the association with one (me) who is involved with LENR too, but you have not communicated with me about this because it does not directly impinge on what is generally regarded as LENR turf. Well, please get used to the idea that Infinite Energy will be increasingly exploring the relationship of other anomalous physics phenomena and will be attempting to relate them more directly to LENR. I have done quite a bit of that already. I view it is a service to the field, You, by contrast, fear it and despise it. I well remember how so many CF people ran with terror when heavy element transmutation emerged in the early 1990s -- e.g. Talbot Chubb. Now it's all the rage and they love it. (...)
> The field from the beginning has been Indeed, the very first paper -- P&F's was incomplete and problematic. Eventually better work emerged and the general idea of LENR gained credence among a wider circle of people.
> Nevertheless, skeptics were No way! You may perceive it as such, but I am interested in science not politics. Let the DoE review review whatever Hagelstein, McKubre, Storms, or Chubb want to feed it. That's fine with me. That is how it should be. No one in skeptic-land will give a damn about issue #54 of Infinite Energy -- they will be too busy attacking the basic "conservative" LENR results. > At this point, I don't know what you can do, except to admit to me that a problem exists. I admit no such problem. Send me a Letter to the Editor, or don't send me one. It's your choice. But there will be no admitting of anything negative about this paper (unless a tangible error is found), because the paper happens to be -- at the moment -- I believe one of the most important papers in the field. > Perhaps we can hope that no one else notices. You can hope all you want, Ed. The paper and my comments about it will be widely noticed. Letters of appreciation are already coming in.
> I for one would be I understand the situation and it is the polar opposite of your understanding. > It does neither one of us any good to get into a pissing contest. That's right. We have distinctly different views about this paper. My views are based on a far wider -- and better -- perspective than yours. You are still stuck in the nuclear active environment paradigm and the use of E = mc2 to explain LENR excess heat. Someday -- not soon, I imagine -- you may learn that you were wrong, like you learned that you were wrong about your confusion about lambda. > Ed Gene
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 08:48:44 -0500 Subject: Censorship quote from Rothwell/Storms From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa FYI -- this was a message that Rothwell posted to Vortex about a month ago: "At LENR-CANR.org we have censored out some of the controversial claims related to CF, such as transmuting macroscopic amounts of gold, or biological transmutations, along with some of the extremely unconventional theories. This is not because we (Storms and Rothwell) oppose these claims, or because we are upset by them. It is for political reasons only. The goal of LENR-CANR is to convince mainstream scientists that CF is real. This goal would be hampered by presenting such extreme views. Actually, I have no opinion about most theories, and I could not care less how weird the data may seem. At the Scientific American and the APS they feel hostility toward such things. They have a sense that publishing such data will harm their readers and sully the traditions and reputation of academic science. I am not a member of the congregation at the Church of Academic Science, and I could not care less about the Goddess Academia's Sacred Reputation. I don't publish because of politics and limited web space.This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't have leg to stand on and he knows it. - Gene
It was clear that neither Gene nor Aetherometry would ever have anything to teach
these connivers and their fac-similes - the well-ensconced Chubbs, the underhanded
Mizunos, and company. And Gene's unforgivable murder would, at last, make sure
that Aetherometry would no longer need to be cited within the incestuous cold fusion
circles.
If there is a positive DoE review, then perhaps in 10 or 20 years, after a few trillion
dollars have been thrown down the drain, some desperate sod might actually awaken to
the contributions that Aetherometry might have made to the field of nuclear fusion.
Yet, as it stands, we throw here, instead, a challenge to all cold-fusioneers and nuclear
physicists - can they explain the structure of nucleons, neutrons (which are not
nucleons, as Aspden so rightly contends, but nuclear emissions) and nuclear fusion
reactions, and identify the 'desirable' pathways?
They can't. And they know it. Which is why they can only either try to understand
Aetherometry, or try to steal from it (which is more in keeping with their modus
operandi), or ignore the question altogether. The latter is, obviously, the policy of
scientists, our so-called peers. And is seconded by the media.
So, perhaps, the greatest irony is this: that so many "believers" and cold-fusioneers
who sound like 'skeptics' when they snicker that Eugene Mallove had so many times
pinned his hopes on this or that gizmo, none of which panned out, were,
for the most part, the very scientists and engineers who invented, advised on, or
engineered these gizmos! Perhaps, even more poignantly, when the same Eugene
Mallove encountered technologies that worked, these same "believers" chose to shut
their ears and ignore him.
No wonder they believe that salvation comes from the DoE, not from science, and
certainly not through their hard work.
|