eye of the cyclone

is there life on earth, or are we just dreaming…

  • USING THIS SITE

    SEARCH BOX: If a search engine brought you here, but you can't see what you are looking for, or if you want to find other entries with the same (or differerent) 'key words' try the SEARCH BOX! or check out the ALL POSTS! button in the MENU BAR at the top of the page

Dr. Eugene Mallove – Australia’s future energy solution

Posted by lahar9jhadav on December 12, 2007

Dr. Eugene MalloveDr. Eugene Mallove‘s last radio interview (Feb. 3, 2004) He was murdered on May 14, 2004.

In the last years of his life, Dr. Eugene Mallove became a passionate supporter of Aetherometry and the aetherometric massfree technologies. He talked about it extensively on his last late-night “Coast to coast” show with George Noory. Here are some select excerpts (minutes are counted from the beginning of the second hour of the show):

[13: 05]

GN: If there were an alien civilization (…) a hundred thousand years ahead of us, what kind of energy sources do you think they would be using?

EM: Vacuum energy, there is no question about it. There is absolutely no doubt, zero doubt in my mind — and I’m the author of the Starflight Handbook, a mainstream technical popular book on interstellar flight, by the way — I would say all the proposals that I and Dr. Matloff collected in that book are rather obsolete (…)

GN: And vacuum-energy is also called space-energy, right?

EM: Space energy, Aether energy. There is an Aether — that’s the bottom line — there is an Aether, pervading space. It is not the Aether that was dismissed, properly, the electromagnetic Aether that the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 —

GN: Or the kind that puts us to sleep —

EM: Or the kind that puts us to sleep. There’s a pervading massfree energy in all of the Universe — there’s no such thing as a Big Bang, by the way — a highly questionable theory. (…) Basically, Aether energy is at the root of everything. (…) The Aether is responsible for the creation and destruction of matter, it is responsible for life itself, OK? all particles are made of Aether, they are not little hard things, they are – the things that we call particles today, electrons and protons and so forth – are nothing but special geometries of the massfree Aether that are in a form that makes them have an inertial quality. In other words, makes them have mass. But the largest body of energy in the Universe is definitely the ‘vacuum’. The ‘vacuum’ is where it is. Some people have called the energy, or have interpreted it from Physics’ perspectives, as you said, zero-point energy. I don’t believe that that theory, the zero-point energy theory, is the proper Aether theory. But it’s nonetheless a good starting point. But the bottom line is, there are devices today, on this planet, in laboratories, not in government laboratories, that — I mean, I don’t know whether the government has these things, I doubt that they do, but OK, maybe they have them – but the individuals and research teams working on devices that do not employ hydrogen for anomalous nuclear reactions, but employ nothing but electrical discharges and collections of what Reich had called “orgone energy”.

GN: Mmm hmm

EM: these things are absolutely real, they have been verified, there is theoretical foundation for them, I have observed these experiments, I attest to them, there is even a new form in the latest issue of our magazine, issue # 53. (…) It’s titled “Solar Power by Day and by Night”. Now, Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa in Toronto, Canada, have managed to create a special type of what Reich would have called an Orgone Accumulator, but they call it a Hybrid Orgone Accumulator, that sits, around-the- clock, generating power in a small Stirling engine. I worked with them, by the way, to calibrate, to make sure that the experiments are being done properly. They go round-the-clock running a Stirling engine, as though — as though — there were a source of 2 watts of thermal energy inside the metal Faraday cage. Now that’s vacuum-energy for sure.

GN: Someone’s gonna get a Nobel Prize one day for this.

EM: Some day, yes.

Dr. Mallove is quite clear in stating his views: that, as far as he knows and can surmise, the solution to the energy problem does not lie about in any government laboratories; that the solution is ultimately one that has already come from engineering the ‘vacuum’, and more specifically, from an understanding of massfree energy, which he calls Aether. He specifically states that this technology harks back to the maligned work of Wilhelm Reich – and that he has worked with the Correas on the development of a special variant – the HYBORAC/Stirling thermomechanical technology – which, to date, outputs, day and night, an average 2 watts of sensible heat, with comparable daytime and nighttime thermal output and work performances.

Next, he refers to the Correas’ patented plasma work on the autogenously pulsed abnormal glow discharge (PAGD):

[18:30]

EM: […] There’s absolutely no doubt that the devices — patented devices, no less – by Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa in Canada are over-unity, OK? This is clear a case where vacuum-energy can be seen, in technically published information that is irrefutable, as far as I’m concerned — and I’ve personally been at the lab and seen it — there’s no doubt that these machines exist. Now Steve [Greer] would say that the government has much more advanced technology, which they’ve maybe learned from UFOs or something.

GN: Right.

EM: Maybe; but what good does it do us? Is it really doing us any good? No, obviously not. My general feeling about it is that the government does not have such things.”

Next, Dr. Mallove proceeds to describe the tribulated history of the concept of an Aether, how the advent of Special Relativity dethroned the old electromagnetic Aether and legated to present-day physics the erroneous notion that Space could exist without energy, independently from it and in its absence:

[23:00]

GN: Dr. Mallove, let’s talk a little bit more, then, about energy category #2, and that is zero-point energy which we touched upon a bit — space energy. What is it? What’s out there that does this?

EM: Well, here we have to talk about — just name — the fundamental theories on which mainstream physicists and chemists rely, (…) for the entire foundation of our scientific world, (…) and these theories are, at present: Quantum Mechanics, OK? —

GN: Mmm hmmm

EM: and Relativity, the Special Theory of Relativity –

GN: Right

EM: – that changed everyone’s perspective, starting around 1920, when Einstein began to become prominent. He had his theory of Special Relativity published in 1905, and later his General Relativity Theory, a theory of how so-called Space-Time is curved in four dimensions, to give gravity and so forth — you know, there are many reasons why he became very prominent, we need not get into them, but obviously he did become prominent, and the Theory of Relativity is given a lot of credence. And it basically says, as we all know, E = mc2. That’s a simple equation that everyone can understand: that mass times the speed of light squared is the equivalent amount of energy in matter. And we rely on that, generally speaking, for explaining nuclear reactions.

GN: And there is a lot of energy that comes out of that.

EM: Oh, absolutely. There is no doubt that nuclear reactions, both fission — [which] gave us the atomic bomb, the fission bomb — and then thermonuclear fusion energy…

GN: Mmm hmmm

EM: …from the hydrogen bomb, and the attempts, of course, by the hot-fusion community — the 20- billion dollar attempts, since 1950 — to tame it and bring it down into large Tokamak-type reactors. However, it turns out that, after a long consideration by critics — and there have been many critics of Special Relativity, very sane people, not anti-semites who were against Einstein because he was Jewish, OK? there were those —

GN: OK, I understand.

EM: But — you know, the Nazis called it “Jewish science”, for example — but people who were careful critics of Relativity have not been listened to, OK? and have just been brushed aside, because it was stated that the experiments all confirmed all aspects of Relativity, Special Relativity, and there could be no doubt about it. A guy from Caltech said that, David Goodstein, the same man who said, in recent times, that — you know — he really had doubts about cold fusion. OK? So he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

GN: Mmm hmm. Right.

EM: But it turns out that Relativity is fundamentally flawed. It basically introduced the concept that there was no Aether, OK? — and it was true that there was no electromagnetic Aether — this, the Michelson-Morley experiment and some other experiments, in my view, the view of others who I learned from, have proved that there was no Aether whereby electromagnetic waves had to vibrate in space to produce what we see of light and so forth. But this threw out the possibility that there was another kind of Aether, a mass-free Plenum, that did not operate on electromagnetic principles, that the Michelson- Morley experiment could never detect, OK?

In the next segment, Dr. Mallove introduces the listener to Wilhelm Reich and the critical 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment – which was reproduced by the Correas and analyzed by them in a report published by Dr. Mallove as a feature in Infinite Energy IE#37, 2001:

EM: Wilhelm Reich, brilliant man that he was, an unusual man — because remember, he did come out of a sexual/psychiatric orientation, right? Sigmund Freud —

GN: Yes.

EM: So who is some person like that to say anything about physics?

GN: Right.

EM: Well — [both laugh] — in 1941, brilliant fellow that he was, he brought some interesting observations to Einstein. He actually had four and a half hours with Einstein — by the way, this meeting is virtually absent from all accounts of the biography of Einstein.

GN: Why? Because of what happened to Reich?

EM: Because Reich was later disparaged — he died in prison, remember?

GN: Yeah, [inaudible]

EM: He was turned into, just like cold fusion, an ‘insane pathological man’.

GN: You think Einstein took some ideas from him?

EM: No, no, not at all.

GN: OK.

EM: Einstein — he asked professor Einstein — a colleague, of course, in the fight against fascism — remember, this was early 1941, before the United States got into the war —

GN: Right, OK

EM: Of course, both of them were opposed to the Nazis, obviously — and —

GN: And well aware of what was going on

EM: and well aware of the possibility… So Einstein, to his credit, felt that all possibilities should be explored in the possible quest to find ways to deal with, perhaps, war technology and what have you. You know, his letter[s] later on to President Roosevelt obviously helped the Manhattan Project get going. But here was Reich showing him a simple experiment whereby a mercury thermometer, very accurate mercury thermometer, on the surface of what we call a Faraday cage — a steel enclosure — was higher, and remained higher throughout the day, than a similar mercury thermometer suspended in air. OK? Now, this sounds — your listeners even who don’t know about this, may say, well, that sounds crazy; what, what, what could that possibly show?

GN: Hm.

EM: Well, careful experiments by Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa in Canada, confirming this type of experiment, and in fact giving it an even worse bias against being seen — in other words, not having the orgone-accumulating layers of material around the Faraday cage, just using bare steel — steel boxes, so to speak, in their laboratory, they have found persisting round-the-clock elevated temperatures on the metal Faraday cage, even in a darkened room. Now when I first saw their Aether motors and their PAGD, I was obviously motivated to go back and study Reich. Prior to that, I had no interest in Reich. But I wondered: God, I mean, could Einstein have missed, in 1941, a profound discovery? And the answer is: absolutely yes.

GN: Yeah

EM: We covered this in our issue 37. He brought it to Einstein, Einstein confirmed — I repeat, confirmed — that there was a three-tenths of a degree or more elevation on the Faraday cage. But his assistant — Einstein’s assistant — Leopold Infeld, pooh-poohed it; he did some half-baked experiments to suggest that: oh, yes, the simple explanation as to why this elevated temperature is there

GN: Mm hm

EM: and he pushed Einstein away from thinking about it, and thus broke the connection, the critical connection, between Einstein and Reich — which, if it had persisted, and if Einstein had behaved himself, and continued the correspondence — Reich did write many letters, technical letters, to Einstein, pleading with him to re-evaluate the assertions, the glib assertions, of Leopold Infeld — much as today, in the late 20th century and early 21st, we are pleading with scientists and political leaders to re-evaluate the absurd, glib dismissal of cold fusion. Well, Einstein never did that. And so Reich went much further with this energy, the manifestation of Aether energy, which initially was this elevated thermal anomaly on a very simple experiment. So, just like Galileo with his experiment of dropping a cannonball and a smaller object from the leaning tower of Pisa

GN: Mmm hmm, right

EM: — [inaudible] a very simple experiment showing simultaneous arrival at the ground, making a profound change in paradigm — a simple experiment with a thermometer, which I have done myself, by the way, to my own satisfaction, in my own basement, and found the same persisting thermal anomaly, and that’s not all: when you elaborate that simple experiment and other experiments that Reich did with electroscopes, gold-leaf electroscopes, you find huge anomalies occurring in Faraday cages. And Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa have in their laboratory done many further experiments to clarify some of the many, many confusions that Reich himself had about this.

In a brilliant piece of scientific journalism, Dr. Mallove leads the listener from the death of the old, electromagnetic, luminiferous Aether, directly to the work of one of the discoverers of the new massfree Aether, Wilhelm Reich, while putting in confrontation two different scientists and their theories – Einstein’s, which had brought about the death of the old Aether, and Reich’s, which had initiated a path towards the new understanding of the Aether, or the scientific pursuit of the New Aether.

Then, he directs the listener to the immense technological change opened up by understanding the New Aether – to the work of the Correas in reproducing Reich’s Orgone Motor, in developing it beyond what Reich left it at, in providing a new understanding and engineering of the two fundamental manifestations of this Aether (the electric and the nonelectric), and in demonstrating that a minimum energy of the electric Aether is responsible for the cosmic microwave background – thus invalidating all cosmological Big-Bang theories:

EM: They [the Correas] have established the irrefutable presence of an Aether, a massfree Aether that can be analyzed with thermometers, electroscopes, which shows that it is possible to make little motors that work on it. Earlier, they had this patented technology that I referred to, called the PAGD, which has three US patents, one Israel patent, and so forth, that has had pulses occurring in vacuum between aluminum plates in a glass cylinder, and produced more energy out than in.

GN: Would you say that this Aether is a normal occurrence in the Universe, and it’s a natural thing?

EM: It is THE — it’s the foundation of the Universe. There is no other foundation of the Universe. The myth of Relativity — and Relativity is wrong, it is incorrect — indeed, its equations describe certain experiments, accelerator experiments, very accurately, there’s no doubt about that —

GN: An outcome, I guess, right?

EM: but this — the theory can be wrong, in other words, an equation can give you a very precise match between an experimental result in an accelerator, as an example, and a theory, but that does not mean that the theory is fundamentally correct. In fact it [the relativistic theory in question] is fundamentally, absolutely wrong. There is no such thing as non-simultaneity and so forth, it’s all unfortunately a myth. One thing is for sure: if you have a motor that is working, as I’ve seen in their [the Correas’] laboratory, off an orgone accumulator — in other words, one wire coming from a Faraday cage, running a motor, through special electronics (patent applied for, [inaudible])

GN: Mm hmm

EM: and this motor is running from an orgone accumulator, that is from an Aether accumulator, of latent heat, as they would say — latent heat from the Aether, as one component of the Aether — that’s it, that ends the whole entire myth of Special Relativity.

GN: Is there any exhaust coming off this motor?

EM: No, there’s nothing.

GN: Nothing.

EM: The only thing that the Correas insist upon, as far as correspondence of one very fundamental law that we are all aware of, the Conservation of Energy law, they are 100% behind the conservation of energy. Their physics is an energy-based physics; Time and Space are subsets of energy. Energy is the primary reality of the Universe. The energetic Aether is the primary reality of the Universe.

And Dr. Mallove proceeds directly to introducing the listener to the fundamentals of the aetherometric theory of particles. In particular, he makes allusion to the finite-flux toroidal structures described by aetherometric theory – in the book Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy and in the Correas’ unpublished work in nuclear physics – and how they have permitted the Correas to resolve the deep structure of nucleons as well as the role of chemical bonds:

EM: (…) Mass — OK, the mass-energy that there is also in nuclear reactions, comes ultimately from the energy of the Aether. There is no such thing as a particle that is a point particle with a mass. Currently, physics says — modern physics says — the electron is an infinitesimal point that has a charge and that has a mass. And everyone in physics, from the most advanced universities to the lowliest highschool student, learns that the electron charge is equal to the proton charge — i.e. equal and opposite, opposite sign, OK? — and that it has a certain mass, which is about two thousand times less than that of the proton, and that has a spin and so forth, but this infinitesimal point is a fiction, is an absolute fiction. Electrons have structure, they are structured Aether constructs. And protons are, too, and all the other particles are — there really, for all practical purposes, can be no other generic kind of explanation. I am not suggesting, by the way, that Dr. Correa and Alexandra have the ultimate perfect theory — nor would they, OK?

GN: I understand.

EM: They’re open to criticism, they have a website where people can discuss things with them, but I must tell you that they are very definitely in the right, going substantially in the right direction; they are publishing work which is exemplary, pioneering — I hope some day they are blessed with a reward for it, because up to this point, all they’ve been rewarded by is abuse; in fact, abuse even by people in the cold fusion field, I regret to say.

GN: That’s interesting.

EM: Right. It’s like a dont — you know, it’s — even the new-energy field, I regret to say, has had turf wars, and they’re stupid, OK?

GN: Sure. There’s politics in everything.

EM: Right. But — but Aether, as far as advanced space flight, I will seriously have to revise the Starflight Handbook some day.

GN: And what does it do in terms of speed, Eugene?

EM: There’s no — there’s no limitation on speed. The myth of “no massfull object could go faster than the speed of light” is just that, it’s a myth. Fundamentally, there is no limit for a spaceship made out of mass, OK? — namely us, or a rocket ship — to go as fast as we would ever particularly want it to go.

GN: And, and in that case —

EM: Hundreds of time faster than the speed of light.

GN: Then, then you may indeed be a time-traveler.

EM: No, because the — there’s another myth of Relativity. The Twin Paradox is — is also a myth, OK? It is just wrong; the time dilation is not part of the Universe, it just isn’t. No matter how many times they will tell you about muons changing their decay patterns coming through the atmosphere, and so forth, and this proves, supposedly, time dilation. They can say it as long as they want, but there is no such thing. Time dilation is a myth. (…) Now listen, since there is no such thing as Space-Time, which is this combined entity that came out of Special Relativity, there can be no such thing as a warped Space- Time that gives you black holes, or gives you singularities such as Steven Hawking talks about, or others in cosmology talk about. This has gotten into complete megalomania and insanity, but let me tell you: the joke — the cosmic joke of all time — is on 20th — late 20th century and early 21st century modern physics, because history will record that they went off on a tangent, with Relativity, Special and General, and they completely fooled themselves, at the very same time making fun of such things that were giving them a hint as to the alternate physics — namely, low-energy nuclear reactions, Aether energy, what Reich came up with. These people ought to go back to Science 101. Science 101 is this: experiment always overrules theory.”

Now, Dr. Mallove comes to the crux of his own politics of energy and his role as president of the New Energy Foundation and Editor of Infinite Energy, where he must keep an open mind to very diverse forefront research developments:

Hour 3

[6:05]

GN: Now, are these three categories [cold fusion, Aether energy, ambient energy] an evolutionary stage, or can we just go to the best one and try to work on that?

EM: Well, I think all three should be pursued. […]

GN: And I guess any one of them would be better than what we have right now?

EM: Oh, of course; it will be free energy. In all cases, it would be free energy. I will draw an analogy for your listeners with the computer revolution, a personal-computer revolution. At one time — certainly when I was doing my doctoral work at Harvard — we had to pay for the amount of CPU minutes or hours logged in processing Fortran programs, where you’d give them the card deck, and of course the mainframe computer would click away, and a certain amount of CPU time would — would click away, and you’d pay for it, your research budget would pay for it. Now we have things sitting on our desks that are constantly computing, even with the screen-saver, say, or some other problem, or database, or any other kind of computer operation, and you’re not paying for the CPU minutes that your Pentium or your PowerBook PC is on;

GN: Mmm hmm

EM: You are paying for the electricity, but the paradigm of infinite computation in which you do not pay for computer minutes is there. The same thing’s gonna happen with energy. That’s the ultimate paradigm shift: that there will be no continuing charge for energy. You will ultimately pay, of course, for the device —

GN: Right.

EM: you know, for the unit that you put in your house, whether it’s with low-energy nuclear reactions, Aether energy,

GN: Mmm hmm

EM: environmental energy, whatever it is — or the new solar energy, as we would say, caused by the Aether, OK?

GN: But you never have to worry about going and — and not having your energy available.

EM: Right, it will be infinite energy, literally — which is why our magazine is appropriately titled. The establishment mocks that title, Infinite Energy, but that’s what energy is: it’s infinite, and it should be free, and it is free; life is free, in some sense — I mean, life takes from the environment things that it needs: air, and water, and, it turns out, Aether energy as well, and that’s how life exists, and how life started, OK? Life will eventually return to a — a system of governance, on this planet and elsewhere in the Universe, that does not depend on constant paying some authority for energy. That era will come — it can’t come soon enough, needless to say. And obviously, your listeners have great imaginations: it doesn’t take a genius to realize that the world will be turned completely upside-down when this era arrives. I do not believe it is the evil oil companies holding us back. That is not, in my opinion, what is happening. What is absolutely happening, though, is academic stupidity,

GN: Mm hmm

EM: the academic-government complex that started the mythology that only one theory can be correct, Quantum Mechanics is the only thing that can be correct, Relativity is the only thing that can be correct, and just as the MIT professor, may he not rest in peace, Herman Feschbach, who said “I have 50 years of experience in nuclear physics, and I know what’s possible and what’s impossible” — that is the standard stance that is in the way of progress, and it prevents, for example, venture capitalists from looking objectively at experiments. They just go to someone else, after you tell them “OK, low-energy nuclear reactions is correct”, they go to their favorite physicist and the favorite physicist says: “Oh, I know this is impossible”, and of course since he has

GN: Mm hmm

EM: PhD’s and is with MIT or Caltech or some other place, he’s believed, and the outsiders are not believed.

GN: And the funding stops.

EM: That’s the essence of it, and that’s why, my good friends, we need — for New Energy Foundation, and for many other people, we need the research funds. That’s the choke-point. You cannot expect this work to go ahead for free. It won’t happen. It just will not happen. And I know that the New Age people and the groupies of — of many of your other wonderful programs may think that this is just gonna happen by osmosis and the reason it’s not happening is because there must be something wrong with the theories and the experiments. Not true. There is nothing wrong with the theories and the experiments. But there is everything wrong with the fact that there isn’t enough money in this field, and the new Energy Foundation hopes to change that.”

This was his vision for the New Energy Foundation and his call for help. And he left the scientific establishment with this prediction about the work of the Correas –

[18:30]

EM: I will tell you this: the combination of what Tesla did, with Tesla coils and other things, and what Reich did later, the modern Teslas — namely Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa, using that work, and respectfully citing it, very precisely citing it, and writing this up in monographs that can be downloaded from their aetherometry.com website, they have formed what you might call a very precise theory of the Aether; it’s not just handwaving, it’s equations, it’s experiments above all, and it is the legacy that Tesla left us. Some day, Tesla and Reich will be looked upon as some of the most important scientists of all time; whereas right today, of course, they are pooh-poohed completely by the establishment.

__________________________________________________-

New Energy Foundation, Inc.
(A nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation)
P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 Fax: 603-485-4710
www.infinite-energy.com

Universal Appeal for Support
for New Energy Science and Technology

by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
President, New Energy Foundation, Inc.
Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine

TO ALL PEOPLE OF THE WORLD who have open-minded curiosity, good will, good judgment, and imagination. To Scientists and Engineers, Philanthropists, Environmentalists, Energy Developers, High Technology Investors, Healthcare Professionals, Journalists, Artists, Writers, Business People, Entertainers, and Political Leaders. Whether you are Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Anarchist, and whether you may be Agnostic, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, or some other category of spirituality, this message is directed to all people of good will like you …

Dear Friend:

Here are some thoughts by wise thinkers—background for this urgent appeal for your consideration and support of research and development of radically new forms of energy. These are energy sources that have the potential to turn the present world order upside down and bring about a bright new day for civilization:

“The exception tests the rule.” Or, put another way. “The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.

Richard P. Feynman (1963), Nobel Laureate in Physics (1965)

The progress of physics is unsystematic…The result is that physics sometimes passes on to new territory before sufficiently consolidating territory already entered; it assumes sometimes too easily that results are secure and bases further advance on them, thereby laying itself open to further possible retreat. This is easy to understand in a subject in which development of the great fundamental concepts is often slow; a new generation appears before the concept has been really salted down, and assumes in the uncritical enthusiasm of youth that everything taught in school is gospel truth and forgets the doubts and tentative gropings of the great founders in its eagerness to make applications of the concepts and pass on to the next triumph…But each new young physicist…is in danger of forgetting all the past rumination and present uncertainty, and of starting with an uncritical acceptance of the concepts in the stage of development in which he finds them.

Percy W. Bridgman (1961), Nobel Laureate in Physics (1946)

American Nobel Laureate in Physics (1988) Leon M. Lederman is no proponent of research into radical forms of new energy; one might accurately call him a “pathological skeptic” based on at least one opinion he has voiced (see The God Particle, 1993, p.122). Nonetheless, he somehow senses that a physics revolution may be upon us. He said recently, “You can smell discovery in the air…The sense of imminent revolution is very strong.” (New York Times, November 11, 2003, p.D12). He is much more accurate than he can imagine, but not at all for reasons that he would readily accept! Perhaps he may be thinking of esoteric academic physics subjects such “string theory” or “cosmic dark energy,” but certainly not practical technologies based on radical new physics. Having the intellectual problems identified by physics Nobel Laureate P. W. Bridgman in the quotation above, Lederman has not been looking at a large body of research that will indeed revolutionize the foundations of physics and give us command of fantastic new forms of energy. Too bad for Lederman; and too bad for us all that he has not been paying attention. We could use the support of people like Lederman…if they would only come to their senses, that is, examine open-mindedly the validity of experimental data that challenges their cherished theories.

In an article in Science, November 1, 2002, eighteen experts reported that they examined all the conventionally understood alternatives to fossil fuels and found them all to have “severe deficiencies” in their ability to deal with environmental problems while also being adequate to growing planetary energy needs. Physics Professor Martin Hoffert, leader of that research group, told the press that the United States would have to undertake an urgent energy research crash program, like the Manhattan atomic bomb project or the Apollo lunar missions. According to the New York Times (November 4, 2003, D1), Hoffert stated that we would need “Maybe six or seven of them [massive projects] operating simultaneously…We should be prepared to invest several hundred billion dollars in the next 10 to 15 years.” Well, I have news for these experts: The solutions to our energy problems are very close at hand, and they do require initial research and funding, but not the billions of dollars that such Establishment “experts” are accustomed to from government largesse. Rather, all that is needed perhaps are only several tens of millions of dollars to create robust prototype electric power generators based on new energy physics discoveries that have already been made. That is what this Appeal for Support is all about: to raise consciousness and funding for these radical alternative new energy sources.

Question: Do you believe that it is possible that modern science has overlooked or ignored major scientific discoveries, which—if developed into technologies— would revolutionize almost every aspect of civilization? It has!

I will not catalogue the many horrors and troubles of this world that could be reduced or eliminated with an abundant, safe, and clean, radically new form of energy, if it were to be embodied in widely used technologies. You know these troubles already. But I do want to tell you about a significant path toward solving many of these problems, which we can all begin to take now, but about which you may have heard very little. You may have thought that no such path could exist. Let me assure you that it does and that thousands of researchers are already on it. They have traveled this unbeaten path to a new era for far too long without adequate support. I should know, I happen to be one of them. Yes, we have not reached our goals, but thanks to meticulous scientific research, huge sacrifices, and tireless work against great opposition, these objectives are now much closer to being realized. The basic scientific direction of the path forward has already been mapped out. We need your support to go further on the path and reach our common destination: A world of abundant, clean, and safe energy from sources that have no centralized geopolitical control.

Please attend to this appeal. I am most certainly not asking you to accept my claims at face value. But you must read, consider, study or review the compendious referenced material, investigate it, and then, I hope, you will be moved to take action. If you still have questions about these claims that need answering, I and my colleagues are available to answer them with facts, not hand-waving.

Who am I to ask anything of you on behalf of others, whether your attention for these brief moments, or for your financial and moral support? I am a scientist and an engineer with two engineering degrees from MIT (1969, 1970) and a doctorate from the Harvard University School of Public Health (1975). I have worked all my adult life as a dedicated scientist, despite my engineer’s stripes. I have always sought to learn how the cosmos really works, and I find this process to be an exciting, difficult, and unending adventure, despite those who so erroneously claim that we are approaching “The End of Science” or a “Final Theory of Everything.” Apart from my work in government-funded research at MIT and Harvard and later in corporate settings, I have also broadened my horizons by writing about science as an author and a journalist. Articles by me and about me have appeared in such venues as MIT Technology Review, The Washington Post Sunday “Outlook” section, the New York Times, Popular Science, Analog, TWA Ambassador in-flight magazine, Wired, and New Hampshire Magazine. I have appeared on many national radio programs, and for a time in the mid-1980s I was proud to have been a regular science and technology broadcaster for The Voice of America.

I am telling you something about me, not to elevate myself, but to convey to you something of my experience, sincerity, and integrity. I have written three acclaimed science books for the general public: The Quickening Universe: Cosmic Evolution and Human Destiny (1987, St. Martin’s Press), The Starflight Handbook: A Pioneer’s Guide to Interstellar Travel (1989, John Wiley & Sons, with co-author Dr. Gregory Matloff), and Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor (1991, John Wiley & Sons). The late Nobel Laureate in physics (1965) Julian Schwinger endorsed my book Fire from Ice with these words: “Eugene Mallove has produced a sorely needed, accessible overview of the cold fusion muddle. By sweeping away stubbornly held preconceptions, he bares the truth implicit in a provocative variety of experiments.” (He shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Richard P. Feynman and Sin Itiro Tomanaga.) I am most proud of this latter book, because it began a jarring quest that led to finding out not only dramatic new truths about new accessible forms of energy in nature, but more important for me and you, the following most astonishing truth about modern “official” science: Official science is not really intent on truly expanding scientific knowledge, in particular when some very, very fundamental scientific dogmas and theories are put at risk.

Here is how one famous nuclear science professor at my alma mater MIT reacted to my request to him in 1991 to study the summary reports from two pioneering Ph.D. scientists, who had compiled seminal reviews about frontier experiments in low-energy nuclear reactions (a.k.a. “cold fusion”). One of the reviewing scientists was 34-year veteran researcher at our Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the other was a leader of research at India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC):

“I have had fifty years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what’s possible and what’s not!…I will not look at any more evidence! It’s all junk!” —MIT Prof. Herman Feshbach, May 1991, on the telephone to Dr. Mallove

I hope you recognize that the late Professor Feshbach’s most unfortunate and ill-considered reaction was fundamentally unscientific. It reminds me of the Church leaders at the time of Galileo, who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope at the Moon or at Jupiter, because they “knew” that nothing new could be seen! Yes, many modern scientists are filled with catastrophic hubris; they have become in many ways mere “technicians of science,” and guardians of what amounts to a pernicious “Holy Writ.” Don’t bother me with the experimental evidence, my theory can tell me what is possible and what is not!

If by chance you are one of those who believe that “all is well in the house of science” and that “official science” can be counted on to behave itself and always seek the truth—even in matters of central, overarching importance to the well-being of humankind—you are sorely mistaken, and I could prove that to you with compendious documentation. (If you want to read what happened at just one institution, MIT, when a paradigm shift threatened established hot fusion research programs and “vested intellectual interests” such as those Prof. Feshbach so vehemently defended, read my 55-page report about this monumental tragedy at www.infinite-energy.com.) But as a first step, you should reflect on the broader history of science, which is so fraught with revolutionary leaps and paradigm shifts. These have often been made against great opposition—with revolutionary data staring an older, unaccepting generation of scientists right in the face! Read this Appeal carefully and then reconsider your opinion about who is telling the truth and who is defending falsehood about revolutionary new prospects for science and civilization.

For almost nine years I have been the editor of Infinite Energy, the magazine of new energy science and technology. Though it is now small in circulation, Infinite Energy is received worldwide in some forty countries. And, Infinite Energy is distributed to newsstands across the United States and Canada. My friend and colleague, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, has supported with words and resources some of our efforts on behalf of new energy. The research that Infinite Energy covers suggests that there are at least three major categories of radically new sources of energy that civilization is on the verge of being able to tap and reduce to practical technologies. These are the completely new forms of energy for which this Appeal for Support is being issued. New Energy is the term that we apply to new sources of energy that are currently not recognized as feasible by the “scientific establishment,” but for which overwhelming and compelling evidence exists, we suggest, in at least these major categories:

Category 1. New hydrogen physics (a.k.a. “cold fusion,” more generally Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions or LENR, “hydrino” physics, and other water-based energy sources. Copious technical and other information about this research may be found on these two diverse websites: www.lenr-canr.org and www.blacklightpower.com as well as our own site, www.infinite-energy.com. The upshot of this energy-from-water field is that within ordinary water there is a heretofore unimaginably large energy reservoir that may be as great as 300 gallons of gasoline energy equivalent within each gallon of plain water! This energy would be non-polluting, would have no hazardous radiation, and would, in effect, have a zero fuel cost. Only one cubic kilometer of ocean water would provide energy equivalent to all the known oil reserves on Earth. In responding to a special plea by Sir Arthur C. Clarke, the White House requested from me a technically-based Memorandum on this topic in February 2000. This 8,500-word Memorandum, “The Strange Birth of the Water Fuel Age,” was submitted to the Clinton Administration and later to the Bush Administration. It is now posted on www.infinite-energy.com. It asks for a review of the substantial evidence—in particular the copious evidence developed over the past 14 years in U.S. Federal laboratories—for this category of anomalous new physics energy. Unfortunately, apart from polite “Thank You” notes, no discernable action has been taken by either administration. The 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF10) was held near and at MIT in August 2003. Actual public demonstrations of excess energy production in electrolytic cells occurred at MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Wall Street Journal science journalist Sharon Begley attended ICCF10 and wrote a fine column in the September 5, 2003 issue of WSJ, “Cold Fusion Isn’t Dead, It’s Withering From Scientific Neglect.” Among other surprising technical developments at ICCF10 was the presentation by a well-funded Israeli corporation, Energetics Technologies, which appears to have made enormous strides in overcoming some of the problems with the low-energy nuclear reactions phenomenon. Isn’t it time that the experimental data from this significant field of scientific work is reviewed by an unbiased panel, unlike the rush-to-judgment hostile group in 1989, which inexcusably botched that investigation? Why aren’t the many politicians who have been informed about this taking action? Are they perhaps fearful of the all-to-common “sneer review” from the Scientific Establishment?

Category 2. Vacuum energy, Zero Point Energy or “ZPE” for short, aether energy, or space energy. These are descriptions of vast energy sources from the vacuum state. Information about this most radical and paradigm-shattering physics and technology research can be found on websites: www.aetherometry.com, www.energyscience.co.uk, and www.aethera.org. In the mid-1990s, Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa in the Toronto area obtained three US patents on an astonishing technological device, the so-called Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGDTM) reactor. In its several embodiments, it already produces kilowatt-level electrical, thermal, and mechanical output power. A Quicktime video of one such device, working in 2003, may be viewed at http://www.aetherometry.com/cat-abrimedia.html. Successful testing of the PAGD by outside parties, including Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and Ontario Hydro, regrettably did not lead to commercial arrangements to further the development of this scientific wonder, which has been meticulously documented in the three United States-granted Correa patents. (Uri Soudak, former Chief Technology Officer of IAI, is still involved with the project here in the U.S.) The Correas and Dr. Harold Aspden, IBM’s former chief of patent operations in Europe (from 1963 to 1983), have provided convincing theoretical explanations, based on concrete experiments with a variety of fundamental phenomena, all of which illuminate how this unsuspected vacuum state energy can be extracted by the PAGD reactor. The advent (possibly in only 2-3 years) of self-sustaining electrical power-generating units in the multi-kilowatt power range appears to be only a matter of gathering a relatively small amount of engineering/scientific development funding, in the low several tens of million dollars range.

Category 3. Environmental energy, i.e. energy from sensible thermal energy (in particular, energy of molecular motion), through significant extensions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Proceedings of an important scientific conference dealing with this subject gives great insight into this work: Quantum Limits to the Second Law: First International Conference on Quantum Limits to the Second Law (San Diego, CA, July 28-31, 2002), Professor Daniel P. Sheehan, Editor, American Institute of Physics, Conference Proceedings, #643, 2002. A strong consensus of a significant number of the scientist attendees, as reported by the author, is that it will be possible to make utilitarian machines that convert the thermal energy in the environment to useful work, without a lower temperature reservoir to dump waste heat. This would be in direct contravention of the supposedly sacrosanct Second Law of Thermodynamics. These devices would be nearly perfect “free energy” machines. Accurate simulations of such devices have been carried out and the results published in peer-reviewed journals. Some of the authors predict that such prototype devices could be reduced to small prototype units within five years.

The foregoing brief descriptions of the three categories of New Energy identified so far is only the tip of the iceberg of the verifiable and testable information that is available on these energy sources. It is amenable to critical and precise scientific review. Of course, if the Scientific Establishment trusts only in its textbook theories and if disbelieving people of good will who have the means to move this work forward choose “not to look through the telescope,” the consequences will be that these wondrous technologies will not be developed as rapidly as they could have been otherwise—or they may not be developed at all! This has been and will be a monumental tragedy for virtually every category of human experience, all of which would be transformed by these now apparently “unwanted” discoveries.

I could write much more in this memorandum about the corrupt machinations within the supposedly well-ordered and ethical house of science, actions that have kept the information that Infinite Energy publishes from where it should be: prominently considered in such publications as Science and Nature. Don’t worry, many, many peer-reviewed technical publications have indeed courageously published pioneering technical papers about new energy, but the prominent mainstream publications that set the boundaries of the public scientific discourse—journals such as Science and Nature—reject without review any and all papers that challenge the foundational paradigms of physics, chemistry, and biology. You may find that difficult to believe, as I would have a mere fifteen years ago when I wrote Fire from Ice, but it is a sad and demonstrable truth. Let us not dwell on that, however, but rather move forward together with an end-run around this grotesque, anti-scientific obstruction.

Infinite Energy Magazine has been published bi-monthly since March 1995 and I have been its Editor-in-Chief and Publisher since that time. It is a technical magazine with editorial outreach to the general public as well. Many of its articles are very accessible to laypeople and non-specialists. You may download for free some 117 pages of representative sample articles, which we have gathered together for you at www.infinite-energy.com. Other key articles are posted for free downloading on our website on a continuing basis. To maintain the highest editorial standards, Infinite Energy is written and edited by scientists, engineers, and expert journalists. It is aimed at pioneering scientists, engineers, business people, environmentalists, philanthropists, and investors who are concerned about an exciting R&D area that we believe will change the world dramatically.

New Energy Foundation, Inc. (NEF) is an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) public charity corporation, based in New Hampshire; it has a five-member board of respected citizens. (Prior to July 2003, Infinite Energy had operated under a for-profit corporation.) NEF also has a research grant-awarding function, which was initiated in 2003. NEF dispenses to outside researchers and developers carefully targeted research and development funding grants from its reserves of charitable contributions. These funds are beginning to grow, but are nowhere near the level they need to be.

The current subscription price and newsstand price of Infinite Energy provides less than 30% of what it costs to carry on a publication of this quality at the frontiers of knowledge—and for which no significant advertising base yet exists. And this frontier knowledge is neglected (and not infrequently mocked) by most of the scientific and media establishments. Therefore, charitable contributions are needed to carry on this important information networking function. Here is the other basic motivation for NEF: It has been far too difficult (so far) to persuade venture capital to invest in new energy technology that is not quite ready yet for “prime time,” so the vicious Catch 22 (“We won’t invest because it is not successful already.”) must be broken. We appeal to the humanitarian and charitable instincts of those in a position to invest charitably in and/or to spread the word about the most fundamental aspect of our future: The triumph of truth over falsehood on the frontiers of science—in which the new energy field, in our view, will be the first paradigm-shattering example.

What we have today in the fiery menace of hydrocarbon fuels and its associated geopolitical nightmare is very ugly indeed. There is almost no area of human activity that would not be dramatically affected by the advent of new energy technology—especially matters of war or peace and health and the environment. Therefore, if your review of the referenced material convinces you that this is a reality and not “pathological science,” as the unrepentant critics—who have not studied the scientific findings objectively or at all—would have you believe, we hope that you will view your tax-deductible support of the New Energy Foundation as a significant investment in your future, for your loved ones and for civilization at large. Just try to imagine our world twenty or fifty years hence without the advent of a dramatic source of new energy such as low-energy nuclear reactions, aether energy (or Zero Point Energy/space energy/vacuum energy, if you prefer), or some other very powerful new physics energy source. It is not a pleasant picture.

What about solar power, wind power, or hydrogen fuel cells, you ask? Those are fine, and Infinite Energy devotes some smaller space to writing about these. But a future of abundant, clean energy has almost no chance of emerging from the well-intentioned, beneficial, but extremely limited world of wind-power, photovoltaics, hydropower, and other conventional renewables. And the so-called controlled hot fusion tokamak reactor program, which is lavishly funded with billions of dollars by governments to the exclusion of workable new energy science and technology, will never bring about an era of clean abundant energy from the heavy hydrogen in water. Conventional hydrogen fuel cells, which are widely discussed by the news media today, rely on the conventionally understood energy from hydrogen when it combines with oxygen to form water. This is thousands to millions of times less powerful per gram of hydrogen than already demonstrated new energy sources! Furthermore, the hydrogen for conventional fuel cells must come from some other energy source that must be used to break down abundant water to get hydrogen fuel (if we reject the other hydrogen source: hydrocarbon fuel). But in all conventional hydrogen fuel processes using water as the starting material, this requires more energy than one gets back when the hydrogen is consumed. So ordinary “hydrogen power” is a misnomer at best—it is no solution at all to the world’s real energy needs. Hydrogen, conventionally employed, is an energy storage medium period. New Energy Foundation supports radically new forms of energy, not the relatively weak examples of alternative energy within conventional renewables. We acknowledge, of course, that there are now no robust new energy devices on the market—not yet. But when adequate, well-targeted research funding is applied, a revolution in energy technology will occur that will dwarf the personal computer revolution in intensity. It will have much in common with that revolution too, since power sources will be highly distributed. The very troublesome and erratic power grid is doomed to obsolescence.

At this time, New Energy Foundation is in need of financial support from a broader community than heretofore. NEF disseminates information about potentially world-changing technologies—about the science, technology, patents, investment, and politics thereof; we measure and investigate new claims about new energy devices to determine whether they are sound. This latter can be tough, because there is no question that there is much bogus “free energy noise” that obscures the good research. Most important, we are now processing grant applications by scientists and inventors from around the world, so that the most promising work—now highly under-funded, due to the very heretical nature of this work—gets the financial support that it so much deserves. We are very demanding about these grants; we insist that the research must be headed in the direction of developing publishable scientific results and/or actual commercially useful technologies that operate on new scientific energy principles

Please help us today, either with your financial contribution—of any size—or by passing along this letter and our message to those who may be better able to help NEF. Whatever you or they can afford, no matter how small an amount, will be deeply appreciated—and will be acknowledged in the pages of Infinite Energy (unless you or others tell us that anonymity is requested). Some day we will live in a world in which the discoveries of New Energy science will be taken for granted. No one will be able to deny the devices, processes, and science, whose validation we are struggling so hard to achieve. In some sense, we will then have succeeded in our mission and thus will have “put ourselves out of business.” Those scientific publications and general media, which should have been dealing fairly with this topic all along, will then be forced to write about it and recant past inexcusable excessive skepticism. Billions of dollars in R&D money will then flow from corporations and individuals, as should have been happening already based on what scientists have already discovered! The huge funding for infrastructure conversion to New Energy will flow naturally from private sources, as it has in the rise of the personal computer and Internet industry. Nothing would make me happier than to have that day come. But until then, we very much need increased financial support.

We would like to reach soon our target of at least $500,000 per year in approved research funding for New Energy. That may not seem like a lot of money to do significant research, but let me assure you that even this amount—wisely distributed to the best researchers—could soon begin to have a dramatic catalytic effect. New energy researchers are accustomed to low budgets and are fantastically creative, unlike the wasteful government energy research programs that have demonstrably failed already. It will not be easy to obtain even this level of modest research funding—and, of course, several millions of dollars per year would accomplish much more, but the sooner well-targeted funding reaches under-funded researchers, the more likely we are to accelerate the inevitable New Energy Revolution. Yes, we understand that there is room in parallel for corporate start-ups, and we definitely encourage that to take place. But some of the charitable grant money can help the struggling inventors and scientists to do sufficient research, so that their work can be of greater interest to corporate start-up models.

I think you would agree with me that in these often very dark times the world would benefit immensely from a realistic hope—followed by on-market technology—that a new era of abundant, clean energy resources will be dawning. Please do your best to help us make that happen. Study the hard-won information that we have brought to your attention, if you do not yet accept what I have tried to convey to you. When you have become convinced, if you are not already, please act! You may donate charitably to the efforts of New Energy researchers at www.infinite-energy.com. Please also help us to bring this critical issue to others who may be able to help. Why not satisfy your curiosity and also help New Energy Foundation by subscribing to Infinite Energy. Thank you in advance for joining with us now or in the very near future.

Sincerely,
Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
President, New Energy Foundation, Inc.
Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine

_____________________________________________________________

Cold Fusion Heating Up — Pending Review by U.S. Department of Energy

Phenomenon discovered by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, then disavowed by the scientific establishment, but subsequently confirmed worldwide in thousands of experiments, may finally be recognized as a revolutionary discovery of science.

by Marc J. Plotkin
Pure Energy Systems News Service
March 27, 2004

FAIRFAX, VA USA

After fifteen years of wandering in the wilderness, the “cold fusioneers” may finally see their field get the recognition they believe it deserves.

Since 1989, that small but growing band of scientists has persisted in trying to verify the existence of low- energy nuclear reactions, at great personal costs and in the face of overwhelming opposition and ridicule from the mainstream physics community. But now, their persistence may finally be bearing fruit. The New York Times reported on March 25, 2004, that the U.S. Department of Energy has decided to give cold fusion a second look. At a meeting with several top cold-fusion researchers, officials from the Department indicated that given the Matterhorn of experimental evidence that has accumulated over the past fifteen years, a second review was reasonable. The Department’s findings will be presented in December 2004 or January 2005.

Three days earlier, New Energy Times science journalists Steven Krivit and Nadine Winocur have released a 50-page report on the current state of cold fusion. According to this report, almost 15,000 cold fusion experiments have been performed around the world since the field was declared anathema in 1989. In the first years after the initial announcement, experimental results were erratic and inconsistent, often with positive results occurring in only about 10 percent of the experiments. Within the last five years, however, successful replications have been occurring much more frequently. Five years ago, the Fleichmann-Pons effect had been observed in only about 45 percent of the experiments performed. Now, according to Krivit and Winocur, the effect has been reproduced at a rate of 83%. Experimenters in Japan, Romania, the United States, and Russia have reported a reproducibility rate of 100 percent.

This experimental success is due in large measure to more refined methods of measuring excess heat and detecting the signatures of nuclear reactions. Over the years, experimenters have discovered that in order to obtain more robust results, the ratio of deuterium atoms in the electrolyte solution to palladium atoms in the cathode must be above a certain minimum threshold. This is referred to as “loading.” The density of the electric current passing through the system must likewise reach a certain threshold. More recently, it was discovered that excess heat could be generated faster if the reaction could be triggered in some fashion. In a paper presented at the 10th International Conference of Cold Fusion, held at MIT in August 2003, researchers Dennis Cravens and Dennis Letts presented a variety of methods that could be used to “shock the system,” including current-pulsing, radio frequency excitations, and laser stimulation. Actual experiments were carried out at the conference, and the results were manifest for all to see.

According to Dr. Eugene Mallove, editor of Infinite Energy Magazine and a passionate advocate of cold fusion development, the evidence of excess heat and products from nuclear reactions is so extensive as to compel a finding that the cold fusion phenomenon is real. Were it not for Dr. Mallove and others who kept the faith, cold fusion might well have faded from the public consciousness.

When the Department of Energy decided to give cold fusion another hearing, it made no public announcement and did not post any information about its decision on its website. Nevertheless, Dr. Mallove remains confident that once the Department evaluates the evidence in an open-minded and unbiased fashion, it will reconsider its earlier rejection of cold fusion and pave the way for funding of next-generation cold fusion research.

Whether or not cold fusion can be turned into a useful source of energy remains uncertain. But the first step of that 1000-mile journey has been taken. The existence of the phenomenon discovered by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, then disavowed by the scientific establishment, but subsequently confirmed worldwide in thousands of experiments, may finally be recognized as a revolutionary discovery of science. Cold Fusion may become hot news again.
____________________

Advertisements

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.