Table of Contents

We should perhaps explain that Rothwell's "loathing of Correa", as he puts it in one of the emails quoted below, dates back to their very first encounter, which took place at the 1998 Cold Fusion and New Energy Symposium in Manchester, NH. At this symposium, Paulo lent 15 minutes of his own presentation-time to David Marett, allowing the latter to present a disconfirmation (later published in IE #22) of Ohmori and Mizuno's claim of LENR excess heat in their so-called "Water Glow Arc Discharge" experiments. Since Rothwell was an ardent supporter of Ohmori and Mizuno, he took explosive, red-faced exception to Marett's presentation - whose evil he blamed on Paulo - thus drawing Paulo into a loud and almost-physical confrontation. From then on, he took it upon himself to publicly decry Anything Correa.

Subject: Re: Unbelievable!
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:35:40 -0400
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
CC: Uri Soudak

Dear Paulo,

>Dear Gene - I am at a loss, appalled and near anger at what I have read today and follows below. This was brought to my attention by an overseas contact (you do not know him), and is a very recent intervention by Jed Rothwell (25th May, on the Vortex list), in an exchange with Kooistra, that reads-

"My comments were about products that various people claim they have, which supposedly produce 5 to 100 watts heat or electricity reliably, with little or no background input. These people complain they cannot get funded. I tell them they should market the product in various ways that will quickly bring in pots of money and solve their problems with the Patent Office, the courts and the APS. They become very upset with me. I gave up talking with them years ago. I won't mention names, except Correa, who does not monitor this channel. He attacked me in a formal presentation. Fortunately for him it was not recorded. There were a few investors and businessmen there, who were even more appalled than I was. At least I knew what was coming. Frankly, I do not believe these claims anymore. I cannot imagine anyone who so smart he could invent something like that, but so stupid he would sit on it and starve to death, when he could make millions overnight."

The first question I have for you is: did you know about this?

[Incidentally, by observing the recent snake-like goading by Kooistra of Jed onVortex, it is clear that Kooistra is trying to stir up trouble on many fronts. It is Kooistra's way of attacking Infinite Energy obliquely.]

So, I no longer spend any energy trying to correct him. I let him make a fool of himself on his own. I have found it IMPOSSIBLE to prevent him from occasionally making these extremely hurtful and irrational outbursts -- no matter how many times I have warned him against that. Fortunately, they are less frequent. I have learned to live with it and also feel that it is better in some sense to have him under partial control, rather than as an outside agent attacking Infinite Energy. That said, he is speaking only for himself, of course, not for me, despite his use of our e-mail address attached to his name. His "saving grace," if you will, is that he is ultimately convinced by experimental evidence. He has a very, very weak understanding of physics and this is dangerous, to be sure. On the other hand, he always asserts that he IS weak in physics theory.

>I must suppose that you did not. The next I have is: is this guy still with your organization?

> He is a cancer.

>He is an expert in everything and in nothing. And distorts facts with the ease of a soap peddler. He lies by saying I attacked him in a formal presentation.

>His 'fortunately' is a veiled threat. His unforgivable cowardice shows in the 'Correa does not monitor this channel'.

>He takes our public argument in 1998 during a lunch-break entirely out of context.

>It was about our present society most often making the wrong technological choices - with the result that potential technologies become buried; just as it was about the fact that simply because it is buried it is not necessarily good. It was about the systems of scientific and social repression that select which scientific models are acceptable to define established paradigms. He also gravely distorts what I represented as having invented and discovered in the realm of the PAGD at the time of the confrontation. He smears everything, sweeping to the present, to insinuate what? I leave it up to you.

> I am forced, once again, to conclude what Reich concluded - people are not ready to understand; they want salvation on a platter, but they are armored against life, love and knowledge. Jed is an insidious, lying, conniving, vengeful, resentful little man. Three years later he is still stuck or fixated on this event!

> And this is the guy who purports to have something to say re inventor's disease - a guy who is clearly malicious and suffers from what one should better call the promoter's disease.

> To top it all, he forgets that he got insanely mad and inarticulate at the time precisely because only one person of those present defended him.

>Ask Alf [John Thompson] what he thought - he was there, if I recall correctly. What is more, this guy does not even realize what are the issues at stake - that they are issues of science and not, I repeat, NOT a matter of gizmos that will conquer the market. He is placing you in an untenable position - and he sure as hell is not going to squeeze me, or my work with Alexandra.

> He has, at best, a simplistic notion of the world around us.

> At worst, a hidden agenda that he intends to serve at our cost.

> Since you have repeatedly made it clear to us that dealing with you implies dealing with your organization, my advice to you is sanitize him - otherwise there is much that we have agreed to do or are contemplating doing that will have to be revised. What a jackass!

>Let me know your thoughts on the above as soon as you gather the facts.

>Best wishes

Paulo

Gene

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: More from Aetherometry
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:16:06 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>

On 1/30/02 10:51 AM, "thomas malloy" wrote:

> It will no doubt interest you to know that neither Hal Puthoff or I can make any sense out of it either. Other than their pointing out the temperature anomaly that occurs over the top of a orgone collector. I'm still trying to figure out what Neiche [Sic] has to do will [Sic] all this. I understood that someone had tested the Correa's PAGD and determined that it was producing O U energy, does anyone know anything about that?

As far as the PAGD device goes, it can run a 500 watt draw motor right now, with only 50 watts DC input. See my testimonial to that effect. Previous problems of transduction to O/U motor operation have been solved. Closing that loop is a foregone conclusion -- engineering the generator only. The electrical aether motors run off orgone accumulators are self-sustaining already at the low wattage level. I have looked inside the electronics box on my last visit -- absolutely no funny business inside, but that is only my inspection and my word. Then there are the associated physical effects through human bodies that can't possibly be faked.

Per Jed's public request on this forum, as soon as I get some clear time (hah!)_ I'll post some descriptions of the body of the Correa work, in perhaps more understandable terms, to help those not familiar with the Correa work. These comments will come in stages -- not all at once.

These are not easy monographs. It is very radical physics, but it is ALL based on experiment, not someone's derivation of a derivation of a derivation on the foundation of relativity or QM, which describes most of what passes for physics today.

For now, issue #41 of IE and the following issue #42 (out in late March), describe a commercial Stirling motor run by the heat developed from the aether INSIDE a modified orgone accumulator. See their module AS2-05 "The Thermal Anomaly in ORACS and the Reich-Einstein Experiment: Implications for Blackbody Theory," which proves that the heat (developed *inside* the Faraday cage) is of aether origin. The motor demonstration merely emphasizes the point that a practical application is possible. There are adequate controls described in those papers, but the best "controls" are as given in AS2-05. These Stirling/Hybrid ORAC papers are now posted also on the Correa site.

The monographs are quite clear about numerous other experiments that defy conventional explanation -- such as with Telsa coils. Yes, theory -- difficult theory -- is developed in parallel. One might wish to read the experiments and ignore the theory for now, then go back and study the theory later. There are many ways to approach this. The Correa effort is superlative scientific work, ready made for confirmation by others who care to read it.

Gene Mallove
www.infinite-energy.com

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Various
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:13:39 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

Good to hear from you again. A new funding prospects for you has arrived -- see below. But first other matters.

> Dear Gene -

How are you and Joanne settling in the new home?

> And your parents?

> We got our copies of IE last Friday. We loved everything but...the cover. Barbara barbarized the whole feel of Alex's painting, clipped the thermometers and made a meaningless allegory.

> Do not bother to tell her, but. Anyway, the rest was excellent - and we loved the fact you mentioned Akronos and included Harold's paper (which was a pleasure to reread).

> There's been a few days we have not been in contact - so, here goes a whole batch of other items.

We loved too your response to Molloy in Vortex - quite to the point, and excellent. The unfortunate reality is that people are addicted to the soundbyte on a platter.

> Any prospect of having to do some legwork in order to understand something repels them.

> We have had plenty of orders for AS2-16 because, simply because, it mentions 'excess energy'.

> Yet, anyone who has not tried to attentively follow the preceeding 15 monographs will not understand even one line of it.

> Alas, the hillbilly mens capta triumphs. Indeed, you are quite correct, neither Molloy nor Puthoff have ordered any material, and we do not even believe they have downloaded the free material.

> This once again proves that you are just the ideal communicator to convey, as you suggest (by the way what did Rothwell say?), a distillate of the work. We would love to help you out on this task if and when you feel poised to take it up.

Jed Rothwell has just suggested on Vortex that a Glossary would help Aetherometry.com -- I know you have intended to post such an item. It would help everyone, including me - and I think it would further sales. Is there any prospect of posting even a short glossary for now, and then doing a more comprehensive one later?

Rothwell has actually been warming to your work -- just a tiny bit -- as a result of the Stirling/Orac experiment. This is what he wrote to me about it:

"The Correa results with the Stirling engine are remarkable. If they can be replicated by two or three others, I will start to be impressed. He claims the daytime results cannot be caused by solar heat. I do not fully understand his computations and null tests to prove this point. They are difficult to believe in any case, because the machine is only extracting a small amount of the potential energy, which means the margin of error is large; i.e., if it is extracting a fraction of 1 percent more solar energy that he thinks, his hypothesis is wrong. Also, it is very difficult to know how much power the motor is producing. In any case, the daylight results are weak, but results at night appear to be more anomalous. The only conventional explanation I can think of would be heat released from the floor and objects in the room. I have observed very large, persistent air temperature differences in quiescent rooms. I investigated this when we were testing the Perkins device."

"As you know, I loath Correa personally but it would not bother me for a second if it turned out his claims are true, as long as they are made public. I couldn't care less how much of a jerk he is. This field is overrun with jerks, from Fritz Will ("Fritz Won't") to Mills, Bearden, Shoulders and the late Reding -- to name a few. One or two more make no difference to me. I am only concerned about results. However, I fear that Correa's many personality problems will continue to prevent him from commercializing or teaching the technology."

> We have been hard at work writing up the paper (AS2-28) on the radiation meter response to biological fields. It is simply fascinating what we are learning with it. We have had to repeat several of the measurements for increased accuracy - and that is taking longer than we thought.

> All three wheels are still turning and several experiments have been conducted, but not yet the definitive one - still chasing a few unknowns, but certain that it is not an artifact and that it can be tamed.

> Once one strips the electrostatic effects, the basic phenomenon seems to be geomagnetic and weather-dependent - yet that is not the entire story. We have done data-acquisition analysis for a week on one of the wheels, and the diurnal pattern is evident. However, the more interesting wheel arrangement is so sensitive that it responds to the presence of the photocell circuit (clear artifact employed by you know who), and so we must find another method to study its variation in speed. We are now doing this with a remote video camera placed far enough from the wheel.

> To this day we have not heard from Hoagland (he got his first volume under his arm and then disappeared...) or from Guillen.

> That's alright - none of us actually thinks that kind of publicity ever does one any good. Anymore than the supersecret national energy policy cooked with the semi-defunct Enron and targeting the Alaska fields (incidentally, Rothwell analysis of Enron is highly demagogical - he almost touches the core but pulls back; strange fellow).

> These are all props in an eternal show buttressed by rationalized ignorance: unless peer-reviewed to death by Science or Nature, no science matters. Can you imagine the day when either one would publish one of our monographs?

> Forget about their length. It will never happen, precisely because the dogma of peer-reviewed science has become an ongoing murder of the scientific spirit. A protection racket.

> This is almost where the task of Aetherometry and education necessarily converge - unless one forms scientists with a different mind and new tools, we are all done for.

> We heard from Uri last Thursday, before he left for Holland. He is due to be back today.

I was contacted yesterday by my friend at a distance, Dr. Ron Klatz of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. You will see their ad in IE regularly -- p.8 of the latest issue. We have an exchange ad with them. The main purpose of his call was to invite me to be a speaker next December at their national convention meeting in Las Vegas. All expenses paid, so I will do it. Of course I will be talking up aetherometry and your work big time -- drawing the potential connection between your physics/biophysical findings and many unexplained aspects of modern medicine. I'll talk about CF too, but less than I would ordinarily do. There should be some 3,000 physicians at that meeting. The organization is fighting an uphill battle against the well funded mainstream medical establishment. So, he well understands what aetherometry and CF are up against.

Ron has always been open to the kinds of things we publish, so I never fail to tell him of the latest. I briefed him on our plans for Aethera, making particular note of the aether field meter, which really captivated him. I asked him whether some of his physician colleagues would be interested in investing $500k to $1 million level. He said that this kind of money was easy to raise when proper info is given to the doctors concerned -- they have raised in the past few years $20 million, he says. One company, private still, has found a way to revive cadaverous organs (such as kidneys) -- some hours after death. This will greatly expand the availbility of donor organs, which are ordinarily taken from still living (but brain dead) bodies. He says some 300 such transplants have already been done, but it is being kept quiet for commercial reasons. I do not known the particulars. Ron was so excited about your work that he offered to propose spending $50,000 of their funds to begin incorporation process, web site set up, etc. I told them that much more was needed for the production process, salaries, etc. He understands this. He is not trying to buy-in cheap. I sense a really positive connection here. I told him that Uri might call him soon, so I do hope to brief Uri on this.

Here is a suggestion: Let us consider a hands-on visit by Drs. Ron Klatz and his Board colleague Dr. Bob Goldman, who specializes in the investment outreach. Perhaps at the same time we could combine these two doctors' visits with Dr. Kornberg. I know you have schedule problems, but I do think this may be very productive. We have not really tried to tap into the "open minded physician" community, and here it is at our doorstep. Physicians generally have plenty of money,and they are always looking for good deals to multiply their wealth. Also, idealist ones like Kornberg and Klatz would like to help make seminal contributions to medicine.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Most of the otherer funding quests are still alive but each has their own problems and explanations for little action. For now I'll not bore you with the details. Let us try to focus on the Klatz-Kornberg prospect. I have a good feeling about it.

> No one has any prospectively good financial news. As soon as we are done with the 17A,B and C papers we will go south again - scouting - from mid March to mid April.

> Warmest regards

Alex & Paulo

> PS - The article about electricity from mud was fascinating! Thank you!

On the patent issue - we have not yet received "the form copy, the final hard copy of the application and a disk with MS word version". Were you sending it by FedEx?

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Various
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 22:34:55 -0800
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

I have had a bad sore throat today -- so I was not in the office - getting better though. Say, do you think that the general subjective impression one gets with colds - that evening time brings on worse feelings -- has anything to do with the dearth of aether flux from the Sun at night?

> Dear Gene -

We're very happy that you, Joanne and your parents are all settling in and happy with the new surroundings.

On the Rothwell issue: yes, a glossary has been in the works for sometime but is still far from ready. But people like Rothwell will never have any use for it, since he, too, has not downloaded any material - free or otherwise.

> We thank you for copying us on his letter to you. As usual he shoots off his mouth without thinking - it is beyond us how he arrives at:

"They are difficult to believe in any case, because the machine is only extracting a small amount of the potential energy, which means the margin of error is large; i.e., if it is extracting a fraction of 1 percent more solar energy that he thinks, his hypothesis is wrong."

which is obvious nonsense if one considers precisely what we found in AS2-05 for the BORAC spectrum - many percents more would make no difference such as Rothwell claims. How he manages to make such statements without having anything to back them up with is only another sign of his rabid hatred of Paulo. We wonder how much longer we will endure his ravings without attacking him head on, for a myriad of such stupidities about issues which, incidentally, when they arise from the Mizuno or Ohmori camp he gladly excuses and approves.

> The guy is psychotic.

>> Excellent-Squared!!!! Dear Friends: When you tame this, I strongly suggest that this could become one of the most enticing products for Aethera. It would be provacoative, instructional, and accessible to a range of psyches. It would SUCK in all manner of inquiries about your work (many of them trashy and nasty), but out of which would come the golden $50-$100 million investor.

> Impossible to continue to believe this, Gene - we and you have thought or written the same about all the other inventions, and we still have gone nowhere.

>>> We heard from Uri last Thursday, before he left for Holland. He is due to be back today.

>> I left a message with him yesterday concerning the new funding prospect.

[snip, repeats above message re. Katz]

>These are hopeful news. We have not heard from Uri. Have you two managed to make contact yet?

>> Well, perhaps in February we could squeeze in a Uri-Mallove-Klatz-Goldman-Kornberg visit. Let us try to keep the Aethera prospect alive. I think it is still very, very viable.

> Such a visit would have to take place before Feb. 20, which is a very unlikely prospect. The alternative is later in April.

> Our backs are right against the wall. Our losses in this month alone have wiped out even our small margin of maneuver. Let us know how best to proceed. What did you have in mind - a one day event, with demos of the field meter, the charger and the wheels (plus the Stirling videos)?

>>> On the patent issue - we have not yet received "the form copy, the final hard copy of the application and a disk with MS word version". Were you sending it by FedEx?

>> I will send it by standard mail today or tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.

> We still have not received it.

> We should also note that we have not received the proofs for the Stirling second part.

Gene

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Various - 5/8/02
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:39:47 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

(...)

> On the Rothwell matter - we have asked for legal advice from our counsel, but do not have an answer yet. Are you still planning on responding to him by Monday?

> We also caution you about Les Case - we never believed his research had anything of value to offer,

> Please let us know what you would like us to do regarding JR

----------------------------------

Subject: FW: MEG measurement errors?
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 12:29:49 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Paulo and Alexandra,

I do not know whether you will get this shortly on your travels or when you return. I thought you'll like to see this blast I gave to Jed on Vortex.

My kidney stone passed in fragments finally. I am stone free -- or "stoned out" if you prefer!

Busy as usual. Will write more in a few days. Nothing too dramatic on other fronts to report.

All good wishes,

Gene

------ Forwarded Message
From: Eugene F. Mallove
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 10:55:04 -0700
To: Vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: MEG measurement errors?

On 4/30/02 1:28 PM, "Jed Rothwell" wrote:

> Bob:

Did you send that message to J. Naudin?

I do not know much about electricity, but I suspect that all reports of o/u output from electrical devices are mistakes similar to the one you described. Otherwise, someone would have made one of these gadgets self sustain.

Jed, this is a nonsense statement and it hearkens back to the same kind of nonsense that was used against the Wright brothers. Shame on you! :). You may disagree with my and other reports of testimonials of the Correa's PAGD work and self sustaining motors, but this is just a prejudice on your part. I stand by my observations as do the handful of others who have seen and measured their PAGD and aether motors. Now they have other devices (see latest letters of support by me and others posted on their web site.) One is a perpetually spinning wheel that drives against friction with no input power at all. It has been spinning for months. I was there when it spun -- under my direct observation and testing -- for over a day. There is NO mistake. Another is a self charging capacitor circuit. Another is their aether field meter, which has profound medical implications --as do the aether motors themselves.

Again, there are some people, such as the Correas, who are far more interested in science than in commercialization and "changing the world." They have their own standards and agenda. They don't feel they owe anything to "humanity." They are the most wonderful people, but they just don't happen to buy into your idea that they or we owe the world anything -- just because they have discovered free energy and are far ahead of the Mills, Bearden, and cold fusion community (with respect to the technical performance of their devices). They have resurrected the line of work that Tesla and Reich began. They have published exemplary scientific articles on experiment and theory -- just as the cold fusion people have. Further, there is almost no doubt in my mind that cold fusion will never be understood by the pathetic, wrong, physics that passes for truth in textbooks today.

You may disagree vehemently with this philosophy of the Correas, but at least acknowledge that it is an individual position which is as valid within its own context as any other philosophy. They have a right to their own property. If they think that the world does not deserve this technology on the world's own commercial terms, they are welcome to that view. Also you should acknowledge that you do not have enough scientific understanding to evaluate their work and you have unfortunately and carelessly burned your bridges with them. For the Correas it is science, not business first.

Blast away if you wish :) You're good at that, but you are still as wrong as wrong can be.

Gene Mallove

------ End of Forwarded Message

----------------------------------

Subject: J.R.
Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 17:52:19 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

I will be submitting a firm statement to Vortex regarding Rothwell's outrageous antics against you and others, but I need some time to compose my message properly. Just wanted you to know,

Hope you are both well wherever you are. I will be leaving for China --ICCF9 on May 17, returning May 25th.

All good wishes,

Gene

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: J.R.
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 08:35:55 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Paulo and Alex,

Great to hear from you again and to learn of your travels! Just a quick note before a lengthier reply after today -- I hope.

I have been reading more deeply the modules and gaining new insights and understanding. It is a fantastic achievement the more I comprehend it. I am preparing to create and overview of the modules so far that will entice the open-minded people on Vortex, IE, and elsewhere. This essay will grow and expand. But its initial version -- for Vortex -- will have a special up-front blast at Rothwell, whose bigotry and ignorance and fascism disgusts me. I suggest that you allow me first to expose his bullshit on Vortex in my "diplomatic" but firm way and then later you can come in with anything you wish -- I will post to Vortex any reply you send me. His opinion will be firmly disassociated by me from the editorial policy of IE. He has gone beyond the pale, and I suspect he will eventually leave IE for good of his own accord. But we shall see.

> We are very much considering our options and would like to hear more about the response to Rothwell and Vortex you indicated you are composing.

Aside from our trip to Europe in June (12 to 29th), we will now focus solely in finding some viable alternative to our present and dire situation. We may have to do far more traveling than we had expected. This has become a very small world indeed. Wishing to have had better news -

Best wishes - and a hug from us both -

Alexandra & Paulo

Gene

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: J.R.
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 22:53:43 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

> Dear Gene,

> OK. We'll wait to hear from you before responding to this moron - but he really needs to be severely kicked - and soon.

> Malgosia has forwarded another brain-dead missive from him to Vortex received today - and, as usual, it's clear he'd rather do anything than actually read the material or make any attempt to understand what's being said before taking an issue with it.

> Any ignorant, irrelevant speculation about what we 'might' be claiming is infinitely preferable. Yes, he's unbelievably ignorant, bigoted, resentful and a little fascist to boot.

> He should get a very stern response as soon as you can muster it.

> If you would like us to take a look at it before you send it, feel free to send it over.

> By the way, do you know anything about another jerk who goes by the name of 'Uncle Al'? Is he a friend of Rothwell's?

> We were, of course, very pleased to hear that you have continued reading the monographs and are feeling sufficiently inspired to write -

> though we really doubt the Vortex crowd will yield anything of interest.

> It will probably be of more value in IE or on our website - or in other venues we may come up with.

> But it would be excellent to go forward with this - and we would love to read it.

Have you had a chance to look at the Aspden Opinion yet?

> Hoping you're well and looking forward to hearing from you -

Alex & Paulo

Gene

----------------------------------

Subject: Various - 5/8/02
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 23:38:26 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

A short note because it's late:

1. I have printed out the Aspden opinion -- thanks for directing me to the right location.

2. I have just gotten the very disappointing news from C.E. [Charles Entenmann]. That he will not be able to advance us as much money as he had planned -- 5 year loans. The details are not spelled out, jut that we are getting immediately less than planned by 50%, possibly much less later. There is the strong feeling in his message that his financial handler/banker has had his hands in this. C.E. says -- paraphrasing -- "We'll send you some money now (half of what I had expected) and let's talk after you return from ICCF9" and "The magazine has to make more money, but how???"

This is a big blow, a sad day, but I was half-expecting it. I will have to tell Ken and Christy tomorrow afternoon so that we can take personal and company actions that will evidently be necessary -- compress the lab further into our unused publishing side space, thinner magazine maybe, and some of us - including me and Ken -- needing to take other full or part time work while putting lab activities on hold. Maybe I'll teach high school again -- at least the chance to "save" some young minds! This, unless we get funding from some other potential sources soon -- we have been working very hard in that direction and see some possibilities. We have been seeing some unusual "energetics" in the lab - Case's catalytic fusion device seems to be coming to life and some other devices brought to us, one of which -- purely electronic -- has a very peculiar nature (we are under NDA on it, but I have urged the party to examine aetherometry for possible deeper explanations). Another device was just described to me by a trusted long time subscriber -- and if he is not making a mistake, his observation is astounding. All this may be leading nowhere of course -- more wild goose chases. The imperative of the hour is to create a new modality to survive -- as an entity and as human beings.

3. More crap from Rothwell in a private exchange. Let me give you our exchange this afternoon which comes from this Vortex flap on "RF as the Hyborac explanation". See below. I am getting to the limits of my toleration of Rothwell. I find myself desperately wishing for him to leave the scene or our company and magazine. It may happen and I may engineer it. The exchange:

******
From Rothwell,5/8/02 --9:45 a.m. -- to Mallove

Rothwell first reaffirms his contention that Case's large (dewar cell designed for self-sustaining) is "insane". Then he continues:

Rothwell: You wrote:

>And, you branded this "insane" when you first heard about it!

It is insane. You should be using the Seebeck, instead of doing all this guesswork. You are talking about a "range of 5 to 10 watts." That's a ridiculously wide range. If the thing would self-sustain you could be sure of your results, but as long as it remains well below that level you have no firm assurance. You may even be wasting your time. I hope you are correct and it is producing ~10 watts, but I would not be terribly shocked to find out you are wrong. As for Case's own calorimeter, McKubre and others think it is far less accurate than Case thinks. It is practically useless.

On another subject, did Correa check the ambient RF noise? I gather there might be enough to drive a Stirling engine. Does he live near a radio tower?

- Jed

******
From Rothwell -- 5/8/02 -- 2:26 pm:

>> On another subject, did Correa check the ambient RF noise? I gather there might be enough to drive a Stirling engine.

> This is complete bullshit -- just like the other crap you have been dishing out against Correa on Vortex, sans reading the aetherometry literature -- just like what you accuse the anti-cold fusion skeptics of.

I cannot understand the aetherometry literature, but the experiment description in the magazine is clear. I do not know what the average RF power in a room would be, but based on the responses at Vortex Correa would be well advised to check for it. RF meters are cheap and widely available. If he has not done this he is remiss.

Back to Rothwell:

I assume Correa always tests his gadget in the dark (at night). Charles Ford wrote to me:

"There may have been an incandescent bulb in the room. I have noticed as much as 7 degree C change in metal surfaces (especially copper) just because of an Edison hot wire.... I have since changed all of my lab lighting to florescent. There is still occasional measurement problems but not near as much."

I told him there is no incandescent light. However, the fact that one can produce a 7 deg C temperature change should be a concern for Correa.

Back to Rothwell:

> If you'd read the literature of copious experiments they have published that back them up in spades and go far beyond the Stirling engine issue, this RF red herring would not even be an issue. Suit yourself.

Until the RF is measured or until someone shows me that average RF can never produce a 1 or 2 deg C temperature rise, it will be an issue, obviously. I do not know enough to judge, but so far no one has told me the RF hypothesis is unthinkable or out of the question. You have not told me that. Since it is very simple to check for RF it should be done. I gather you have not been able to replicate the Correa effect. Perhaps you are far from any intense RF source, and they are close to one. Or your building acts as a larger Faraday cage, preventing most RF from reaching the machine.

It does not matter how many "copious" experiments they have done if all are flawed by the same mistake. That is another reason why independent replication is essential before these results become credible. I do not understand why you think the Correas should be exempt from the normal standards that we apply to Pons and Fleischmann, the hot fusion program, and all other scientists. Whence the double standard? What is so special about these people? No one, anywhere, will ever get a free ride from me.

>It's damn hard to make an MM6 Stirling do what they made it do.

That is another problem with this experiment. How hard is it to make the Stirling engine run? Has anyone calibrated or measured the Stirling output? Do we know whether it is producing milliwatts, or watts? I do not see any mention of that in the article.

- Jed

That is all for now dear friends. Sorry that you should even see this pathetic garbage from Rothwell.

All good wishes,

Gene

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: DRAFT - (unfinished)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:56:21 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

Thanks for your input. I accepted all your suggestions, all have been integrated.

> Dear Gene,

Sorry it took a little time to get this back to you - but here it is. We are attaching your essay draft as an MS Word Document in rtf format. We have put corrections, additions or subtractions in bold type. We did add a few small sections for clarity. Let us know what you think, or if you need anything else before firing it.

You know, with all this praise of Aspden from JR, it would be most amusing if you were to ask him to explain, in his own words, Aspden's theory of the Aether to you. We bet you - a thousand to one - he doesn't have a clue how it works...

> It seems pretty clear from this latest piece of bile you forwarded regarding the Aspden Opinion that this pathological little pinhead is not going to let go. So be ready for a rapid and rabid reaction...

> We are also preparing on several fronts over here. We have not yet a final decision on the extent to which we will take it on our end.

> Among pending courses of action, an attack on the bogus 'free energy' proponents is a tempting new item for aetherometry...

> Speaking of which, you wouldn't by any chance happen to have a publicly available jpg of JR would you? Alex looked for one - to no avail. She is contemplating a cartoon and would dearly love an image...

> We won't tie you up any more for now.

> Happy hunting,

> Alex & Paulo

Best, Gene

----------------------------------

Subject: FW: Correa . . . problems #6, #7
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:04:21 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Uneducated speculations by Kooistra -- now an "ally" of Rothwell, as you see. Politics makes strange bedfellows, as they say. Previously Kooistra could not stand Rothwell, now all is sweetness. Real sick!

--Gene

------ Forwarded Message
From: Jeff & Dorothy Kooistra
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 23:26:43 -0400
To: Vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Correa . . . problems #6, #7

> Several logical consequences of the Correa claim do not make sense to me. First, if the energy is able to pass through the earth, then it should also pass right through an empty Reich box. What is unique about such a box that the energy is converted to heat (or removes heat) only there? Why does this energy manifest itself only in the special box, but ignores the earth?

I thought of this one, too, since the earth itself is a conductor. For that matter, the upper atmosphere is a conductor, too. So, does conductivity play a role? And supposing the aether energy enters the ORAC, does it interact within the metal walls of the ORAC, or does it go through to the inside of the box? And if the latter, how does the energy "know" it's supposed to stop inside the box? If it comes in on one side, why doesn't it go out on the other? And suppose you have this great big enclosed metal space, like say, a metal semi-trailer--wouldn't this capture more energy than a small box, resulting in a significant hot spot on the top of the trailer? Wouldn't you be able to look at the top of the trailer at night with a thermal imager and see the hot spot?

Y'know, it shouldn't be too tough to test an ORAC under vacuum conditions. Or even just reduced pressure. If you put an ORAC in a box held at half of an atmosphere, does it heat up as much as it does at full pressure? More? Less?

Jeff

------ End of Forwarded Message

----------------------------------

Subject: FW: Jed's comments on Reich's ORAC
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:26:28 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

The Quinney-Marett-Rothwell axis lives.

- Gene

------ Forwarded Message
From: Jed Rothwell
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 16:32:53 -0400
To: Vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: Doug Marett
Subject: Re: Jed's comments on Reich's ORAC

Colin Quinney quoted Doug Marett:

>To conclude, after several years of work on verifying Reich's observations of temperature differences in the ORAC as compared to controls, I must agree that the temperature difference does exist, but I must point out that there is evidence that this difference may be an artefact caused by heat convection, much like Einstein suggested. This lends support to Jed's contention that the ORAC may just partition heat.

Marett put a lot of hard work into investigating the ORAC. See this 1992 paper:

http://marett.tripod.ca/orgpaper.html

It must be tough for him to reach this conclusion. He has guts! I have not read orgpaper.html closely enough to determine whether he is retracting in this case, or merely calling into question other people's findings. It says "this phenomenon can not be due to 'convection currents' or 'heat reflection due to insulation' . . ." It does not mention thermal gradients.

This again illustrates why a Reich device must be tested in a calorimeter. I cannot understand why this has not been done. Perhaps it has been done, but I did not hear about it. Still, it is strange that Correa is repeating the same protocol that Einstein and others [ What others?? Marett never replicated the "Reich-Einstein experiment"! ] showed was invalid [ Einstein did not show that the protocol was invalid! If it was invalid, Einstein would not have confirmed a small but irreducible temperature difference! What Einstein believed was that Reich's explanation was not valid, since Einstein bought Infeld's notion that the phenomenon was caused by heat convection. ]. It was not convincing then, it still isn't, and there are many superior methods, so why keep doing the same experiment?!? [ It is called a replication, moron! ] It is as if all CF scientists were stuck in a time warp, still using precisely the same protocol P&F employed in 1989: bulk palladium, electrochemistry, an isoperibolic cell where only the electrolyte temperature is measured. If that were the case, I would not believe CF is real.

[ Funny to re-read this comment in 2025: are not the CF and LENR researchers stuck in some kind of time warp that has lasted over 4 decades? Over and over doing the same, yet to no avail? We recall the only research paper that Rothwell ever authored, a 2019 paper with T. Mizuno. It claims that "waiting for Godot" was the old LENR method, whereas Mizuno and Rothwell devised what they call the New Method, one that has instant gratification. Thus, by 2019, they reported excess heat of 12 to 17% with this New Method... a piffle, if that! Now, consider the fool back in 2002: ]

I am glad that cold fusion has been confirmed with a variety of different methods and calorimeter types! We will never find one single error that disproves all CF excess heat results. We would have to find a dozen different errors, which is much less likely. It would be like flipping a dozen coins and having them all come up "heads."

- Jed

------ End of Forwarded Message

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Jed's comments on Reich's ORAC
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 22:54:03 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Vortex l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>

On 6/6/02 4:06 PM, "Jed Rothwell" wrote:

> Eugene F. Mallove wrote:

>> Find it yourself. The name is Marett, not Maratt . . .

> That explains why I couldn't find it!

>> -- in the section on the orgone/aether motor.

> I can't find that section either. The index seems chaotic.

I invite you and other readers to review the sorry history of Douglas Marett's behavior in 1996. This may be found at:

http://www.aetherometry.com/pagd/CorreaReich.html

With this appalling history of Marett in mind, I am sorry that Colin Quinney introduced Douglas Marett's vacuous statements onto this forum -- along with some digs at the Correas for good measure.

>In any case, the statements about Marett in the parts I have located are incomprehensible gobbledygook.

> As far as I can make out, the author is criticizing Marett for his theoretical interpretation, not his experimental methods or results. The author does not address the thermal gradient artifact Marett discovered,

>which clearly, simply and conclusively shows that Marett's results are not anomalous excess heat.

>This test could be replicated easily by any other "Orgone" investigator, or they could also use a calorimeter. You almost get a sense they do not *want* to learn the truth.

>They want to drag out a sterile, useless argument by not doing experiments. They resemble the anti-cold fusion "skeptics" -- obsessed with theory, unwilling to do a direct experiment that will test their beliefs.

> This probably explains the results, as Einstein said. Marett explained to me:

"It is with much consternation that I must contradict myself and reverse the Reichian line . . . [O]ver the past few years, I have been improving my experimental technique and controls in order to better understand Reich's phenomenon. In the case of To-T, better controls and elimination of artifacts has instead led to the temperature difference becoming vanishingly small. In the past 2 years, I have obtained negative after negative result in Reich's experiments . . ."

> Many CF claims have vanished the same way. The "skeptics" are partly right about that. I admire Marett's dedication, but he too should have done other experiments years ago.

http://www.aetherometry.com/pagd/CorreaReich.html

> Colin Quinnely refers sarcastically to researchers who believe in their own "perfect experiment." His point -- and my point -- is that no experiment is perfect.

>Every technique has shortcomings and blind spots.

> A result is never certain until it has been verified using other instruments and other techniques.

> - Jed

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Jed's comments on Reich's ORAC
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 08:14:58 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>

On 6/6/02 9:15 PM, "Jeff & Dorothy Kooistra" wrote:

>Eugene F. Mallove wrote:

>> I invite you and other readers to review the sorry history of Douglas Marett's behavior in 1996.

> I don't know Marett, and I'm automatically suspicious of anyone who would spend years studying Reich. But the guy could be an axe murderer and it still won't improve Paulo's experimental technique.

>>> In any case, the statements about Marett in the parts I have located are incomprehensible gobbledygook.

>> You are a dilettante in this area from the word go. It is not gobbledygook.

> A "dilettante" no less? My my. Jed doesn't have to be a stable boy to recognize horsesh*t.

>> Marett has discovered nothing at all. Measuring the floor-to-ceiling radient and correlating it with anything is laughable.

> No it isn't--if he varied the gradient and found no correlation to the hot spot temperature, this would be very meaningful. Indeed, it would go a long way toward eliminating the gradient as a source of error.

>>> which clearly, simply and conclusively shows that Marett's results are not anomalous excess heat.

>> BELIEVE anything you want. His experiments are not conclusive -- where are they precisely described and quantitated, to the extent done by the Correas in IE#37?

> The paper in IE#37 isn't very good. The Correa's do a correlation showing that the temperature difference of the two thermometers could not be the result of chance, but so what? No one argues that it is. The argument is about whether or not the hot spot is an aetheric effect or an apparatus artifact.

>> Marett, if the truth be as indicated in the Correa/Reich Affair cited above, and I have no reason to doubt the quotations and history, is utterly inept -- but, of course, since the "enemy of my enemy is my friend", you embrace him.

> I can't address Jed's motives, Gene, but it seems pretty clear that the editor of IE isn't likely to welcome papers critical of Reich and the Correas.

>> (T)he Correas have been exemplary in rooting as many of these out as they can. They do not claim perfection. They are open to criticism, but only from those who examine their work carefully, as you and Marett most certainly have not.

> Seems to me that they, and you, regard criticism of their work as certain evidence that the criticizer hasn't examined their work carefully.

>> Yes, and relying on ONE person -- such as Marett, who turns out to be less than pristine -- to seek support for your ideas and battles, is quite dangerous.

> Jed isn't relying on one person--nearly everyone he's asked, except for you,

> agrees that the Correa's work is poorly executed, logically inconsistent, and written up in gobbledy-gook.

OK, it's your and their right to hold that view. Long long ago in/near a university far, far away (MIT), there were a handful of people (Mallove, Smullin, Hagelstein, Swartz, etc.) who were meticulously studying the evidence for cold fusion and finding legitimacy in it -- going against an ocean of bigotry which persists to this day. This was long before opportunistic toddlers like Kooistra and Rothwell entered the scene. You are still toddlers. Similarly, I am convinced that the evidence will favor the general findings about the aether presented by the Correas, Aspden, and others, at the time of a similar sea of bigotry and ignorance. As with cold fusion in its early two years, I am open to rejecting this evidence for a new paradigm, if/when I find it flawed. But I find the evidence persuasive at this time.

> Jeff

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Life in the Asylum
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 08:55:25 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

Look at some of the messages forwarded to you just now -- in which I take off the gloves against Rothwell and Kooistra whose new "saint" is Marett!!

> Dear Gene,

> Unfortunately, given the time we've had to devote to preparing to leave the country, composing a proper response to Ed, organizing the video (the place we went to screwed up the copying and it is - as we speak- being redone for pick up tomorrow - but has obliged us to make 4 consecutive trips to the lakeshore area of Toronto!) - we have not had much opportunity to write to you.

>In any case, we hope you enjoyed the letter to Ed and were able to chew on that a bit in the meantime.

Whatever comes of this exchange, we both trust you will see with your own eyes how (1) no serious discussion of ANYTHING could ever happen on a group forum like Vortex because a minimum of seriousness and cool headedness - as in the current exchange with Storms - is needed as condition (yet it assures no positive outcome);

> (2) and how irrationally armored against the realities of nature and senses even a good Christian man, like Storms, is, let alone the band of veritable Worts in Vortex.

> We have read your forwarded messages from Vortex and have found them immensely amusing. They really are falling all over themselves to demolish Correas, aren't they?

> If it was even just one hundred years ago they would burn us, dear friend, and you too!

> That's why gypsies live in boats on wheels and are nomadic. As Malgosia said, it's like watching non-stop reruns of the three stooges - Quinney, Marett and Rothwell... -Ah, how exquisitely they suit each other!

> Yes somewhere between the Three Stooges and a Keystone Cops routine. Every idiot notion is dragged out of the barrel - attributed to the Correas - and then is proudly debunked amidst much mutual cheering and backslapping. We were almost in tears with Rothwell looking for 'Maratt' on our website, while simultaneously commending Doug's outstanding character - "It must be tough for him to reach this conclusion. He has guts!" -

> and then fighting with the horrors of "what on earth phrases such as "Demeo's manicheistic Saharasianism," "Matrist savages" or "armored patrist" might mean." Oh, this was really priceless. And to see these idiots all roundly congratulating themselves on their "scientific objectivity" - pure vaudeville of the insane!

> One could not be given a greater gift of insight into how the minds of these truly pathological characters actually work. Yes - the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". This is precisely how these vindictive idiots align themselves.

> Funniest of all was Marett now jumping to denounce Reich -

>> "It is with much consternation that I must contradict myself and reverse the Reichian line . . . [O]ver the past few years, I have been improving my experimental technique and controls in order to better understand Reich's phenomenon. In the case of To-T, better controls and elimination of artifacts has instead led to the temperature difference becoming vanishingly small. In the past 2 years, I have obtained negative after negative result in Reich's experiments . . ."

> This is the consternation of those crocodile tears which Karl Moor recognized as the expression of the emotional state of most human beings and Dumas so exposed in his immortal Count of Monte Cristo: "ah race of crocodiles that eats its own!" Yes, there is a delta T but Einstein was right and I am no longer a Reichian! It was only in February last that, with a very special twitching of his eyes (!) our crocodile boasted on Ogg's Orgonomy Mail List that his excellent eyesight (he is actually blind as a bat - his contact lenses and his glasses are at least a quarter inch thick) permitted him to read - on mercury thermometers - 0.01 degrees centigrade To-T differences, and now he abjures his heresy because even his athletic achievement can be explained by convection. It is a sublime performance truly worthy, or just about, of the madness at the Charenton Asylum before de Sade was inmated there, and conducted performances of his play ("The persecution and assassination of Jean-Paul Marat [not Marett!] as performed by the inmates of the asylum at Charenton under the direction of the Marquis de Sade [not De Meo, ,who is neither a Marquis, nor a Count nor a scientist, nor De Mayo who is not a whom but a clinic]"), which the great playwright Peter Weiss immortalized in his play Marat-Sade (and not Marett-Sad). This should keep your spirits up.

> Dear friend, we really hope that in these trying and dark hours where stupidity reigns supreme, you will realize the real value of friendship. We do!

> Will hopefully (!) have news on the video tomorrow.

Gene

----------------------------------

Subject: FW: Jed's comments on Reich's ORAC
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 17:09:39 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

He's like a bozo inflatable balloon toy that keeps coming back for more.

--Gene

------ Forwarded Message
From: Jed Rothwell
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 11:14:58 -0400
To: Vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Jed's comments on Reich's ORAC

Eugene F. Mallove wrote:

>> I can't find that section either. The index seems chaotic.

>Chaotic to you, but not to a careful, truly interested reader with some familiarity (by study) with the history of Reich. . . .

An index is supposed to be a guide, not a secret code. An index which can only be used by people who are already familiar with the subject and "truly interested" is like a map that only makes sense to people who never get lost.

Along the same lines, in a technical document neologisms and rare words not defined in the dictionary such as "matrist" should always be defined in the text the first time they are used. Such rules are found in any guide to technical writing. An author who ignores such rules is either ignorant, amateur, or he intends to alienate readers. (The rules do not apply to literature such as "Ulysses.")

>You are an antagonistic dilettante in this area . . .

Correct. That is why I need a coherent table of contents and properly defined terminology. Unless this document is only intended for people who have already mastered the subject.

>I invite you and other readers to review the sorry history of Douglas Marett's behavior in 1996. This may be found at:

http://www.aetherometry.com/pagd/CorreaReich.html

This document is not on line.

In any case, I cannot judge the technical issues in this field because the terminology is meaningless to me, but it is clear to me that Marett is a better experimentalist than Correa, and he has a much more lucid, understandable, technically accurate way of expressing himself. I do not need to judge the fine details of the dispute to see that Marett makes a better case.

>You are a dilettante in this area from the word go. It is not gobbledygook.

If I am a dilettante it follows that the language must be gobbledygook to me. Any technical paper about a subject one does not know is meaningless. In this case, however, the technical terminology is not defined in any dictionary or textbook I know of, or in the text, so I have no way to reduce the gobbledygook quotient.

Marett's documents contain no gobbledygook, and I understand them without difficulty, so it is possible to write about the experimental side of this field without resorting to obscure, undefined technical terms. If the Correas would run a properly designed test that proves the box produces excess heat, they could describe this test with reference to standard thermodynamics and calorimetry only, without mentioning their theory. I would understand this description without difficulty.

>>Every technique has shortcomings and blind spots.

>Indeed. And the Correas have been exemplary in rooting as many of these out as they can.

No, they have not. The only way to root out shortcomings is to use a different instrument type and a different technique to measure the same putative effect. This is science 101 -- the sort of thing they teach in grade school. The Correas repeated the same experiment Reich did, with the same inherent weaknesses. This is an amateur mistake.

Also, they have not done control experiments or calibrations, which is even more amateur. They cannot say whether they are measuring 20 mW or 500 mW, a fact which could be established in a few hours, in a project that has gone for years. That is as far from "exemplary" as research can be.

>They are open to criticism, but only from those who examine their work carefully, as you and Marett most certainly have not.

Marett only needs to study his own experiments, which are also close copies of Reich's work. He saw the effect Reich saw, and he found the cause of it. Correa's work is irrelevant to him.

It is possible that Marett saw only the effects of thermal stratification and Correa is measuring something else, which is truly anomalous and interesting. However, without control experiments or calibration, we have no way to judge how big the apparent effect is, or what might account for it.

- Jed

------ End of Forwarded Message

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Reich's electroscopic anomaly
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 23:00:42 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

Very good to hear from you. I was doing lots of landscaping with Joanne today, trying to exercise and relax while being incensed at the Three Stooges (or is it 4?) -- I have not even read their crap du jour yet. I propose to send some combined missive to be titled, "The Three/Four Stooges Meet the Aether."

Tomorrow I'll be 55. [snip]

> Dear Gene -

We would love to hear feedback from you and Ed on the last response.

> Right now we're just busy with sundry matters before we leave on Wednesday.

Some good news, by the way. I heard from Sandy Selman of Energy&Environment. (The website was largely down due to a screw up by the ISP, which went out of business.) Spoke to him for several hours. He has a remarkable contact in Canada -- a Mr. Palmer -- who is a highly regarded paid consultant [for] Ontario Hydro, that is OH regard him highly and want him to be an employee, but he resists. I know, I know, you had problems with O.H. However, I think since Palmer is not exactly attached to OH, there may be something useful that can be worked out on funding PAGD, ABRI, etc. Selman will come to Bow in about a month for further discussion of the overall new energy field. Of course, I am pushing your work to the highest level.

> We have also written a long exposé of Rothwell and Vortex - including an indepth section on the dynamics of gathering of a mob by bully boys. But we have not yet completed it, and it appears we should just allow this bubble of activity, still ongoing, to die down before we strike.

> Vaudeville of the insane would indeed be a good title; or equally - Vortex - a forum for Worts, or Frothwell the Mother of all V(W?)orts...

> Aethera is largely in your and Uri's hands - if there are ways to proceed that make sense, we should consider them. But you should know that mere consideration or contemplation of the fundamental changes in knowledge and method which our work suggests will always meet this same kind of opposition from those who do not even adequately know the accepted doctrine they purport to defend, gadget or no gadget, theory or no theory, discovery or no discovery. They fear reading and knowing itself. It is so indelibly Christian that it reminds one of all the ancient world libraries Christendom so wantonly burned.

> Don't worry, we'll also deal with Marett when we come back. Right now, it is actually quite excellent to see them frantically aligning themselves and exploding for it is adding quite significantly to the ammunition that can be turned against them - for the exposé, or even better, for a legal confrontation - if we are able to find a firm willing to take up the libel charges on contingency. Since Marett has attacked our work publicly, on the OML and on Vortex, now publically announcing his radical change of 'faith' in the last month (on Vortex, that is, he hasn't yet confessed this terrible truth to his Reichian fanclub) - and has mounted a second campaign as Rothwell's newfound minion (like Kooistra) - we cannot but wonder if we do not indeed have a way to get around to claim major financial damages (for ongoing research) from this 'successful businessmen'. (You would have to admit that it would be nothing short of poetic justice if it could be done.)

> We'll see, when we get back from Europe.

> It was also most telling to see Douglas remark that Demeo had taken the trouble to send him a complementary copy of the PP5 and that he now claims (in less than a month flat!) to have been successfully replicating the mung bean silliness with 'similar results'. (We don't have to imagine under what conditions! In fact, we have no doubt that he'll even break Demeo's length record for stressed out mung beans.) His simultaneous sorrow with his disillusion with 'Dr. Reich's aether' for the Vortex crowd benefit was nothing short of vintage Marett. You can now see his true face in transparent splendor.

>>> Funniest of all was Marett now jumping to denounce Reich -

>> I will soon bring up on Vortex (at the right moment) some of Jed's "heroes"-- e.g. Hideo Ikegami of Japan, who somewhat like Marett denounced a field in which they once "believed".

> We would love to read that.

>> Jean Manning contacted me. She'll be in Germany to hear you and Harold and others. She trusts my judgment of your work, but in her less tutored way already began to have an affection for your work.

> She wrote us three days ago and we answered her two days ago but have not heard from her since. She sent us some pictures of our work but we were unable to open them, and alerted her to it. She stated she was happy to see Reich's work taken away from control by The College of Orgonomy.

>> She is a very good lady whose comments in various media outlets and in her books are useful.

> We can only hope she has her head screwed on well now seeing the dismaying performance of these Worts. The power they have is precisely to garner weak souls with their smearing campaigns.

>> I do not know if you have ever met her.

> No, but we are looking forward to do so.
[snip]

The runaround with these videographic company has not yet stopped. Only on Monday will we have the materials and the estimates! We will let you know. How are the plans moving to change IE, recast a structure and ditch Frothwell in the process?

Ken Rauen as of Monday will be working half-time for Bill Zebuhr's Ovation Products Corporation. He will increase his hours later this summer. We are in the process of compressing the lab into our publishing area, which is a good idea anyway. Zebuhr is a very impressive man and I do think there will be a significant role for him in new energy. I'll send you an attachment that describes his company -- using it for private PR purposes at this time.

> We hope you are weathering all this well. It is every bit as low and as ignorant and as malicious and two-faced as we expected and nothing short of grotesque to witness. If there's anything at all we regret in all this, it's that so much of their idiot venom is also being directed at you. Don't think for one minute that we are not very aware of what you are doing for aetherometry - and at what cost.

Now to read their trash before bed... Ugh!

> Through the flames,

> Alex & Paulo

----------------------------------

Subject: The Three (or is it 4 or 5?) Stooges Meet the Aether
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 23:50:13 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>

Vortexians,

My, my how these scoundrels - Marett, Rothwell, and Kooistra -- do carry on, re-writing history, falsifying science -- applauding trash and degrading the good and the difficult which is beyond them. Even altering my credentials, publication record and work history (Kooistra)! It's known as projection, I think. I just knew there had to be some subtle connection in intellectual caliber and integrity between Kooistra and DoE's John Huizenga -- after all, they both went Calvin College! "Or shut up," indeed, Jed. You'll be shut up yourself, quite soundly.

This Vortex effluent is really quite amusing. It will be fertile material for a good number of critiques -- and they are coming. But for today, because it happens to be the weekend of my birthday, and while relaxing with some overdue landscaping and work with humus-manure mixtures, I've had quite enough dealing with bullshit for one day than to get a triple dose on Vortex. I'll just pause and let these little midgets amuse themselves and add to the pile of material for The Stooges Meet the Aether. When to expect it? Just wait. Perhaps it will be a good long wait -- or maybe a short one. It depends on my taste and spare time and how much effluent it makes sense to filter. This forum has become a cesspool. I simply must allow some time for serious work -- not wasteful, though interesting, cleanup after the Stooges' Vortex mouthings. I need to carefully consider and digest the appalling nonsense and deception that has oozed all over this place these days.

Cheers...

Gene Mallove

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Happy Birthday!!
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 21:35:59 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex, Paulo, and Malgosia,

How fine to receive this greeting!

> Dear Gene,

> Happy Birthday!! We hope you and Joanne are enjoying an excellent day gazing in pride, no doubt at your handiwork of yesterday - and celebrating 'in the usual fashion' - as used to be said in polite company!

> A small (very small) birthday joke, in case you did not see it, is that Marett has just suddenly yanked his pro-Reich website and announces he will now mount an anti-Reich one.

> This should most certainly please the Warts. Even more disingenuously, he is using a number of the problems with Reich's interpretation of the electroscopic anomalies we raised (for the first time) in our monographs - which we think we told you he sneakily purchased under his wife's name - (no we did not fail to notice! He even craftily did it while visiting his wife's family in Australia to hide himself even further. Poor silly sod.) which he would never in a million years have noticed on his own - but now intends (as his most recent letter to Vortex makes clear) to twist our arguments to suit his newfound Rothwellian club affiliates.

> He says today - "On another note, I think I am likely going to withdraw the articles on my terrapulse.ca website until I have had a chance to properly explain on that site why I think the data in them might better be explained by conventional physics." (We checked. The site is, in fact,down!) This is, by the way, throwing the Ogg Reich Club into complete disarray - which is also quite amusing to observe. All the babies are falling out of bed. Now what will Demeo do with his newfound 'skeptic' friend who also grows marvelous mung beans inside accumulators that -??

> His shinning comfort in the superiority of the conventional view - " don't take my word for it, just check any textbook."

So there it is. The usual Marett idiocies. Whatever Correas are doing - I hate it.

> On another note, we don't know about you, but we were completely disgusted with Ed's last letter. We felt we were suddenly in the company of Pastor Ed who, at great personal cost, was lowering himself to lead wayward sheep back to the fold...

>Quite stunning was that he took the trouble to say "I will take the liberty of deleting those sections upon which we agree or when we have ended our discussion for whatever reason in order to keep this exchange from growing too long." - when, in fact, what he deleted were some of the most critical challenges of our entire text made to him and which he simply decided to ignore/erase!! Sorry, Gene, but these constant references to "our belief", drawing absurd conclusions from what we have said to imply we have said something completely different - and idiotic - is not the way a serious person who is interested in a subject goes about attempting to hold a coherent discussion. It was disrespectful, condescending and downright rude. It is hard for us to believe he can actually be this thick. So, we are now forced to very much wonder exactly which forces are working in the background here. Is it simply his own pigheaded rigid adherence to simplistic textbook training psychology; the influence of the frenetic Warts; or something still other - from the stagnant mists of Los Alamos? It was interesting your reference to DoE's John Huizenga yesterday. Only the day before, someone from the DoE was on our site for several hours for the first time...

> It is unclear whether we will finish our response to Ed [Storms] before we leave. There is so much to do (how Ed likes to behave as though only he has 'better things to do than learn any thing about aetherometry'! As if we might not have better things to do than to teach someone who is too busy to read carefully or to want to find out for themselves!!)- but we will try. If we do, we may send it first to you before sending to you and he together.

> Anyway - we will speak of all this later...

In the meantime, a most excellent 55th to you! [snip] A very, very big hug to you Gene - we all will lift our glasses to you tonight in a toast - may you have many more, and better and more joyous and hopefully - without all these Warts at the gate !

> Our very best to you -

> Alex & Paulo - & Malgosia!

Gene

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Re the Storms reply - and what is likely our last stance
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 23:40:59 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

Indeed, delighted to see your impressive stream of correspondence again -- marvelous that you are back! I am tired myself from much moving and compressing of the lab facility. I'll get to more detailed responses tomorrow. BUT FIRST -- what I believe to be a very good letter and associated description of their capabilities -- from Sandy Selman. See attached items. I hope you like these. Give it some careful consideration, because I think these are serious folk with financial strength in their Rolodexes...

> Dear Gene -

We have not heard from you yet, but in the meantime have written what will likely be our last response to Storms. It had to be simply as tough as it is. We are tired of serving cared-for dishes to whiners that cannot get off the couch and do their basic homework, whether they have credentials or lack them being beside the point.

So, after reading Storms' last reply we realized that our eager words to you from yesterday were simply that - too eager and hopeful of a dialogue that was worth maintaining. On the contrary, we found that our intuition was right and that we should have left those two terminal paragraphs in in our previous response. Anyway, there it is for all it is worth.

> We still do not know whether you have a copy of the last response from Storms. Please let us know. We'll copy you, as usual, on our reply to him.

> Hoping all is well with you -

All best,

Gene

EEV Corporate Profile.doc [Attachment]

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Correa discussion
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:29:36 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Edmund Storms
CC: Paulo Correa

Dear Ed,

> Dear Gene, I expect by now you have had a chance to read the exchange between me and the Correas.

> I'm interested in learning your impression of their response.

Above all, you persist in a strange loop of non-understanding, misunderstanding, or some other indefinable state. It puzzles me and saddens me. It is not as though I know EVERYTHING that the Correas know -- far from it! (based on reading and studying their published monographs), and would have been prepared to coach you as they have done, but I do clearly follow their responses and find that you remain mired in confusion. (This has been helpful to MY deeper understanding of their work, so the dialog between you and them has not been in vain, even if it ends.) Indeed, you seem to want to reduce their pioneering work to the conventional -- as when you cannot conceive that an electroscopic leaf (and its constituents) not moving upward can be said to be "doing work." They have reiterated and explained the microscopic/molecular point of view and you almost seem to have gotten it -- then you revert to the conventional nonsense of the glib macroscopic view of "no work is done if the leaf does not move upward." Amazing!

Can you not try to "suspend disbelief" long enough to learn their entire EXPERIMENTALLY BASED world view -- by accepting their conclusions as you proceed though the monographs and read about new concrete experiments that you and others could perform - much more straightforward than CF experiments, by the way? Perhaps then you would see the complete picture and agree that their physics is a tremendous, bold attempt at penetrating the non-workable myths of modern physics. I believe you probably have two failings that are holding you back:

A. You are not already sufficiently impressed by the depravity of currently accepted physics -- relativity and quantum mechanics and the evident flaws that are becoming more glaring with each epicyclic day! I can understand that you probably have not had time to study what many others -- apart from the Correas -- have said about this. I have tried to publish such material in IE. I urge you to examine it. The establishment itself agrees, as you well know, that accepted GR gravity and quantum mechanics have yet to be satisfactorily reconciled. It says that it hopes to do it -- just give them a few more billion dollars for high energy experiments.... I would hope that that fact alone would impress you and motivate you to learn about a Copernican-like revolution in thinking -- namely what the Correas are proposing. It may not be all correct -- but it is an honest, experimentally based attempt to set things right.

B. You do not take seriously enough MY testimony about what I saw and observed and measured in the Correa laboratory. I trust that you did read my two "Letters of Support" on their website? The first letter was published in full in IE #39 in my editorial.

If you really did give me the benefit of credibility on point "B" -- I would think that you would be powerfully motivated to study as much of the Correa work as possible. (I admit that you'd be even more motivated had you witnessed the experiments yourself, but at least trust that I am an honest reporter.) After all, I have put my credibility on line -- as I did in 1991 concerning cold fusion -- and stated that they have working free energy devices and antigravity demonstrations. Do you think there is the slightest chance of fraud or gross misunderstanding on my or their part? What would the Correas gain by this, other than a useless PR barrage? Clearly, you understand that they are highly intelligent and coherent in their discussions with you -- even if you resist them or cannot understand them. So, do you think for one minute that the alleged (by me) aether motors are a product of fraud or insanity? The infamous Rothwell does, in his libelous statements on Vortex. Perhaps some of this disgraceful, ignorant propaganda from him has rubbed off on you. I take that as quite possible, though I hope it has not happened.

>I'm at a loss to know how to interact with them in a productive way.

> Do you have any suggestions?

> More to the point, do you think it is worth the effort?

You wrote at one place:

"Jed is perhaps too judgmental and too frank about his personal opinions. This is his nature and should not be taken personally."

That is an extreme understatement, I find. If Jed had said the same things about cold fusion as he did about the Correas, you would not have said that such remarks "should not be taken personally."

At another point you write to the Correas:

>> If you have a real demonstrable discovery, I'm more than willing to learn about it and tell the world.

>You actually give the impression that your desire to know our work is nonexistent, more like a favour you might be paying us if we manage to convince you of the correctness of our observations, concepts, discoveries, etc.

You and I have different backgrounds and emphases. It just may be that studying an "enlarged physics" is not your interest or forte. It may be that for now you will simply continue your exemplary experimental and publishing work in LENR, and that is fine with me. That is enough for one life! But, again, I do believe you and cold fusion as well would profit from what the Correas have to offer.

Thank you, as always, for sharing your thoughts and feelings with me.

Best wishes,

Gene

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Your recent mail

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:53:35 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

> Dear Gene,

We apologize for not having written for a few days.

> It's been almost impossible to get near the computer. Nevertheless, we have been seeing your mail coming in - and thank you very much for it. We also don't know exactly what the Strong connection means - but it is curious that it keeps resurfacing in different forms. Strong is certainly someone who could gather together what is needed - if he chose to do so. The same, we think, cannot be said for OPG. Our letter to Selman was sent, but Uri (who leaves tomorrow) told us today that Selman has not yet attempted to contact him.

>> The New Energy Foundation (non-profit), now in formation

> Excellent. Is it taking a shape that is agreeable to you?

> Have you gathered the requisite board members yet?

> What stage is it at? And have you finished all the box moving now?

>We were going to recommend that if you got tired of carrying them, you could just hold them stationary over your head and rest for a while...(:

> On Rothwell & Co.

>> I had no time for that. It will be done some day. It is not a priority for me to deal publicly with these jerks. I have other ways in which I intend to destroy them all.

> Needless to say we are all quite curious as to your envisioned method to effect this glorious deed...

>WE had hoped to have finished our diatribe with Rothwell & Co. by now, but it seems it might take a little while longer.

> Len Danczyk [Energetics Technology] has also been back in touch with us - after having finally broken down and purchased some of the monographs. He is pressing Uri for another meeting - which clearly will not be feasible until Uri returns - but we doubt there is much reason to hold our breath. We all think (Uri included) that he is up to something, and that he has no investors at all.

> Without this being any reflection on your recent meetings or on how perfect a candidate for Aethera this Jonathan Bonanno may be - you may imagine the endless succession of jokes his name has provoked over here.

> Well, we might as well ask, did you ask him whether or not he is by any chance related to the illustrious Bonanno family of Mafia fame?!?

> Has he made any further moves?

> What does he do in Barcelona?

> Now, as to your letter to Ed. In our opinion, it was simply excellent. Your perception of what happened in these interchanges matches ours - precisely.

*****

>> You and I have different backgrounds and emphases. It just may be that studying an "enlarged physics" is not your interest or forte. It may be that for now you will simply continue your exemplary experimental and publishing work in LENR, and that is fine with me. That is enough for one life! But, again, I do believe you and cold fusion as well would profit from what the Correas have to offer.

> If this is your belief, why don't you help me understand what they have discovered and show me how it relates to LENR?

Regards,
Ed

Dear Ed,

I think I have tried long enough and I have failed to make you understand the possible relationship -- through generalizations of the Correa work. There is a profound, resistant miscommunication. Perhaps I will resume my efforts later, perhaps not. We shall see.

For now, this topic and your inability to react to it the way I had hoped and would have expected is evidently an unproductive direction for us both, so for now I will just take leave of this debate between you and the Correas. I am truly surprised and disappointed that you would not want to explore the material on your own. It is rich with possibilities. By contrast, as important as LENR is, I hope that somehow you will come to realize that it is a mere epiphenomenon of a larger matter: the complete mismatch of modern "accepted physics" to deal with a plethora of unexplained phenomena -- basic physics, cosmology, biology, medicine, psychokinetic discoveries (R. Jahn et al) -- it goes on and on. I do not think that LENR will ever be explained by the current accepted physics. AND, we will be lucky, indeed, if LENR turns out to be useful technologically from empirical studies alone.

The Correas, having shown me essentially irrefutable evidence of the efficacy of their theory, impress me as being on the right path. I will continue to study their work.

Best,

Gene

****

> As when you stated

>> Above all, you persist in a strange loop of non-understanding, misunderstanding, or some other indefinable state. (...) They have reiterated and explained the microscopic/molecular point of view and you almost seem to have gotten it -- then you revert to the conventional nonsense of the glib macroscopic view of "no work is done if the leaf does not move upward." Amazing!

> Your comments regarding Rothwell were well phrased and placed, and to the point. And it was most interesting to learn through your letter that Jed has been providing Ed with some financial backing.

>This was news to us, although only a few days prior to receiving your mail, Paulo had on several occasions wondered outloud if Ed were not perhaps receiving funds from Jed.

> To have discovered this little piece of information only confirms all the more that our decision not to provide Ed free access to our writings was exactly the right decision. If he or Jed wish to read the monographs, at least one of them will have to pay for them.

> If Ed had been the least bit honest with us, he should have stated clearly and openly that this relation between himself and Rothwell existed instead of coyly dancing around the issue when it was raised. In any case, we loved your letter. It was quite perfect. Naturally, we would like to know if/how he might choose to answer it.

> We received a rather odd letter from a James Michael (Jim) Dugan on the Akronos mail who claims to be a businessman from Orlando, Florida and said he had been avidly reading the material on the site for the last few days. He wrote:

"While it seems as though you've heard everything under the sun and, of course, have had many with great intentions, I have a strong interest in seeing that your research continues and am requesting information as to generally what is needed at this time, in the short term, and in the long term.

Financially, I may be of great assistance to you."

We have no idea what he wants - he seems to be behind some advertising franchise in the US called "EyeCatcherPlus" and to also be involved in a publically traded penny stock company called New Millennium Media International (NMMI). We will contact him in the very near future to try to determine whether or not there is anything there of interest.

> We also met a rather strange fellow here in Toronto just before we left who seems to be making tremendous amounts of money in the computer data storage racket who expressed a strong interest in learning more about our work and perhaps having an interest in funding it. We also intend to sound him out a little further, maybe this week.

> We think this is about all the news we have for the moment. Let us know how you are - we hope you are having some of this exquisite weather this weekend that we are having up here. Malgosia said it was fairly dreadful while we were away - either raining nonstop or hideously hot and humid.

> But today it is beautiful - blue skies, high pressure, a light wind and altogether agreeable. We hope you and Joanne are also enjoying it.

> Until soon,

Alex & Paulo

Gene

Ovation Water Story [Attachment]

----------------------------------

Subject: Storms' full response to me + My #44 editorial
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:21:51 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

Here, as promised, is the full response to me by Storms, after which I gave my brief letter of reply that was sent to you. This will be useful to understand his confused mindset. However, I think it best if you would not let him know that I sent this to you, even though he probably suspects I have. What do you think?

I have had no further communications from Storms. He is not worthwhile pursuing. He, like Rothwell, is blind and narrowly channeled. He THINKS he is being open, but he is not. Implicitly he is devaluing my opinion and judgment. And, he is not willing to do any hard work to understand -- even to the extent of ordering say another module to see if he could better understand it!

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. [ This would turn out to be "The Correa solution to the Cold Fusion enigma" (2004), unfortunately published only after Gene's murder. ] 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. It would be an opportunity to take some shots at Kooistra/Storms and Rothwell for what they have said publicly and privately, no?

All best,

Gene

------ Forwarded Message
From: Edmund Storms
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:04:34 -0600
To: Eugene F. Mallove
Subject: Re: Correa discussion

Gene, I'm truly flabbergasted by your response. I know you believe the Correas have discovered something important and I know you value their friendship. In spite of these factors, I can not understand how you can arrive at the conclusion you give here. First of all, I started out trying to understand what they mean by what they say. To do this, I would paraphrase what I understand their words to mean. In response, I discovered that not only did they not agree that the paraphrase was correct, but expressed outrage that I would think such a thing. When they then attacked my motives and my skills in understanding science, I responded in an attempt to correct these misinterpretations of my motives. When someone uses a word or phrases that makes no sense, how do you discover what the person means? Asking for clarification or using a paraphrase is not a rejection of the idea.

Gradually, I discovered that they do not use words in ways as normal science uses them. Consequently, I would try to translate their meaning into words I can understand. Here again, I would be blocked by their taking this effort as being an insult. I'm truly surprised that you do not see this process at work. Once again, I want to emphasis [sic] that not understand [sic] how a word is being used is not a rejection of the idea being expressed. For example, if a person uses the word "work" I expect they mean a process normally associated with this word. If they mean something else, they should either use a different word or explain clearly how the work they are describing differs from the conventional process. Apparently, they mean a flow of energy that can not be detected by any means, which is generated by an annihilation of gravitons. [ The reader should note the glorious extent of this man's ignorance: the molecular concept of work had long been at odds with the macroscopic concept - well before we wrote our seminal paper (the first in Experimental Aetherometry) on the work performed by the electroscope leaves. For a formal treatment, see our 2008 paper on the nature of work. Further, what is spent in this electroscopic work is the kinetic energy of massbound charges. It is used to cancel the action of the local gravitational field. There is no "energy generated by an annihilation of gravitons"! The action of gravitons is cancelled by the consumption of kinetic energy. ] They come to this conclusion only because they can not understand how a constant force can be generated to hold the leaf apart. [ ...a disembodied constant force that consumes no energy... Talk about metaphysical faith, not science! ] Now, if this is what they believe, which I'm still not sure of, I can or can not reject the idea. If this is what they mean, then for me to believe the assertion, they need to show me more evidence. I would have been willing to listen. However, their reaction is so rejecting that I'm afraid that if I said the earth were round, they would give me a reason why it isn't.

"Eugene F. Mallove" wrote:

> Dear Ed,

>> Dear Gene, I expect by now you have had a chance to read the exchange between me and the Correas.

> Yes, I have, in considerable detail.

>> I'm interested in learning your impression of their response.

> It saddens me to have to tell you this, but it is they, not you who appear to be entirely forthcoming, logical, and clear in their responses. As a result of their admirable attempts to set you on the right course of at least understanding what they are contending, there are times in the dialog that you almost seem to "get it," then for some indefinable reason you recoil and get back into psychological discussions of justifying your motives, etc. -- reverting to a Rothwellian-like suspicion of their motives toward YOU!

Gene, I do not have to have suspicions about their motives toward me. They have been very clear that they do not trust my objectivity, they do not think I'm willing to understand their assertions, and they think me insulting. I do not understand how you would not understand what they have so clearly stated.

> Above all, you persist in a strange loop of non-understanding, misunderstanding, or some other indefinable state. It puzzles me and saddens me. It is not as though I know EVERTHING that the Correas know -- far from it! (based on reading and studying their published monographs), and would have been prepared to coach you as they have done, but I do clearly follow their responses and find that you remain mired in confusion. (This has been helpful to MY deeper understanding of their work, so the dialog between you and them has not been in vain, even if it ends.) Indeed, you seem to want to reduce their pioneering work to the conventional -- as when you cannot conceive that an electroscopic leaf (and its constituents) not moving upward can be said to be "doing work." They have reiterated and explained the microscopic/molecular point of view and you almost seem to have gotten it -- then you revert to the conventional nonsense of the glib macroscopic view of "no work is done if the leaf does not move upward." Amazing!

As I said above, the meaning of the word "work" is very clear in conventional science. They apparently do not mean to apply that meaning to their observations. When I attempt to understand their concept, I get a strange collection of words which need to be further defined. It is almost as if we are talking two different languages, but using the same English words. After several exchanges, they tell me gravitons and antigravitons are involved. At that point, I finally understood how "work" was being done. Unfortunately, the "work" is not in the macroworld where it can be used. Perhaps, you can tell me how they intend to measure and use this "work".

> Can you not try to "suspend disbelief" long enough to learn their entire EXPERIMENTALLY BASED world view -- by accepting their conclusions as you proceed though the monographs and read about new concrete experiments that you and others could perform - much more straightforward than CF experiments, by the way? Perhaps then you would see the complete picture and agree that their physics is a tremendous, bold attempt at penetrating the non-workable myths of modern physics. I believe you probably have two failings that are holding you back:

A. You are not already sufficiently impressed by the depravity of currently accepted physics -- relativity and quantum mechanics and the evident flaws that are becoming more glaring with each epicyclic day! I can understand that you probably have not had time to study what many others -- apart from the Correas -- have said about this. I have tried to publish such material in IE. I urge you to examine it. The establishment itself agrees, as you well know, that accepted GR gravity and quantum mechanics have yet to be satisfactorily reconciled. It says that it hopes to do it -- just give them a few more billion dollars for high energy experiments.... I would hope that that fact alone would impress you and motivate you to learn about a Copernican-like revolution in thinking -- namely what the Correas are proposing. It may not be all correct -- but it is an honest, experimentally based attempt to set things right.

I agree that physics has its errors and limitations. However, any progress must be based on a clear understanding and a clear explanation of what is proposed. A collection of important sounding words that have no logical connection and no agreed upon meaning is not going to get us anywhere. As for experiment, I read their one paper and found so many logical conflicts and errors in expression that I could not determine what they concluded. My efforts at trying to discover their meaning was met by insult and questions about my motives.

> B. You do not take seriously enough MY testimony about what I saw and observed and measured in the Correa laboratory. I trust that you did read my two "Letters of Support" on their website? The first letter was published in full in IE #39 in my editorial.

I read your letters and it was these that caused me to invest the time in this effort. Without your testimony I would not have tried to understand their confusing descriptions. This is why I have turned to you for help to understand how to learn the truth of their claims. Your reaction to my request makes me doubt that any reality is to be found.

> If you really did give me the benefit of credibility on point "B" -- I would think that you would be powerfully motivated to study as much of the Correa work as possible. (I admit that you'd be even more motivated had you witnessed the experiments your self, but at least trust that I am an honest reporter.) After all, I have put my credibility on line -- as I did in 1991 concerning cold fusion -- and stated that they have working free energy devices and antigravity demonstrations. Do you think there is the slightest chance of fraud or gross misunderstanding on my or their part? What would the Correas gain by this, other than a useless PR barrage? Clearly, you understand that they are highly intelligent and coherent in their discussions with you -- even if you resist them or cannot understand them.

If they were coherent I would understand them. That is the issue. I'm trying as best I can to get them to be "coherent". Their "coherence" seems not to allow many people to understand them. Because you can understand them, I had hoped you could at least put what they want to say into understandable English. Instead, you seem to indicate that only you and they understand the new science, and people who do not understand are nonobjective and stupid.

> So, do you think for one minute that the alleged (by me) aether motors are a product of fraud or insanity? The infamous Rothwell does, in his libelous statements on Vortex. Perhaps some of this disgraceful, ignorant propaganda from him has rubbed off on you. I take that as quite possible, though I hope it has not happened.

They may very will have found a method to extract energy from some unconventional source. Seeing such a demonstration, as you have done, would help. However, in the absence of such an experience, I can only go by what they say. What they say makes no sense, not because I reject the possibility of unconventional energy, but because they are not clear or logical. I hope you can see the difference between these two issues.

>> I'm at a loss to know how to interact with them in a productive way.

> Perhaps the only productive way will be for you to download further modules and study them on your own nickel and time. I strongly urge you to do so for reasons that might become increasingly evident to you as you read them. There ARE direct implications for cold fusion. These are not spelled out as cold fusion-related, of course. But it is clear that the anomalous performance of Geiger-Muller tubes, as an example, should be of interest to you, no? It is clear that if the aether can "materialize" electrons de-novo in certain circuitry (without conservation of energy being violated), that this aspect of nature just "might" be of importance to cold fusion!!!

I asked them if they would make the information available at no charge. They said no. So, I now have to invest my time in trying to understand what they mean while also spending my money. I have read new and unconventional ideas express [sic] by authors I enjoyed reading, and would gladly pay to read more. In the case of the Correas, what I have read is actually a painful experience because the flow of assertions is so confused and poorly expressed. I do not want to pay for more of the same. Also, they are apparently unwilling to give up the money to have me understand what they have discovered. This makes me wonder how much interest they have in being believed. As you notice, I put all that I have done on CF out for anyone to read for free because I want the phenomenon to be believed!

>> Do you have any suggestions?

> My suggestions is that you systematically go over their published material. Certainly the downloading fees should not be an insuperable obstacle. Use my Vortex-posted memorandum as a guide, perhaps.

>> More to the point, do you think it is worth the effort?

> Not only do I think it is worth the effort, I think it is ESSENTIAL to YOUR future progress within science. We already know that "science" (the scientific establishment) has failed miserably to deal with cold fusion. Do you seriously believe that cold fusion is the ONLY physics area that the scientific tyranny has squashed?

No, not at all. I agree that many areas have been rejected. However, I have not gotten the impression from my dealings with the Correas that they are going to be the instrument of change.

> If it can do to cold fusion in 13 years what it has done, think about what it can do to the Truth -- HAS DONE -- with over a century! Think about that. I will regret it very much if the cold fusion community, and YOU are an exemplar of it, does not deal with larger physics issues that I believe are likely to be critical to the understanding of LENR. (Certainly Jed Rothwell is not an exemplar of the cold fusion field, by the way -- he is a shoot-from-the-hip guy who does not understand science 101; he's a very close cousin of Robert Park whether he admits it or not, as his recent Vortex blathering against the Correas, Mills, and others has proved. I do not associate him with you, other than his recent very modest financial support of your work. He's in it NOT for scientific understanding but to "make money" and to "help save humanity" -- as he freely admits.)

I do not wish to get into your fight with Jed. However, as you admit, I have a reputation for being a good scientist and accepting novel ideas such as cold fusion. If this is your sincere belief, then I would think you would find my difficulty in understanding the Correas important and perhaps an indication of a more serious problem, rather than my being influenced by Jed.

> You wrote at one place:

"Jed is perhaps too judgmental and too frank about his personal opinions. This is his nature and should not be taken personally."

That is an extreme understatement, I find. If Jed had said the same things about cold fusion as he did about the Correas, you would not have said that such remarks "should not be taken personally."

At another point you write to the Correas:

"If you have a real demonstrable discovery, I'm more than willing to learn about it and tell the world."

The Correa reaction to statements like these is justified:

>> You actually give the impression that your desire to know our work is nonexistent, more like a favour you might be paying us if we manage to convince you of the correctness of our observations, concepts, discoveries, etc.

Yes, there is a strange condescending-like tonality to some of your remarks even if that was NOT what you intended to project. I took it that way as did the Correas.

The fact of the matter is that for a new discovery to have any usefulness to the world or bring the originators any benefits, people must believe the assertions. Naturally the process of spreading the belief starts with a few people. You, for example, are one of the first. You caused me to get interested. If I start to believe, I tell other people who will take a look and start to believe. This is the way the belief in CF is spreading, although in this case, many people are producing information and giving an understanding, all for free. In the case of the Correas, most people who read their work or listen to them talk, come away totally confused, like Jed. If you or they want anyone to take the work seriously, you need to convince more people that the work is worthwhile. If not me, then someone who has a sufficient reputation to be heard. On the other hand, if the Correas don't care about anyone believing them, then they are free to explore their work as a hobby until someone who can explain and demonstrate their discovery comes along and gets credit for the discovery. This the way the world works. Rather than finding such a statement insulting, I would be joyful if someone expressed an interest in my work and really wanted to know what I had discovered. I would go to great lengths to explain every detail and misunderstanding as long as they showed an interest, as I have demonstrated with Zimmerman, Blue, and Shanahan.

> You and I have different backgrounds and emphases. It just may be that studying an "enlarged physics" is not your interest or forte. It may be that for now you will simply continue your exemplary experimental and publishing work in LENR, and that is fine with me. That is enough for one life! But, again, I do believe you and cold fusion as well would profit from what the Correas have to offer.

If this is your belief, why don't you help me understand what they have discovered and show me how it relates to LENR?

Regards,
Ed

------ End of Forwarded Message

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Correas . . . (a response to your long e-mail of 30 May)
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:52:20 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Chip Ransford

On 7/16/02 5:38 PM, "Chip Ransford" wrote:

> 16 July 02

Dear Gene,

> It took me, it seems, a day, on average, to read each page of your highly appreciated missive. (I guess it looks like I should hit an Evelyn Woods speed reading class.)

Yes, it is very rich with ideas from the Correas.

> Thanks for the thorough review of the the Correas' work. It is sad to learn of your falling out with Jed.

> Sad, but also, not surprising. I personally found him opinionated with few redeeming qualities (though he could put his often well-informed opinions onto paper with considerable skill)

> - his attitude toward me was generally rude and condescending from our first phone conversation, onward.

> I thought perhaps there might have been some misunderstanding generated via the narrow-band connection, but my friendly approach to him at a conference received a cold shoulder. He really did not seem to want to hear anything I might have to say, and though his attitude was hurtful, he was your associate and so I let it go.

> Besides, he's pretty small potatoes compared to people such as Ed & Carol, Mike McKubre, Tom Passell, Martin, George Miley and of course, yourself - all people who seem to regard my ideas with some respect. Of course, I consider all these highly accomplished people to be brilliant - so where'd that leave Jed in my opinion? Stooopid. And now, VERY stooopid.

> (If you two have "kissed and made-up" in the last month and a fortnight, then I retract the "VERY" - seems unlikely though.)

> I had read to page 35 or so of your e-mail on the day I received it, then printed it out yesterday to finish digesting it. What halted me earlier was in reading the Correas' description of Tesla coil operation (what delayed me further is another matter, later...). I became overwhelmed with an "ah-ha" moment which summed the new view of the strength of materials imparted to me by F. J. Grimer's papers (that you sent),

> combined with a first understanding of the electrical effects of theTesla coil (which I never before thought was to be understood) into an internal visualization of how John Hutchison's artifacts came into being. In my life "on the fringe," those pieces of merged, distorted and over-strained metal remained the most mysterious objects I'd ever seen (and handled). (You may have met John at the Denver conference.)

>Now I think I have the beginnings of a halting comprehension of their formation.

In summary: From Grimer - Materials are held together by an external compressive force, "tensile" forces do not exist, electron coulomb fields prevent further collapse. Failure in tension occurs when compressive field is overcome. Compressive force likely derives from ZPE, Casimir-like. From Correas on Tesla coil - Proximal massbound field draws conduction and valence charges from metallic objects, distal massfree field draws only conduction band charges. Distal field modifies Aether field. Combined, the lack of charge plus external cohesive pressure seems to allow John Hutchison's startling results of butter knives sinking into aluminum blocks and the like, but I think only if the Aether and ZPE are one and the same, or at least, different views of the same universal presence.

> Best Wishes my good friend, keep up the good fight!

Gene

> Chip

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Your recent mail
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 00:27:51 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

>> Today I had my first conversation with C.E.'s Bert Gordon money manager, who is asking the right questions. I'm confident it is going to happen the way I wish.

> What is your ETA?

>>> Have you gathered the requisite board members yet?

>> Yes. Five excellent people have agreed: Me. Bill Zebuhr. Rick Broussard (Editor of New Hampshire Magazine), Mark Aldrich, and Atty. Jim Kazan (a Temple Beth Jacob friend who has been fascinated by my (and YOUR) work.

> This appears to be an excellent board. Is CE the only source of funds at present?

>>> On Rothwell & Co.

>>>> I had no time for that. It will be done some day. It is not a priority for me to deal publicly with these jerks. I have other ways in which I intend to destroy them all.

>>> Needless to say we are all quite curious as to your envisioned method to effect this glorious deed...

>> By financial success for us all, followed by scientific, technological, and publication success, which I am determined to achieve.

>>> WE had hoped to have finished our diatribe with Rothwell & Co. by now, but it seems it might take a little while longer.

>> Good. I am eager to see it posted.

> The question we now have - since it is half-way finished - is one of timing or opportunity. We'll see and give you our thoughts on this when it is complete.

>> I have not ruled out doing mine at some point, it is just that now is not the right time. I will get in the right spirit soon enough.

> We look forward to it.

>>> Len Danczyk has also been back in touch with us - after having finally broken down and purchased some of the monographs. He is pressing Uri for another meeting - which clearly will not be feasible until Uri returns - but we doubt there is much reason to hold our breath. We all think (Uri included) that he is up to something, and that he has no investors at all.

>> I have not heard this name before.

> We believe we mentioned him to you last year during the MAGG negotiations- as a possible sponsor who contacted us with a list of investors from California. Anyway, he is fairly irrelevant, as we was not able to come up with a single confirmation of his investor list in the 4 months we gave him.

>>> Without this being any reflection on your recent meetings or on how perfect a candidate for Aethera this Jonathan Bonanno may be - you may imagine the endless succession of jokes his name has provoked over here.

>> I am sure :) But he has turned out to be a simply marvelous fellow. He asks many, many right questions. He is definitely connected to great wealth and has significant wealth himself. I am leading him the right directions on a number of fronts, but he is just one person. There will be more...

> Do you think he got cold feet?

>>> Has he made any further moves?

>> Yes, we interested him in the excellent technology at Bill Zebuhr's company, Ovation Products -- (let me attach my description of Bill's work).

> Is Zebuhr contributing to the Foundation at the same time? We will read what you sent to us about him.

>>> What does he do in Barcelona?

>> He is just there for half a year -- he founded a company there dealing with financial billing matters. Mundane stuff. I'll dig up his web site for it -- on a card that I think I left at work.

> We'll check this out before we leave.

>>> Your comments regarding Rothwell were well phrased and placed and to the point. And it was most interesting to learn through your letter that Jed has been providing Ed with some financial backing.

>> Only for some equipment for him to perform Les Case-type experiments in a Seebeck calorimeter.

>>> This was news to us, although only a few days prior to receiving your mail, Paulo had on several occasions wondered out loud if Ed were not perhaps receiving funds from Jed.

>> It is not continuing funding, but I believe it was for $20,000. Jed has NEVER provided anything like that for me. I seem to recall a few thousand dollars here and there in the early 1990s when I was desperate. Jed waits for others to fund things. He is not generous with his money.

> This is where our lawyers are both saying we should ask you for help - to find out both where Rothwell might have directly or indirectly dissuaded potential investors (like CE) or angels, or scientists advising them (as it seems is likely to have happened with Storms) from giving our technologies serious consideration, and to determine whether Rothwell has assets that are worth suing for.

Since leaving his former company -- at least as a full-time employee -- Rothwell has not had to work, so that gives you some idea of his worth. He has a house -- now two houses -- and a family to support. I suppose it may be in the $1-2 million range. Maybe it is more. I have no idea. It may also be that his former company, Microtel, has an agreement with him to continue to pay him a significant salary -- perhaps just to get him out of their hair.

> We have hesitated in putting this to you because of our friendship, arrangements and common goals - as we do not want to place you in a more difficult position than the one you're in.

I think Jed has done NOTHING to influence C.E., who does not value his opinion in general. As for Ed Storms, I think the influence has gone the other way. I think Storms helped incite Jed against you with his poor remarks about the understandability of your work. It would be very, very difficult -- impossible I think -- to prove that Jed has incited either CE or Storms against you. The case would have to be made in more general terms of generic damage via the internet. Thus, my amateur view is that it is not a strong case, morally offensive as Rothwell is. The liability is there, the provable damages may not be.

My hope is that we can jointly work on aetherometry in a a successful manner, scientifically, commercially and in publishing writing. THAT would represent the ultimate victory over Rothwell. Jed does not easily eat his words, but we can cook up a nice recipe to force him to do it. Tempting as legal action may be, it may not be the right course, but it is your decision.

>>> If Ed had been the least bit honest with us, he should have stated clearly and openly that this relation between himself and Rothwell existed instead of coyly dancing around the issue when it was raised.

>In any case, we loved your letter. It was quite perfect.

>>> Naturally, we would like to know if/how he might choose to answer it.

>> I will later look over his full reply and forward it to you if it makes sense and is not too obnoxious.

> Maybe you should let us see just how obnoxious it got. We think we got it in your later e-mail.

> Alex & Paulo

Gene

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Infernal rumblings
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 07:58:50 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

Dear Alex and Paulo,

Before my meeting with Selman this morning, answering some loose ends in your past messages. If I miss anything, let me know:

> Dear Gene -

> We know you now have your peace of mind policy of not getting e-mails over the week-ends, and to top it all - it is Roshashana - but here it goes.
...
Yes, if it were up to us we would stay doing exactly what we were doing. But obviously no one with the means thinks that it is important enough to provide us with a means to continue.

> We take from this that CE is really single-minded...Yet, he should know that solutions to problems in one field often come from cross-fertilization with other fields. Science does not exist in a vacuum even if specialization leads one to believe it does.

>>> We also have a [nuclear] reactor or cell plus circuit design that should be considered (in the right context) and tested. At the same time, this is the last thing we want to do - not to mention any consideration of further patents. Maybe we should bury all this matter.

>> At least temporarily -- because you are occupied with the need to move, no?

> We don't know if it will be temporary, Gene, that is the true state of affairs. We need funds to proceed. We need a sponsor or sponsors. Science and continued development do not thrive on thin air, as you well know. It is virtually impossible to think that with three distinct technologies of considerable importance and having patent protection, we have not found a single REAL investor. Or even a donor. A move is an irretrievable process whereby we will likely lose most of the lab space we now have. We will continue some of the lines - or try to, but most will be lost, and that is what we are in the process of negotiating with ourselves: where to draw the line between the lines that remain and those that must go.

> Our desperation has at times pushed us to even contemplate having you proceed in secret with a CF reactor design and testing per our protocol - but there is all that know-how you'd need, not to mention the working/materials expenses (and what could you find for us in return?).

> Or publish our entire insight into CF. But we need to get something from all this - something that could permit us to continue at least on a minimum program of research.

> Yet, nowhere in our, yours and Uri's searches through high and low has anything like this even came close to materializing. It is so disconcerting that it makes one feel like abandoning the entire matter altogether. Only others make small profits at the cost of riding the coat-tails of one's own generosity in divulging too much, too fast and too soon.

Of course, we burn, also at times, to tell you and Uri about the extraordinary discoveries we made on this CF matter. What else can we say? - it is all wrong, this complete lack of material support we have drawn.

> We have just received a letter from Harold and he is actually quite enthusiastic about your idea of filming, by himself, an introduction to our video, and he pledges he will try to do just that when he returns from his cruise, in October.

> He will send us both a PAL and a NTSC version, and we will think about a strategy to make copies with minimum loss of resolution.

> Further printed matter could be included with the package as well if we choose. But we should all come to an agreement - we, Uri and you - on how to proceed.

> Both you and Uri should realize that since September of 2001, we have not made one red cent of income (discounting sales from Akronos, but this is hardly enough to allow anyone to survive). All of us are working every day and evening flat out and yet everything we have fought so much for may yet go down the drain.

>Gene - you have witnessed much at our laboratory and seen how we work and think. It is like two different worlds or dimensions - what Reichians and Relativists & still others do, and what we do, and those who are seriously interested in these matters do: they study and work and burn the midnight oil to obtain new answers that explain both the old and the new.

>>> This is a wild turn, Gene. You will be even more disliked.

>> Ha! Indeed. Perhaps that is my goal :)

> You should be careful about such wishes - witch hunts are not pleasant affairs. Still, we couldn't quite claim not to have a certain affinity with this impulse - expecially in light of the dismal nature of the reading, 'thinking' 'public'.

>>> Incidentally, how is the 'divorce' coming along and the new institutional structure for the NEF being developed?

>> Still waiting for one more bureaucratic-approved signature. Kazan's law firm must review Boards onto which he sits for possible "conflict of interest" and suit potential.

> But will he be out for sure from these Boards - or the Boards altered, etc?

Rothwell will have ZERO, nada, nothing to do with NEF or with Aethera, obviously!

>>> We would all feel much better when you have crossed that bridge.

>> Rothwell is happily doing LENR.org now -- it is diverting his bile. There will be no problem in sliding IE into the New Energy Foundation, sans Rothwell.

> Let us know when you think your coast is finally clear enough that we can proceed with our public defense of Rothwell's attack. We would like to leave that ready before leaving for Panama, if possible.

> We have now just about finished preparing two new monographs, one on atmospheric electricity, ambipolar radiation and latent heat, and the other - the first of our biological field energy papers. There is also a third interview, and a post-scriptum on the PP5 matter.

[ "PP5" is the 5th issue of DeMeo's Pulse of the Planet publication, largely prompted by the emergence of Aetherometry and our re-discovery of Tesla's and Reich's Aether Motor, which was demonstrated under NDA to DeMeo himself. We published a systematic criticism of the neo-Reichianism promoted by DeMeo:

In response to his underhanded and unexpected attack, we wrote To be done with (An)Orgonomists: conversations with (hopefully) the last one - a complete response to J. DeMeo's attack on Aetherometry" (2001).

This was followed by another round - our "Response to J.Demeo's Open Letter of 20 Dec, 2001".

Finally, we wrote a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the DeMeo brand of neo-Reichianism, "Pulse of the Planet Taken to Task" (2002).

The disservice that DeMeo and his collaborators paid to the work of Reich is extensive. They distorted every concept and every function that Reich enunciated in the shallowest possible of ways. It was a way to understand nothing. ]

>Would you like to read this material before we put it up, as we have done in the past - or are you too loaded? Let us know so that Malgosia can forward you the preview URL.

More later...

- Gene

----------------------------------

Subject: Re: Various - 9/26/02
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 07:50:05 -0700
From: Eugene F. Mallove
To: Paulo Correa

> Dear Gene -

We've all been busy with these last releases, and only now find time to respond to your various queries.

A very productive -- but also obnoxious meeting -- at Norwich City Council chambers last night (2.5 hours), as State of CT bureaucrats "explained" their preposterous $6 million project that will affect so many lives. I gained support and sympathy within the audience for my position -- due to my public comments and circulated report (see attached). Old friends who knew my parents were there. This proposed public works project is EXACTLY like the hot fusion nonsense that has crushed the study of cold fusion! And, these pigs are simply "waiting around" for $$millions from Uncle Sam (i.e. us) to fall from the sky so that they can justify their planet-paving projects! Meanwhile, aggrieved residents have their lives and economic life-blood on hold -- perhaps till 2008 when this monstrosity is scheduled to be completed!!! The head engineer actually stated that their method of operation is to generate lots of projects so that if a "spare" $million in Federal funding comes along in a particular budget year, they have a project ready to capture it!!!! Official science, as you know, works this way too.

The long and short of it is that today I will be in Norwich having discussions with real estate agents, possibly some law firms, house movers, etc. -- as well as doing some work on the Norwich house to button it up for the coming cold weather.

> Preferably Selman would visit us after his conference, ie from the 15th of November onward.

>(Besides getting acquainted, does Selman have other overt purposes or tasks we should prepare for?)

YOU get $200,000/year for several years to be consultants to the PAGD project of interest to Selman et al. -- but in clear statement would allow you to do whatever ABRI research you wanted (while also providing long-distance guidance to the PAGD project). Selman et al put in several $millions to initiate the PAGD project, which would have some concrete milestones, which when reached, would trigger much more money into it. With guarantees, of course, that PAGD could never be tied up by any funny business.
[snip]

>> As you know, the final signature was obtained for New Energy Foundation (NEF) and the attorney has either filed it in Concord or will do so in the next day or so -- I told him ASAP! The accountant and I applied over the phone for our IRS "Employer Identification Number" (EIN), and we received it, so that I can and will shortly open NEF checking account and money market account. Thus, the place for CE to deposit for the magazine will be open.

> Excellent.

>> The accountant and I will shortly apply to the IRS for tax-deductibility status (501c3) -- CE can retroactively deduct his NEF contributions based on the new status.

We have NEF bylaws drafted, these will be approved by a Board meeting and I will be de-facto in charge of day-to-day operations, probably as President of NEF and Treasurer.

> When is the first meeting?

>> More good news. Rothwell just called and we had a pleasant chat, with no references to recent hostilities, I took the opportunity to tell him about NEF and CE's insistance that this is how it needs to be done. He "yessed" me all the way - he voiced no objections, so this is in fact my legal green light to go ahead and transfer the magazine to NEF. (I will send him an e-mail too, confirming what I am doing and that he approves, so that it is even more strictly legal.) I told him that there would possibly be grant money available for various researchers so that if cold fusion research arose that NEF's board approved -- or for which some benefactor had designated his/her funds -- this would become the tax-free vehicle for that.

So, let me formally tie off all the loose ends now -- CE actually putting money into NEF for the magazine will be the conclusive point. That should happen with the next 2-3 weeks. Then the coast is clear for the publication on your part of your challenges to Rothwellian/Kooistrarian slanders.

[ Akronos then proceeded with the publication of our "The Serpent's tooth and its egg (or, how are the stupid so often malicious)".

Following another confrontation between Gene and Rothwell on Vortex, the above feature came to include a September 2003 Addendum. ]

> Let us know when CE does just that. The response has been drafted and is half-way edited, but probably will still undergo many modifications - including those you will suggest, of course.

> Even though you told P. that CE was indignant at Rothwell when you brought to CE's attention what had gone on in Vortex, are you afraid that CE might not make his contribution or forthcoming ones if there is a response on our part to Rothwell & Co?

>> In addition to the investment route we are pursuing with Selman and others, I will of course make targeted efforts to get others to grant charitably to you via NEF. That would be a fast way forward for some sustainment money.

> !!!

>>>> Then, I got completely distracted by your 40-page new treatise, "Becoming..Vicarious Future." Read it all this afternoon and appreciated it much, although cannot agree with all its particulars.

>>> We would like to hear more about this - and about your point(s) of disagreement. We can still change the text and it is in that mindset that we immensely appreciate your reading and feedback.

>> I'm buried for some days, so do not expect it that quickly --but I will try to give more feedback soon enough.

> Whenever you can - we understand how buried you are, and the advantage of web materials is that they can be modified if necessary. Malgosia sent you two new URLs for AS2-28 and our report on the Berlin Conference - whatever you can give us in feedback will be greatly appreciated.